2000-10-113917REPS2121302000-10-11—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills21213R110421213Debate resumed from 10 October, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.09:31:0021213Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—When the second reading debate on the Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies and Picnic Days) Bill 2000 was interrupted last night, I was talking about the introduction of mechanised slaughtering aids and why they were introduced. I explained that they had also created a compounding problem. The compounding problem was that the mechanised aids were used to speed up the chain, creating breakdowns at significant cost to industry. The speed of the chain involved rejections of carcasses for the domestic and export market because the quality of the carcasses at times was severely affected, and in the end millions of dollars were lost by the meat processing industry. The long-term loss of exports that followed created enormous problems for the industry in its export reputation—the reputation was severely damaged as a result of the rejections that we were getting on a never ending cycle. The economic penalty to the meat processing industry and to the producers that supplied the livestock was catastrophic. So something had to be done with regard to the slowing down of the chain system.I want to quote from the second reading speech an extract which sums up what I have to say and aptly describes some of the problems that are involved and why we should move on tallies—make some adjustments or remove tallies from the meat processing industry. The extract says:The bill removes tallies from the allowable award matters. Tally systems determine rates of pay and penalties by inputs rather than outputs.And that is absolutely correct. It goes on:The award based tally systems which operate exclusively in the meat processing sector are a major disincentive to productivity and efficiency in that sector.And that is one of the issues I have raised. It goes on:This is supported by the 1998 Productivity Commission report entitled Work arrangements in the Australian meat processing industry. That report said:“... there are two forms of tally—head tallies and unit tallies ... The simple effect of the unit tally...is to increase unit labour costs as output exceeds minimum and then maximum tally.”That flows on from the speed of the chains—when you are going quicker you need more people to handle the throughput and the volume. It goes on:“Both head and unit tallies are based on inputs—such as the number of heads—rather than a measure of output, such as weight processed, yield per animal, or any other measure of quality. This has implications for the impact of the tally on incentives facing both employees and managements. Unit tallies in particular are complex and prescriptive ...”After some 30 years of operation the award tally system is outdated and has been overtaken by technological developments and advancements. The Cattle Council of Australia, earlier this month, published a paper entitled Australia's beef industry: a new era. That paper said:“... With the focus upon inputs, unit labour costs are increased to a very large degree once the tally has been met. These increased labour costs limit throughput on a given shift and overall in meat processing plants. This also leads to significant under-utilisation of capital, with the effect that labour inefficiencies also reduce capital productivity ...”If individual enterprises wish to operate tally systems they need to be designed and be able to be adjusted, having regard to the circumstances affecting particular plants and to changes in those circumstances. Award based prescription of tallies is therefore unduly prescriptive and a brake on productivity.A full bench of the commission, last year, decided as part of award simplification hearings that it would delete the tally system from the major federal meat industry award. It decided to replace the tally system with a provision allowing for the implementation of an incentive payment system at the enterprise level as an alternative to payment based on time worked. It found that the appendix to that award, which set out the substance of the tally provisions, was: “...replete with matters of detail or process more appropriately dealt with by agreement at the workplace or enterprise level...the provisions prescribe procedures which restrict or hinder the efficient performance of work...tally values based on time and motion analysis of the way work was performed 30 years ago are unlikely to be accurate now—and they are absolutely correct—the provisions are incapable of rational application to the variety of plants which make up the modern industry...” ... ... ...As the National Farmers Federation said on Tuesday, 27 June 2000:“The statutory obligation of the meat industry tally system is also critical to creating a more flexible and export responsive meat processing sector ... We welcome the Bill that will make meat industry tallies a non-allowable Award matter as this will bring a clean and final end to a system that has no logic and which hampers productivity.”They have summed it up pretty well. They are my sentiments—I endorse the comments made by the National Farmers Federation and the Cattle Council on this issue because, as a practical meat worker, I am well aware of the problems associated with the way in which the tally system has worked over that period of time—certainly in my lifetime. I know the effect that the tally system has on the ability of tradesmen such as slaughtermen and boners to cope with the pressure created by the tally system, through the mechanised chain system, when they get to 50 years of age and beyond. It becomes physically impossible for those people to keep up with the chains, even though it is driven by the desire to get out of the place as quickly as possible and get on with what they want to do outside. Finally, I will go back to where I started, to my criticism of the Australian Democrats. Despite their indications of support in principle for many of the measures in the bill, it remains to be seen whether the Democrats restore to the Senate its proper and traditional role as a reviewer and, where appropriate, amender of government workplace relations legislation during this term rather than merely join the say-so chorus of the ALP and the union movement who have a vested interest, of course, in ensuring that this bill does not pass. As a former meat worker—I believe as the only former meat worker who is a member of parliament in the country today—who has had in excess of 30 years experience in the meat processing industry, I appeal to the parliament to look very seriously at this section of the workplace relations bill regarding the issue of tallies because it is a very critical issue. Tallies have been abused and compromised over the years, not only by the trade union movement but also certainly in many instances by the meat processing industry itself. I do not have any argument with that. But the reality is that it is a system of work that creates massive physical problems for the people who work in it. As one of those people who now continue to suffer from some of the physical problems, I have a great deal of pleasure in supporting this particular bill.09:39:0021214Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—Mr Speaker, I think in question time on many an occasion you have referred to irony, to matters being ironic.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Probably not on frequent enough occasions.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—Possibly not, Mr Speaker. I think it is ironic indeed today that we are dealing with the Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies and Picnic Days) Bill 2000, which is a niggardly attack on working conditions of workers, whilst of course the minister who sponsored the bill into the House expects this parliament and the Australian people to forgive and forget the wasting of $50,000 worth of taxpayers' money. This bill is of course the latest offering from the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Reith. The minister has been known by a number of names in his time, the most charitable of which might well have been Penthouse Pete. I suggest that from yesterday on he will be known as `Phone call Pete'. That will be the name that people will use for him, and they will forever remember the events that were revealed in this House yesterday. To understand this minister, this government and this bill, I think we need to look broadly at the industrial relations record from which this bill stems. This minister during his period of office has had the arrogance and the audacity to play with ordinary working people's lives, to strip away their industrial rights, to dismiss without notice hundreds of men and women on our wharves, to send in security guards with their faces obscured by balaclavas, to get out the attack dogs and to cheer on employers who have engaged in baseball bat enforced lockouts. What would this man have told Chris Corrigan to do if one of his employees had been at the centre of a $50,000 international fraud? We all know what the answer is: for a worker in that position this minister would have wanted a quick execution. The police would have been called in and security guards complete with dogs would have turned up and dragged that worker away. And what would this minister have said in this House if a waterside worker had been in flagrant breach of the rules and allowed a family member to use company property resulting in a cost to the company of $50,000? We all know what would have happened. This minister would have come into the House and pranced and danced around and would gleefully have called that worker a rorter, a criminal, a disgrace. Today we will see if this minister, this arrogant man who has so gleefully set the rules for others, is willing to live by the standards he has set. Today, Minister, I can hear your dogs barking, but today those dogs are not barking ready to attack workers at your command; today those dogs are barking at you. Today they are coming for you. Minister, there is no point in thinking you can slime your way out of this one. There is no point in thinking that you can get on the dog and bone, the phone, and do the rounds of the press gallery to get back into everyone's good books because every Australian who watched the footage on the waterfront knows that you deserve to be judged as harshly as you have judged others. I make this prediction: by the end of today we will not be saying Penthouse Pete, we will not be saying Phone call Pete, we will be saying `Pathetic Pete”. GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—You are the pathetic one.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—I do not think so. Try explaining $50,000 worth of loss; try explaining the double standards in this place.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lalor will not respond to interjections. The chair has exercised a good deal of tolerance in the presumption that the member for Lalor is going to link her remarks to the bill and would be grateful if she would do so.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—I will link my remarks to the bill, and I will do that now. This bill, of course, flows into the slipstream of the way in which this government has consistently attacked workers' rights. It is another part of this minister's legislation to try and strip away rights. What is completely amazing about this bill is that it manages to avoid anything that could be judged as being within cooee of the big picture. Does any government member really imagine that if you went touring around today talking to employers and asking them what they really want from government the conversation would go, `Gee, mate, the best thing that you could do is get rid of union picnic days'; or, `I run a shop'—or a hairdressers or a manufacturing plant or a building site—`and the thing I really want is the end of the tally system'? Honestly, does anybody suggest that that is how the conversation would go? If you went and asked employers what is on their minds, wouldn't they say to you, `I am worried about the dollar, I am worried about interest rates, I am worried about my GST compliance burden, I am worried about getting across the new demands posed by new technology'? Perhaps if they read today's newspapers they will be saying, `We are worried about honesty in government.' Yet this minister, this visionary, decides, as part of his continuing crusade against the union movement, to take the time of this House on this bill when perhaps that time would be better used to deal with other matters of public policy or, indeed, to have the executive honestly answer some questions in this House.Let us turn to the contents of this bill now and see how completely pathetic it is. First, let us look to the issue that this minister thinks is of importance to the nation, the issue everybody is supposedly talking about: the issue of tallies. As far as I am aware, people are talking about things like the Olympics. They are starting to think about their Christmas shopping. They have probably got more on their mind in relation to whom they are going to have a bet on in the Melbourne Cup than the question of tallies. But of course this bill is before this House, dealing with the tally system. We all know that the tally system is a payment method historically used in the meat industry and basically nowhere else. It is a payment method that meat industry employers have attacked as outdated. I am not an expert on the economics of the meat industry and, consequently, would think it impertinent of me to put a view on that question. Unlike the minister, I am not arrogant enough to pretend that I know everything. Unlike the minister, I am prepared to recognise the limits of my expertise and to say that I am not an expert on that issue. I have not heard any evidence on it, I have not talked to employers or workers about it, so I think it is inappropriate for me to determine, without expertise and without evidence, that such a payment system should be precluded from industrial awards.What I would say on this question, and what the Labor Party consistently says on the area of industrial relations, is that the best body to decide these kinds of questions is the independent umpire, the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Indeed, if this minister were prepared to leave well enough alone instead of pursuing his crusade against the union movement, he would find that the commission is dealing with this matter. Last year the full bench of the commission determined that the tally system as it appeared in the major federal meat industry award was to be replaced and ordered the parties to devise a new and simplified system. The parties are still in the process of designing that system. If the minister just stood back, stopped wasting the time of this House with this sort of legislation and dealt with some of the more substantive issues on his table—including explaining his conduct—then we would find that the meat industry would move along, the parties would ultimately design a payment system which was agreed and understood by all of them, a payments system that suited the industry.To go back to the question of irony, isn't it ironic that this minister, who is always telling us that industrial regulation is bad and that the parties on the spot should be left to do their own thing, has in this case decided quite the reverse? In this case, the parties are working their way towards a mutually acceptable solution, and the minister wants to engage in the most heavy-handed regulation of all: to tell them—mid-process, mid-discussions, mid-dialogue—that the government, by legislation, will prevent them making an award even by consent that in any way deals with tallies: the most heavy-handed piece of regulation you could have, an absolute preclusion. This minister is always telling us that government should get out of the way of businesses and allow workers and employees to negotiate and come to their own deals. Somehow, in the tally area, all of the rhetoric gets thrown out of the window and, in this case, we have the most heavy-handed regulation of all. I would suggest that, instead of listening to rhetoric about regulation being rolled back, the minister take some of his own advice on this occasion and actually forget about this piece of legislation and just let the industrial parties get on with the job of devising a payment system that suits them.When we turn to the other issue dealt with by this bill, the question of picnic days, it does not get any better. Picnic days are the next big ticket item on this visionary's agenda: we are going to spend a lot of time dealing with picnic days. Once again, let us just imagine that we walked out of this House now and went, employer by employer, in the ACT or across Australia and asked them to name, say, the top three issues worrying them in relation to business today. Does anybody really think any employer that we stopped and asked would say, `Amongst the top three issues—gee, union picnic days'? Is anybody really suggesting that? I think the GST might get a guernsey in the top three issues. I think the crashing dollar might get a guernsey in the top three issues. I think the prospects for interest rates might get a guernsey in the top three issues. But union picnic days? I really do not think so. But this minister, this visionary, in any little chink he can get into to try to take away another benefit, another advantage for workers, there he is. So we have this bill before us telling us that union picnic days are such a major issue that the government will preclude industrial awards from dealing with them. The argument advanced by the government in support of this section of the bill is fundamentally flawed. The argument rests on three premises, each of which is absolutely wrong. The first premise is that it is inconvenient for employers to have to allow a day off for a union Picnic Day when there is not a general public holiday. That argument is flawed and out of touch, because a perusal of industrial decisions would soon show you that for some industries it suits the employers to grant union picnic days and to have their work force work through a public holiday in exchange for having the benefit of having a day off for union Picnic Day.Let us just take a simple example of that: the hospitality industry. As we all know, the hospitality industry can be at its most busy on public holidays. So, for instance, employers in the hospitality industry have vigorously and successfully argued before the commission that union picnic days should be maintained in their award rather than granting a public holiday for the Melbourne Cup. That makes obvious sense. The hospitality industry is very busy on Melbourne Cup day, very busy at the races and at all of the associated parties, and so employers in that situation need their hospitality workers on deck, working through what is going to be a busy and profitable day for them. It makes absolute sense in exchange for that for employers to pursue the suggestion that, if their workers work through Melbourne Cup day, they can have a public holiday or a day off for union Picnic Day at another time.What on earth could be wrong with that—an arrangement that suits that industry down to the ground? But this government, this minister, with all the audacity and arrogance we have seen in relation to other areas, comes along and says, `No, you can't do it like that. I know what's good for you; I know what's better for you. I could run your business better than you could, and let me tell you that you can't do it like that.' Clearly that is a ridiculous and flawed argument. So premise No. 1, the convenience argument, goes out the window.Premise No. 2 is that we are told that union picnic days should not be given, because there is less public support for unions and less union membership. That is an interesting argument and one I would like to see this government consistently apply. When we look at surveying of religious attitudes, for example, we would find that church attendance, the number of Australians who regularly attend church, has declined and declined fundamentally over the last 20 or 30 years. I would like to see this government say on a similar argument that, because church attendance is declining, we should pay less regard to the well-known Christian holidays of Easter and Christmas.GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—Is that your policy?83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—No, it is certainly not my policy. What I am putting to you is your double standards and ridiculous reasoning in relation to your policy—and if you tried listening you might learn something. In relation to that argument, if this government is really going to say that, in assessing whether or not holidays are to be granted, it will go off the stats of support, let us have the minister for industrial relations—if we can get him away from the phone—come into the House and explain what this government is going to do over time in relation to Christmas or Easter. It is a completely ridiculous argument, yet again.Then we are faced with a third, and also equally flawed, argument that union picnic days increase the number of days taken off by workers and, consequently, are an additional burden on employers. That is not necessarily right. In a lot of industrial awards, when the tally of public holidays—if I dare say `tally' in this context—is arrived at, the union Picnic Day is counted in. So people are not actually getting more public holidays. What they are doing is taking union Picnic Day as one of those public holidays, but the number of those public holidays is not increased overall. So the cost to employers is exactly the same as it would have been if people had taken all the gazetted public holidays. The problem for the government in this area is that the gazettal arrangements for public holidays vary from state to state, as we all know. Under many industrial awards that take into account the gazettal of those public holidays, not all gazetted public holidays are taken. Union Picnic Day is taken, and you actually end up square—you end up taking the same number of days off that you would have taken if you had taken all the gazetted public holidays.To take an example of that, a recent industrial relations decision in relation to the building industry in Victoria determined that union Picnic Day would not be awarded as an additional public holiday. We often hear lots of rhetoric in this place about workers and industrial militancy in the building industry in Victoria. There we go; there is an example that puts a complete lie to this piece of legislation and the policy foundation on which it is premised—because it is not an additional public holiday; it is taken into account and workers are not taking more days off.Each of the three premises on which this piece of the bill is based—that is, that it would be more convenient for employers, that it has something to do with public support for unions and that it has something to do with costs for employers—when examined, actually gets swept away. So what is the foundation for this legislation? Having been through the details of this legislation, I think we can see that it is completely unnecessary. But I do not think we should leave this legislation underestimating what political impact is had by bills of this type coming before this House. Whilst this legislation deals with the nitpicking end, it is another step forward in the award stripping exercise that this government has been engaged in since it came to office. It has been engaged in that exercise because, at the end of the day, despite the denials, what this government is about is atomising our work force so that every individual worker is left bargaining for himself or herself, resulting in our no longer seeing a collective approach to bargaining or a foundation of rights in relation to industrial regulation.From the moment that this government was elected, it has attacked the award system through the use of allowable matters. Over time we have seen the award system being able to deal with fewer and fewer matters. In stripping away that level of industrial regulation, the government has also been in the business of forcing people out into the field to collectively bargain. When the government does not like the outcomes of that collective bargaining, it comes into this House with various pieces of legislation to try to strip away the ability of unions to bargain well in that sort of environment. That is why we have seen the secret ballots legislation and that is why we have seen the pattern bargaining legislation.Basically, this government is really about getting rid of regulation over time, through the award stripping exercise, stopping people in the field from collectively bargaining effectively—by always coming forward with policy proposals to prevent it from occurring—and preventing unions from winning any of those struggles. What the government really wants, as it moves through its scenario, is to end up in a situation where individual workers are just left bargaining for themselves. We all know where that would leave people, because most workers in their workplaces do not have bargaining power: they would end up as price takers, with the employer just putting on them the deal he or she is prepared to give.This piece of legislation should be rejected. The government should move on to something more fundamental. Given that the minister has joined us in the House, he might like to explain to this House just what approach he would have taken if a worker—a worker, say, working for Chris Corrigan down at the waterfront—had done what he has done; that is, been at the centre of $50,000 of international fraud. What approach would he have taken in that setting?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lalor has already been asked not to entertain this area.09:59:0021219Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—The reality of this legislation, the Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies and Picnic Days) Bill 2000, was summarised by union official Rubenstein in the Senate hearings, the verbatim transcript of which I know the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has read, when she said: ... it reflects the most ideological and obsessive views of the minister and very little else. There is simply no evidence that union picnic day is an issue as far as employers or, for that matter, employees are concerned.I heard the member for Hume talking about his life experience with regard to leaving school early and starting work in the meat industry at 14 years of age and his experience in the industry. I do not want to talk about the tallies issue because I cannot profess any expertise in that area.WI4Reith, Peter, MP8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—However, that is why I am speaking on it, Minister.WI4Reith, Peter, MP8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—I specifically referred to union picnic days, Minister. That was the context of the comment. The situation is that my own life experience leads me to wish to make a contribution with regard to union picnic days. My father left school, like the member for Hume, at a very early age. When he came back from the Second World War, he was trained under the Commonwealth rehabilitation scheme and became a bricklayer. For some reason that I am not certain of, our region of Western Sydney has been characterised by a high prevalence of people working in that industry. My memories as a young person around the Christmas break period were of going to RSL and other club Christmas parties and of going to a union Picnic Day. That day was held at Gunnamatta Bay near Cronulla in southern Sydney and at other stages at Wallacia. As many of the submissions to the government and the committee indicated, the situation is that in the building industry in particular, in the real world, Picnic Day is still actively pursued. There is a high attendance—I think the figures quoted were in the area of 10,000 people attending last year's function out at Australia's Wonderland in Western Sydney. So it is actively pursued, it is there and it is attended by many people.The nature of the building industry has changed dramatically, as we are all aware. It is not as my father might have experienced when he worked for many years with a group of people from our area: Alan Collier, Alan Dixon, Les Marshall, et cetera. The nature of the building industry is now represented by severe subcontracting, casualisation and constant movement of people between building sites, and the nature of this day allows those people once a year to experience conviviality and to have a chance to meet people again with a common purpose in celebration of their industry, their work experiences and their connection with other people in the industry. Whilst it is true to say that in some industries in this country Picnic Day is not essentially pursued and it is there in a real sense, there are a number of industries such as this that pursue it.WI4Reith, Peter, MP8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—Those days do involve Santa Claus and races, which the minister mocks from his privileged background. He is typical of a government that seeks to change the contours and the social relations of this country to increase inequity.WI4Reith, Peter, MP8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—While he interjects, I think the reality was perhaps indicated by the Prime Minister's close associate Kerry Jones in the Daily Telegraph yesterday—a person whom we all respect and who led the campaign with regard to the monarchy—in an article headlined `Elites ruining Libs'.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: a fair amount of licence is obviously given on both sides in any debate, but this debate is about union picnic days and tallies. It could not be a more specific bill. Whilst the member may canvass matters generally, whatever Kerry Jones said about a preselection in New South Wales on the weekend has certainly got nothing to do with union picnic days by any stretch of the imagination and certainly nothing to do with tallies in the meat industry.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The member for Reid will be conscious of the intent of this debate and the content of the bill. I think the minister has tried to pre-empt what the member is about to say, but I would caution the honourable member that he should relate any remarks about any extraneous matters that might be happening at the moment to the way in which this bill is framed. 8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—As I indicated earlier, and I cited Linda Rubenstein, the driving force behind this legislation is perhaps not the real world of industrial relations. There is no real drive by employers to replace this. There are no real complaints. It is the ideological predilections of the minister opposite. Kerry Jones made a point not about a preselection but about her analysis of the Liberal Party in New South Wales.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: Kerry Jones is a fine Australian, but her analysis of why she was not successful in a preselection, however dressed up by the shadow minister, has absolutely nothing to do with this. I have been in many debates and I do not mind people having a bit of a go, but this has got absolutely nothing to do with it. It could not be more remote.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have cautioned the honourable member for Reid. I think that the minister again is trying to pre-empt what is about to be said. I will listen carefully to what the member for Reid is saying, but I remind him of the need to be relevant in the way in which he develops his debate to the bill.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—The point I am making is that my life experience and that of the member for Hume are quite in contrast with that of the minister opposite, and his difficulties of knowing what is actually happening in this country were reflected in the comments of Kerry Jones when she said that the state Liberals were `elitists who are so out of touch with average people they may never win a seat in Western Sydney again'.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Reid will resume his seat. I assume the minister has the same point of order.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, my point of order is on the words just used, which we have just heard for the first time. My point of order is that they have absolutely nothing to do with union picnic days or tallies in the meat industry, and he should not be entitled to just go off on a frolic of his own. It could not be a more blatant breach of the standing orders. I say that as someone who in the past has been more than happy for people to tip a bucket on me or do whatever they want to do within reason. I am not inviting that, but it has nothing to do with Kerry Jones.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I am glad the minister is not inviting a wider debate. I believe the honourable member for Reid understands what is required of him, and I do not believe he is transgressing as far as the minister alleges. I will listen carefully. I remind the honourable member for Reid that he should not abuse any latitude that is being given.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—My colleague makes the point that Kerry Jones is also, seemingly, supportive of picnic days, because they certainly had a picnic—with the help of the Prime Minister—after the vote on the republic. But she further said that morale in branches outside of the inner city had `never been lower' and that membership was in free fall in Wollongong, Gosford and country—GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—Mr Deputy Speaker—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Reid will resume his seat and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has now the call. Is this another point of order or is it the same point of order?GT4Truss, Warren, MPMr Truss—This is a point of order on the same issue. It is quite clear that the honourable member for Reid is defying your order.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. The honourable member for Reid will have one more opportunity to develop the case as he put it to me and not just outline and quote from an extract from a newspaper article.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—The point I am making is that what drives this legislation is a combination of the government's attempts to change the social relations in this country, to essentially dismiss the rights of people to negotiate for their conditions and to drive this country down to a situation where we are competitive with Nepal and Bangladesh and maybe the Maldives. The reality of this government's policy is to go down to the lowest common denominator and destroy every possible condition around the place. Sometimes, a facet of what they are doing drives towards that; in this particular case, it is just mad ideology. I will quote from another of the contributions of this minister, where he decided that he would get rid of a condition in this country which employers were not really concerned about. They were not protesting about it. They were not saying, `Please, Mr Minister, reduce workers' rights in this area.' That is with regard to rights to leave for reserves. The Victorian Liberal Party, which the minister dismissed last time we discussed this matter as a bunch of nobodies— WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—You don't understand how it works. You've got no idea.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—I do understand how it works. Another example of where you are driven by ideological extremism is in the area of the reserves. There was no thrust by employers to suggest that there was something wrong with it. We know the contribution that your idiosyncracies have made to the working conditions of the Australian defence forces.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member will refer his remarks through the chair and, even if he thinks he is being provoked across the table, he will ignore interjections.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—As I indicated, this is not the first time that the minister has chosen to do something which neither the employers in this country nor the employees—nor virtually anybody else—sees a need for. What he did with regard to reserves is similar. The defence forces in this country are saying, `We are more and more dependent upon reserves.' And what do we find? We find this minister has made it so difficult for reserves to get leave—in the context of outsourcing in the work force and thus smaller workplaces, people cannot get leave—and he has started a process where it has been taken out of the conditions. Again, there is no rational reason for this change. The minister woke up one morning and said: `Let's get stuck into the unions. Let's get rid of the Picnic Day.' He is really getting rid of the name, rather than anything else, and the real world—he well knows—is not going to reduce a lot of people's rights to days off. The ideology was shown a bit by his colleague's interjection in the speech of the previous speaker, the member for Lalor, when she made the point that, if the argument for this is that unionisation is at such a low level in this country, what are the changing realities of people's religious beliefs—WI4Reith, Peter, MP8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—Here we go. The minister's interjection was: `Are you advocating getting rid of Christmas Day, New Year's Day and Easter? Obviously, politically, that would be unpopular, so are you saying that?' No, no-one is saying that. People, throughout this inquiry, have made the analogy that, if we are saying that the basis of holidays is on unionisation levels, we have to look at the reality of the changing nature of this country. In the future, the pattern of religious observance that is found in my electorate may be magnified throughout the country. I notice that, in the 1996 census for the electorate of Reid, 10.9 per cent of people had no religion and 18 per cent were non-Christian. So 28.9 per cent of people, at that stage, were not Christian.GT4Truss, Warren, MP8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—The point is: are you going to come back here in 10 years, if these figures have changed, and advocate the end of those days? Are you?GT4Truss, Warren, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The minister will cease interjecting and the honourable member for Reid will ignore the interjections.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—That reality is also magnified by the changing composition and ethnic background of our population. In the 1996 census, 7.5 per cent of the population of my electorate were born in South-East Asia. They observe a different new year, and they are not the only people; other parts of our ethnic community also do not observe our New Year's Day. There is a changing attitude among the people of this country towards a monarchy. We had a poll last year and, because of the way in which the Prime Minister quite skilfully worded the question, technically, adherence to the monarchy remained. But we all know that other polls show the overwhelming proportion of the population of this country now want to change our constitutional system and want a move away from adherence to the monarchy. Are we seeing those opposite come up and say, `What an anachronism we have in the Queen's Birthday. How dreadful it is that it no longer reflects the realities of our lifestyle.' No, we are not. What is really driving this change is that this holiday is representative of the union movement and that it historically springs from the fact that they accomplished this and that they struggled to improve people's conditions in this country. What is really driving this move by the government to delete union picnic days is this blind ideology—`We don't like it being termed a union Picnic Day.' We all know that, because of a particular decision in this country's industrial relations system, there will not at the end of the day be a reduction in days. There will be court cases, there will be industrial struggles, there will be strikes, there will be legal costs, there will be lawyers getting big money and, at the end of the day, maybe the day of the year will alter and maybe the name of the day will alter, but there will be no advantage to employers in this country.I do not think we should be surprised that this is coming from the current government. The kind of elitism that Kerry Jones talked about has been magnified. This is a government that has introduced a GST, causing major difficulty to small business. And should we be surprised? No, we should not. On 25 October 1996, the then Minister for Small Business and Consumer Affairs said to the Property Council of Australia:Many of these complaints are either unfounded or at least one sided.The minister was talking about the complaints of the small business sector. He continued:It is the government's view that landlords should be free to exercise their property rights in all but the most exceptional circumstances.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Reid will bring himself back to the bill. He is straying a little far.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—We have a government for the big end of town. We have had a debate in the last week about the way in which it wants to redistribute funding and education towards elite schools, whether it is King's School or whether it is Geelong Grammar. We have a government that seeks to change the industrial relations balance in this country and a government that is trying to construct a tax system for the big end of town.This legislation is very much driven by the idiosyncrasies of the current minister. He has not received advice from any employers group that it will fundamentally accomplish anything. They do not see any advantage. He is not coming here today citing 25 employer groups who want this to happen, because he cannot—and he knows that.WI4Reith, Peter, MP8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—A Labor minister said something about this matter! That means that the minister is justified, supposedly, in introducing legislation here today which has got no good purpose, which is not supported by employers, which will not accomplish anything and which will only lead to legal cases and industrial problems, because this minister wants to run around with the minister for education and a few of the other extremists in this government getting another little badge in his lapel to show that he got rid of union picnic days and that he has put it up them. That is what drives this. There is no good reason for it, and the minister knows that.10:15:0021222Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—in reply—I thank all members for their contributions, including the member for Hume, who is, I think, the only member who has had first-hand experience with meat tallies. I acknowledge the contribution of the previous speaker, the member for Reid. He has tried to manufacture out of this bill an ideological debate. He is interested in philosophical issues—I acknowledge that—but I have to say to him, with great respect, that any fair understanding of what the government is proposing would reveal the fact that you cannot make this an ideological battleground. With great respect, it is a complete nonsense. The previous speaker said that the government is somehow going to stop collective bargaining. There is nothing to prevent people having agreements for union picnic days, if that is what they want to do. I am not against people having union picnic days. My point is a very simple one; that is, that they do not need to form part of the safety net of essential or core minimum wages and conditions to protect the low paid. That is our point. When I said I would quote a minister back to you, I could quote Paul Keating, Laurie Brereton and previous Labor ministers who made the point that the whole system of awards should be simplified to reflect a set of minimum conditions. That has been an objective pursued by our side and by the previous Labor administration for 10 years. Whilst the member for Reid's comments were, I think, in fairness to him, generally directed at the union picnic days, with regard to the other portion of the bill dealing with tallies, Australia should have taken tallies out of the award system years ago, and lots of people have said that. It has got nothing to do with ideology. The employers have certainly been saying that for years, and the Productivity Commission has been saying that for years. And to shatter the shadow minister's claims that this is an ideological campaign waged by me, a previous Minister for Industrial Relations under a Labor government, Peter Cook, said back in 1992 that the award tally system should go. The Labor Party has got all these reasons why it should stay, and yet the Labor Party will tell you that the government should listen to the decisions of the Industrial Relations Commission because it is the umpire. In respect of the award tally system, the fact is that the umpire has said that it should go. It is a hopeless system that is out of date. No-one understands it. It is a system of incredible complexity, and we should scrub it. That is all we are trying to do. Quite frankly, it is hardly a big deal in that sense. This is not a huge philosophical divide we have got here; this is just a practical approach to what has been a running sore in the meat industry for years. It is in everybody's interest that the thing be fixed up. You are going to vote against it because the unions always tell you what to do, but it is not in the best interests of the union movement, workers, employers or anybody else in the meat industry. For heaven's sake! The meat industry is a very important industry in Australia and everybody should be doing what they can to ensure that it creates more jobs and boosts our exports—and that would be good for everybody. So it is a pity that the Labor Party cannot put its cheap, political pointscoring—if you call it that—to one side, just for once, and let something go through. But the Labor Party has a ban on any workplace reform. It does not matter whether it is good for workers, good for industry, good for businesses; it has a complete ban. Its policy is: just say no.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPWI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—That is your policy. To go on to the union picnic days, they are not part of a safety net of core minimum wages and conditions, which is the basic purpose of awards. I think it is unfair, because most workers in Australia do not have access to the entitlement; it is there for union elite. You talk about us and elites—what a joke! This is about a few union elites. It is subject to abuse. Last year, for example, it came to light publicly in Victoria that young apprentices who were not in the union and who not did not wish to go to the building industry union picnic were required to buy a ticket to the union picnic even if they were not able to go; otherwise, if they turned up to work their employer would not be allowed to pay them for the day, even if they worked. If people want to have union picnic days let them have their picnic days, but it should not be part of the regulatory system. It is a relic of days gone by. In days gone by we did have a lot more people in the trade union movement, but today fewer than one in five workers in the private sector are in the trade union movement. The need for union picnic days as part of the regulatory system has, in my view, also changed because the working hours of many people have also changed over time. Therefore, union picnic days should go. We would hope that the Democrats will see their way clear to allowing this particular aspect of the bill to go through the Senate. The main opposition speaker, the member for the Northern Territory, placed his apology for the protection of trade union ideology. He was wrong on a number of counts and misunderstood the bill and its provisions. On picnic days, it is wrong to say that this bill would interfere with a public holiday declared by a state or territory legislature. This bill renders unenforceable picnic days declared in awards. Union Picnic Day is not, and should not be, a public holiday. Union membership, as I say, is less than 20 per cent. Only a few privileged employees in strongly unionised sectors access picnic days through awards, yet basically the Labor Party supports one worker having privileged rights over the majority. We do not support that, and that is why we would hope that this bill will pass through the Senate.The member for the Northern Territory was also wrong to say that the commission had endorsed on merit the provision of union picnic days in the award simplification test case. It did nothing of the sort. The commission was required to interpret the existing section 89A as it applied to picnic days. Its decision confirmed the fact that only with a further legislative amendment can the 1996 act policy intention to remove picnic days as an allowable matter be achieved. Hence, the commission decision is simply justification for the bill—completely the opposite of what the member for the Northern Territory had to say.On the issue of tallies the Labor Party seems to simply have its head in the sand. It does ignore the fact that the commission has said that tallies should go. It ignores the fact that the previous Labor government was in favour of tallies going, as early as the 1990s. Labor also just blithely ignores the experience of somebody who has worked in the meat industry, and that is Alby Schultz, the member for Hume.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—You are trying to get rid of him as a member of parliament—you and Heffernan.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—He just pointed out the—8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—Why isn't Alby here today? You are trying to get rid of him.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The member for Reid will cease interjecting.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I do point out the experience of the member for Hume because, unlike many people in the Labor Party today, he does have experience as a genuine worker. I do not know about the member for Paterson, but a lot of the people who sit on the front bench of the Labor Party are just former trade union secretaries and leaders. They have never actually got their hands dirty as union rank and file members. The point that Alby Schultz, the member for Hume, made was the undesirable work practices and occupational health and safety impacts that tallies in the meat industry result in. The Labor Party says that they are for the workers, but when we come to remove a provision which has adverse effects on the health and safety of workers what do they do? They vote against it. Labor also fails to point out regarding tallies and union picnic days—whatever people want to have—that with the passage of this bill people can simply sit down and come to agreements. The system which allows people to collectively bargain is enshrined in the Workplace Relations Act.So this bill, in my view, should be passed. It contains only two measures, consistent with the advice of the Democrats that they did not want a big omnibus bill; they just wanted bite sized chunks of legislation. There are two very straightforward issues here. I would hope that the Democrats do not apply a freeze to any worthwhile reforms. I think some in the Democrats have said in the past that the system of union picnic days is an anachronism that should be dealt with, and I hope that the Democrats are influenced by the numerous independent reports and even the actions of unions themselves in the meat industry which have by agreement removed tallies as a means of remuneration. I hope all of those factors will encourage the Democrats to see their way clear to support the decisions of the Industrial Relations Commission and finally bring the system of tallies to an end. I therefore commend the bill to the House. Question put:That the bill be now read a second time.10:31:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Mr H.A. Jenkins) 74Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Worth, P.M.62Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Anderson, J.D.Gerick, J.F.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Vaile, M.A.J.Hollis, C.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.21225Bill (on motion by Mr Reith)—by leave—read a third time.Bills21225R115721225Debate resumed from 7 September, on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop:That the bill be now read a second time.10:36:0021225Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—The Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000 seeks to make two relatively minor changes to the government's Aged Care Act. It will provide some flexibility on how sanctions can be imposed against aged care providers and introduces additional provisions on the suitability of providers and key personnel in the sector. As such, the bill represents a minimal response to the community's growing concern that the government's aged care system is not delivering proper care to the 150,000 frail older Australians in nursing homes and hostels. This minimal response shows that we have a Minister for Aged Care who has refused to listen to those community concerns and the concerns of the aged care sector. We have a Minister for Aged Care who is determined to do as little as possible for frail older Australians. Bronwyn Bishop is the very model of a minimal minister. She acts only when pressured by Labor and the media, and then does only what she has to deflect the blame away from herself. The government has clearly decided that they cannot fix the aged care mess they have created and will only draw attention to their failure if they try. The Minister for Aged Care has decided that her best chance of avoiding becoming the government's third casualty in this portfolio is to do as little as possible for as long as possible. Her reluctance to act has justifiably earned her the title of `Minister for Ages' amongst the aged care sector. Labor supports any move by the government to fix up its flawed Aged Care Act, albeit three years too late; however, this bill simply fails to address many of the problems that act has caused. While Labor will not be opposing the two proposed minor amendments to the act, we do have some concerns that the amendments either will not fix the problem or will cause further problems. Labor also foreshadows that it will be putting its own amendments to the bill in the Senate to address an area of significant concern in the sector.There is widespread concern in the community that the government's aged care system is simply not delivering proper care to frail older Australians. These concerns are over the government's deregulation of the sector, its failure to properly monitor care standards, its failure to plan for our ageing population and its rejection of the recommendations of the Productivity Commission on nursing home funding. We have raised these concerns on many occasions in this House. Indeed, the minister has been the subject of a censure motion relating to these concerns. None of these concerns is addressed in this bill. This bill will not ensure that care standards in all nursing homes will be properly monitored through the use of surprise inspections. This bill will not deliver one extra nursing home bed to the many areas where people are waiting longer and longer to access aged care.This bill will not fix any of the systemic problems identified by the Commonwealth Ombudsman in the government's aged care complaints resolution scheme. This bill will not ensure the continuity of care for the thousands of residents affected by the government's bungled implementation of accreditation. This bill will not ensure that Commonwealth funding for aged care will be spent on providing care for frail older Australians. This bill will do nothing to implement the recommendations of the government's own independent inquiry into nursing home funding. This bill was an opportunity to address some of these concerns and ensure all frail older Australians receive proper care.Sadly, for some time it has been clear that the government's aged care system is failing. It is now clear that the government does not want to fix these problems. They are too hard for a government that is sensitive to the political damage it has suffered in the portfolio over the last four years. The government does not want to ensure that all nursing homes are inspected and care standards monitored. This has been the subject of constant criticism and attention in this House over the last 12 months. It is worth noting that it was not until February this year, after pressure from Labor and critical media reports, that the `Minister for Ages' finally ordered the first surprise inspection of a nursing home. The first surprise inspection of a nursing home! That was the first inspection that we had under the government's system—the first surprise inspection in three years. What a dreadful and appalling record.We know that the government has been winding back its inspection of nursing homes because of its bungled implementation of accreditation, which has left the standards agency just 16 months to accredit all 3,000 aged care facilities. The minister had the power to set accreditation fees, which would then allow accreditation to proceed, in December 1998. It took her nine months to finalise a simple fee schedule, with accreditation starting only in September. Those nine months lost because of the minister's indecision could have been available now to allow the proper planning of any closures and disruption to services. This bungling was on a par with the bungling that took place in the arrangements for the International Year of Older Persons. It is a feature of this minister's administration. As it is, we are now facing a crisis in many regions in the lead-up to the 1 January 2001 deadline. Residents are uncertain whether their nursing home will close down. The government have refused to outline their planning to provide care to affected residents, all because the `Minister for Ages' could not make a decision. The agency has been forced to shift resources away from the inspection of nursing homes in order to meet this deadline. The department has admitted that this has occurred. The winding back of the inspection program, which is an entirely separate process from accreditation, can be seen in a number of review audit or inspection reports published by the agency. The agency must publish a review audit report when it inspects a facility, therefore these reports are an accurate indication of their activity. Here is the damning figure: in the 10 months since the agency started accreditation—from September last year until June this year—it has inspected just seven facilities in Queensland, which represents less than two per cent of all facilities. In New South Wales, the agency has inspected just six facilities in those 10 months, or less than one per cent of facilities in that state. In South Australia, the agency inspected just three facilities in 10 months. Across the country, the agency inspected 63 facilities in the 10 months since accreditation started, or just two per cent of all facilities—in other words, only one in 50 facilities have been inspected by the agency through this period. This means that more than 2,900 facilities were not inspected over that period. This is in a year—and this is what is so damning about these figures—when the problems in nursing homes are apparent and the community is looking for leadership and assurance that care standards are being monitored.The government has been keen to claim that it is visiting every facility through accreditation. However, visits under the accreditation system are not the same as standards monitoring inspections. The accreditation and standards monitoring systems are complementary; the former does not replace the need for the latter. All accreditation visits are scheduled with the provider weeks in advance. They are not surprise visits, they are not triggered by complaints from residents and they do not result in any sanctions against the provider. Inspections are entirely different, and they are critical in ensuring that care standards are maintained in the minority of nursing homes that have a history of failing to act responsibly. I would like to make that point: we are dealing here with only a minority, but we absolutely require an inspection system with a surprise component so that these events can be detected and prevented. Of course we have all seen what the consequences are when there is a lack of that in places such as Riverside. So surprise inspections are critical in ensuring that a true picture of the care provider in these facilities is gained, and they have not been happening. That less than two per cent of facilities are being inspected is not good enough. Residents and families deserve peace of mind in knowing that nursing homes will be subject to external monitoring of care standards but, under the government's system, 98 per cent of residents are left without that assurance.The government is also refusing to address the growing shortage of nursing home beds in many regions, which has seen waiting times growing longer and longer. I know that is particularly the case in north Brisbane. Increasing numbers of families are finding out first-hand that in many regions there are simply no vacant nursing home beds. Their relatives are forced to wait for months in public hospitals while families search further and further afield for an empty bed. In the current allocation round, which the minister is quick to promote as the largest ever, there are just 500 additional nursing home beds across the country. Melbourne, Sydney, Perth and Adelaide will not receive one single nursing home bed under this allocation round. Yet every family looking for a nursing home bed in one of these cities will tell you that there is a shortage in their area. Only a handful of rural regions will receive the few additional nursing home beds on offer. The reality is that, with the ageing of the population and the growing number of people needing residential aged care, the government needs to allocate a significant number of additional nursing home beds in virtually every region, every year just to maintain current levels of access. The minister constantly talks of the 10,000 shortfall in places left by Labor. That figure is meaningless because the government has simply shifted the target and now includes community based care places in the equation. If you want to get a true measure of the shortage of beds and the distress of families, you only have to look at the figures which show an increase in waiting times for nursing home beds across the country over the last three years. People are waiting longer to get a nursing home bed, and that fact is confirmed by figures provided by the minister's own department. Across the country, more and more people are now waiting more than three months for a nursing home bed. That is three months of distress for them and their families, and in most cases it is three months spent in a public hospital system which is overcrowded and under pressure. The elderly and their families do not deserve this. This problem will continue to grow while the minister refuses to acknowledge that fact and refuses to allocate additional places on the basis of need.Given the events of last week, it would be impossible not to mention the recent case of The Oaks Nursing Home in South Australia. It has been revealed that it was not inspected for three years under the government's system. When an inspection was finally carried out, residents were found to be at serious risk of injury or death. Yet, despite this finding in a report dated 21 September this year, no-one went back to monitor the care of the residents in that nursing home. That is disgraceful. A decision had to be made to impose a sanction on the nursing home. That took eight days, with sanctions being imposed on 29 September. Under the government's system, the provider then had a total of three weeks to appoint someone of their choosing to provide advice on care. As of 6 October, this adviser had not even been appointed, which means that, under the government's system, residents found to be at risk are left unprotected for weeks while monitoring arrangements are put in place.In parliament on Monday, the minister said that this was terrific, that this was okay. She was quite satisfied with this approach, saying that all appropriate steps had been taken. What have the elderly of Australia done to deserve Bronwyn Bishop, the `Minister for Ages'? What have they done to this government to deserve the treatment that they have been given through the `Minister for Ages', Bronwyn Bishop? It is simply not good enough.8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—Teresa won't defend her.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—We know there are many on the government back bench who share these views, but they will not articulate them in this parliament. They whisper in the corridors, but they are not game to stand up for the elderly in this parliament, and that is not good enough. Residents and their families should be in a position to be assured that monitoring arrangements are put in place immediately to ensure that the rights of residents are protected. The sorts of delays that we have seen in the case of The Oaks Nursing Home and the delays that were evident through the bungled closure of Riverside where the provider remained in control of the facility for more than a month after the mistreatment of residents was discovered are not good enough. It simply seems that the government is unable or unwilling to move quickly to protect residents, and it seems that the government and its backbench are unwilling to stand up and to fight for them. Despite the problems that have been identified after the closure of Riverside, this bill does nothing about any of that—nothing. A provider who has been found to be comprehensively failing to meet care standards will still be given three weeks to choose someone to provide ongoing care. We know that the minister is not concerned about this delay. To the `Minister for Ages', it no doubt seems a very short time. For the residents concerned, however, it is another three weeks of substandard care and another three weeks of anguish, worry and distress. There are many issues not addressed in this bill, and I do not have the time to go into detail on all the other problems that have emerged under the government's failed aged care system. The bungled implementation of accreditation, the flawed complaints system, the funding arrangements that are compromising care standards—these are just a few of the problems and this bill will do nothing to fix them. As I noted earlier, Labor will be supporting the two minor amendments included in this bill. However, we do have some concerns that they will have little or no effect or may cause other problems to emerge. The first amendment provides greater flexibility in the implementation of sanctions. This flexibility was clearly needed in the case of Riverside to allow the residents and their families some warning of the evacuation. As part of that flexibility, the government will now have the ability to wind down a facility over several months as beds become vacant. This will allow for the progressive closure of a nursing home potentially over a period of several months.As I noted earlier, the shortage of beds in almost every region means that it will take months for residents to find alternative accommodation. However, the government has not introduced any special provisions to ensure that residents and facilities being closed down will have their rights protected. Given that the care of residents in the Riverside Nursing Home actually deteriorated, according to the Commonwealth's own reports, in the two weeks prior to their evacuation—and I am sure the member for Isaacs is quite aware of this debacle—Labor is concerned that the government will be unable to ensure that residents in facilities being progressively closed over several months will receive proper care. The government has not included any special monitoring provisions or powers to administer the care of residents in these facilities which may continue to operate for six to 12 months after a decision has been taken to close them down. Given that the provider is fully aware they are being closed down over this period, they have no incentive to cooperate and every reason to attempt to extract as much profit as possible from the facility before it is shut down. It also has to be remembered that facilities that will be targeted by these provisions are, by definition, those facilities that have repeatedly refused to act responsibly and to provide proper care standards to residents. In almost all the cases, the government's standards agency will have identified serious risks to residents in these facilities.What most concerns me as a member of parliament and a citizen and what concerns the Labor opposition is an attitude that is emerging in this government about the elderly. You see it in so much of what they say and so much of what they do. There is a notion, implicit in so much of what they do not do, that the elderly are a burden and that we as a community are not prepared to provide them with the support they deserve. We can see this in the nursing home debacles that we have debated in this House, but you can also see it in so many other issues. You can see it in the income support arrangements, you can see it in the inadequate GST compensation arrangements for pensioners, you can see it in the administration of the savings bonus, you can see it in the treatment of deeming for pensioners—you can see it in all of these issues. Once upon a time in this country, we used to have a bipartisan agreement that the elderly deserved the support of the community and their government. But not now. Many of these people used to regard retirement as a reward. When you look at what is occurring in public health, when you go through the failures contained in this bill when it comes to nursing home accommodation and when you look at the way in which pensioners have been dudded in the compensation arrangements for the GST, you see that, increasingly and across the board, for too many elderly Australians retirement has become a nightmare, not a reward. For that reason, there is a fundamental problem in this bill and it goes to the very core of this government's approach. They are a government that are very weak in controlling the strong but very strong in attacking the weak. That is what you see: their failure to provide the standards in nursing homes, the ripping away of essential income support, the erosion of the living standards of the elderly, particularly when you look at what they have done in the breach of their promise to maintain pensions at 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. The Prime Minister made another promise prior to the last election: pensions will be maintained at 25 per cent of average weekly earnings. They have dipped below that on many occasions. This was the same Prime Minister who, when he first became Treasurer, suspended the indexation of pensions for a year. So we see this continuing attitude from the government that the elderly are a burden. What this government is really on about, in its deregulatory privatising mode, is withdrawing support from the elderly as a crude cost cutting measure and distributing to the top the income that it takes from the bottom. That is the problem and this bill does nothing—absolutely nothing—in a substantial way to rectify so many of the problems that there are in the nursing home sector. That is why we will be moving the amendments that we have foreshadowed.10:58:0021230Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—It is always a pleasure to follow the member for Lilley, who treats the parliament like a branch meeting of the ALP where the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth are three very different things. The member for Lilley chooses to wiggle between the facts and concoct the most bizarre and ignorant account of what is going on. He should stay because he might learn a little about what is actually going on in aged care. I might do something quite novel, in contrast to the member for Lilley's contribution, and actually talk about the Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000 before the parliament and give people an idea of what is involved in this legislative reform. I am sure Deputy Speaker Nehl would enjoy that. He was probably wondering what was going on and whether he had come into the wrong debate as he walked into the chamber.The bill before the House aims to enable providers of aged care to strengthen the compliance regime of the standards established by the Aged Care Act 1997. The amendments proposed by this legislation would give more powers to the Department of Health and Aged Care to take action against providers who cannot or will not comply with the standards required under the Aged Care Act. I will come back to that point because I think the member for Lilley has been in a bit of a time warp. He missed out on a seat in the 1996 election, but prior to that he was actually a part of the cause for the need for that comprehensive package of reform in the aged care sector. I will talk about the circumstances that were inherited by the coalition government and why changes needed to be made. The Aged Care Act and its associated reforms were a blueprint to improve both building and care standards through certification of buildings and accreditation of the care provided to residents. The aged care industry has come a long way since those reforms were started, and it is helpful to recognise where we have come from. When the Howard government came to power in 1996, sections of the aged care sector in this country were nothing short of disgraceful. We were concerned about the care being provided to the senior members of our community—the most frail, the least able to stand up for their rights—and the sanctimonious, windbag contribution we got before highlights just why there was such difficulty in this sector. Nobody was concerned with what they were actually experiencing. The member for Lilley was part of the previous government prior to 1996. We inherited a situation that even the previous government investigated through the Gregory report, a report commissioned by the former Labor government and released in May 1994. It estimated that half a billion dollars, $500 million, was required to lift the level of aged care accommodation to a respectable level. According to the Gregory report, a report commissioned by the former Labor government, 75 per cent of nursing homes needed fixing or rebuilding. That is just the building fabric. Three-quarters of all the nursing homes needed to have some physical work done on them so that they would meet Australian design standards; 70 per cent needed fixing or rebuilding to meet the Commonwealth outcome standards; 13 per cent of the homes did not meet basic fire requirements; 39 per cent of the residents were living in rooms of four or more beds. This is where we have come from. You could forgive a few of us listening to the member for Lilley for wondering where he has been. These are the circumstances that the coalition government inherited. In a recommendation from their own adviser in their own report, the Labor Party were told, `You need to put half a billion dollars extra in.' What was their response? They actually reduced capital funding by 75 per cent. After hearing this litany of problems in the sector, this advice that something decisive needed to be done, the modest capital funding that was available under the former Labor government that needed to be increased by half a billion dollars was reduced by 75 per cent. And people wonder why the Howard government was faced with such an extraordinary challenge in trying to raise the level of care available in our aged care sector so that it met our expectations of how the most frail, the aged, the most needy in our community should receive their care. The coalition government took up that challenge and engaged itself in the difficult issues around aged care reform. I remember those days. It was probably the most character building thing I have been associated with, because these are highly emotive areas where people at their frailest are looking for quality of care. The member for Lilley gave an example of the type of inflammatory comments that were injected into this debate about an extraordinarily sensitive and important issue, and you wonder why it was difficult. When an aspirant minister, a shadow minister in the Labor opposition, can stand up and make those claims, you can see how far they are removed from the facts and why the debate about aged care has been one of the most difficult and challenging and demanding public policy issues this country has faced, and it took a coalition government to face it. As I have just explained, the former Labor government wimped out—they did not care enough. There was not enough in their conviction about the needs of aged and frail people, and they just could not walk the talk. What you get in return is this sort of ALP branch speech as a substitute for a genuine contribution to this debate. If you are wondering whether that is maybe unrepresentative of the ALP view, let us think about the big national conference in Tasmania. Does anybody recall anything about aged care? Silence from both sides of the House. That is exactly my point. The platform that the Labor government supposedly developed—their blueprint for an alternative direction for this country—had nothing useful in it at all about aged care. Instead, we get that offering about what is not in this bill. At least we have a program, Member for Lilley, who has scuttled out of the place. He would have learnt a bit about aged care had he stayed. My colleagues could have shared with him some insights about what it means to genuinely reform the aged care area. So we have no alternative. We have no criticism of the package that is actually before the parliament today other than it does not do some things which we all know are dealt with in other parts of the aged care legislative package. But I will come back to that point in a few moments. The Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency was established under the 1997 act. Its core functions were the management of the residential aged care accreditation process, assistance to services to improve their service quality through education and training, information provision and identification of best practice, and also the promotion of better quality aged care. There was an assessment and a strategic management of services not accredited—that is, keeping an eye on those that had not met the benchmarks of building facilities and standards of care—and also liaison between the department regarding services not meeting relevant standards. I am pleased to say that in the electorate of Dunkley, as there are right around the country, there are many very well-run and well-managed aged care facilities which provide the sort of care and facilities we would want for our loved ones and indeed for ourselves when we get to that situation to require them. Unfortunately, not all the providers in the aged care industry are up to the required standard. I have talked about what we inherited in 1996. I have talked about the work that has gone into lifting that standard. There is still work to be done. The challenge is still there before the aged care community. The accreditation process, which has now been going on since 1998, must be completed by the year 2001. To ensure that the standards set by accreditation are met and continue to be complied with, this bill proposes a number of new sanctions, ranging from the revocation of bed licence to the closure of a home. The member for Lilley said, `There are no new tools in here.' He is dead wrong. There is a whole suite of new options available in this bill before the House to assist the government with its commitment to ensuring that every frail and aged person requiring aged care not only gets that accommodation and those services but also gets them to a quality we all expect they should be. The first of the amendments outlined in this bill will put in place a system that will provide for a range of sanction options, moving away from the current situation where the option sees a facility continuing to operate at a substandard level with no meaningful sanctions or the complete closure of the facility, leaving the residents, their relatives and the community in the difficult position of having to find new accommodation in a screaming hurry. They are the choices right now: you let it run or you shut the whole shop. They are two very blunt and, in many cases, entirely unsatisfactory options, but that is all that is available. The member for Lilley was saying, `Well, what are you going to do? What are the alternatives? You don't do anything about these substandard facilities.' That is an interesting point. When the Riverside case was on we were criticised for doing too much, for causing inconvenience to residents and families, but then in the next breath, according to the ALP we should not have done that. Now we have a bill before this parliament that will provide a new suite of options. You might have noticed in a small comment from the member for Lilley that the ALP do not actually oppose it. All that vitriol was dressed up around, `Well, we don't disagree with what you are doing.' That gives you an insight as to who is leading the debate in aged care in this country.The second amendment that the bill deals with provides for action to be taken against key personnel within the aged care organisation. What happens when you have a facility where all the team, bar one or two, are not performing and you need some key personnel to set the culture, the nursing care standards, maybe manage the catering, the activities, the health care and the personal needs of residents? Maybe one or two key personnel with the key skills that are required at a management, coordination or technical specialist level are not up to it. What are our options now? Our options now are to just let the facility go or shut the whole shop. Why don't we say, `Here is a key person, a key member of the team, who does not cut the grade'? Then we can say, `We want that fixed. Across the spread of this facility you have one weak link in the chain, that key person there, and we want something done about that.' This bill provides an option to actually focus on key personnel who are not providing the level of care and support and the contribution to quality aged care that is required by the government standards arrangement. Importantly, as a result of this amendment, action may be taken by the department against individuals within an organisation without necessarily revoking the approved provider status of the entire facility. To understand the problems which the measures outlined in this bill will address, it is useful to consider some real examples. All here will remember clearly the issues surrounding the tragedy that was the Riverside Nursing Home at Patterson Lakes in Victoria, in the adjoining electorates of Dunkley and Isaacs. The Riverside Nursing Home had a long history of problems before it was eventually closed for failing to maintain anything like the standards we would all expect from nursing home accommodation. Previously in this place I have spoken about its history. You heard the member for Lilley say that Minister Bishop had not acted properly or had not acted decisively and how unreasonable it was for her to close that facility. But you did not hear him talk about the fact that concerns about quality of care at Riverside were identified by standards monitoring visits in 1993. You heard the member for Lilley—if my notes are accurate of his remarks—complaining that the minister took seven or eight days to intervene in the South Australian example and that there were three weeks for the agency to actually respond and to put forward an appropriate level of care. You did not hear him mention that in 1993 under Labor—under not one minister but two, Minister Lawrence and Minister Howe—Riverside already had a track record of serious concerns. There was compelling evidence about the need to close it or to take decisive action. And what happened? Nothing. Zero. But the Labor Party had the gall to say that the Minister for Aged Care was doing the wrong thing in closing Riverside at a time when it had been substandard for seven years. For seven years the residents in that facility—and a large number of members of the former Labor government, and two ministers—had known that Riverside was not up to scratch. And what happened? Nothing. But when decisive action was taken for the care of those residents this government was criticised. What hypocrisy! But it does highlight the choices that ministers of either government had. Let us put the bipartisan stuff on the table here. What were the choices? They were difficult choices: you either closed it or let it run. Two ministers in the Labor government from 1993 to 1996 decided to let it run. Then the coalition was elected, introduced a more stringent series of standards and requirements and, ultimately, with much distress to everybody concerned, including the minister, it had to close the facility. Despite all the opportunities they had to lift their game, it was not happening at Riverside. That is a case study—evidence, proof positive—of why the measures in this bill are required. It was not until the quality of care became untenable that the Minister for Aged Care acted and closed Riverside. Thankfully, the good people of Ripplebrook—another facility at Carrum Downs—are doing a terrific job assisting the former residents of Riverside settle into a new home. It is their home; it is a new aged care facility, a new place for them to call home and, by all accounts, it is going very well.In the aftermath of the Riverside closure the much repeated criticisms were that the department did not give the residents notice that there was a tough decision to be made, that relatives were not aware that there was a danger that the facility would be closed and that the sanctions being imposed basically gave two options: you act on them or you do not. They were the criticisms: there was no notice, people could not prepare and could not adjust and they could not make the transition at a time of their own choosing. This bill will actually provide that option. One of the amendments outlined in the bill will allow for the deferral of sanctions, thus enabling notice to be given to residents and their relatives warning that the approved provider of a residential aged care service faces withdrawal of approved provider status which will result in the revocation of places and the evacuation of residents—that is, in the closure of the facility. This was not possible at Riverside: the law did not provide for it. As soon as the decision was made to sanction the provider with the withdrawal of approved provider status, that set the process in train—evacuation had to take place and the place was effectively closed for business as an aged care facility. That was the only choice. That was it: you could leave it open and let it run or you could shut it. This is a new suite of tools, a new range of options, a new and expanded menu of remedies, actions and possible interventions that the government can take to make sure that the level of aged care being provided is what we expect.The second amendment I touched on earlier was the key personnel issue behind the operation of the aged care facility. These are the people whose dedication, skill, insights, experience, understanding and competence will ultimately determine the culture and the character of the care in the place. These are the leaders, the ones who provide the guidance to others, who set the standards and put the systems in place so that their experience can filter through the organisation and, through that action, set the quality of care, the standard of operations at the facility, the staff attitudes, the care ethos and the way the place is managed. The people who hold these positions in improved aged care organisations are crucial to the success of the operations. Ultimately, they determine the wellbeing of the loved ones who are in those aged care facilities. They are crucial in influencing the way the aged care organisation deals with issues as they arise. We have seen in the past that some organisations, when confronted with problems, deal with them thoughtfully, openly, with great care and speed. Basically they address those problems and get on with things. Some other operators have not dealt with the issues so well, and the bill now provides for a way of intervening in those cases. It also sets up a new concept called `disqualified individuals', providing an opportunity for the department to say that some individuals are not suitable to be in the industry and then ensure that they do not play a part in the provision of aged care. Of course, the fact is that one of the range of matters the secretary must consider is this question of the people involved. But, as I have discussed earlier, there is a whole suite of options to ensure that the aged care facility is suitable to be accredited as an approved provider, that it is able to provide aged care to the standard demanded by the government and expected by the Australian people. We have a situation where these amendments are introduced to expand the suite of options available to the department and to the minister for dealing with providers who cannot meet or who fall below the standards required. This suite of options is now greatly enhanced because of this bill.Next week I will have the good fortune of being able to present accreditation certificates to a number of aged care providers in my electorate—aged care providers such as the Andrew Kerr aged care complex, which I understand was the first aged care facility in Australia to meet the accreditation standards; I will be very pleased to provide Park Hill Gardens in Mornington on Wednesday with an aged care accreditation certificate to recognise that they have met that standard. Broughton Aged Care in Seaford is another facility that has met the accreditation standards; and also RSL Park, the terrific facility in Frankston supported by the RSL, has been accredited.The interesting thing that came out of the member for Lilley's contribution is that he actually did nothing to address the genuine concerns that have been in the aged care sector for some time and that we continue to work to address. The aged care sector that the coalition government inherited was a shambles. Just on basic building requirements, I mentioned earlier that there were 327 facilities that did not meet building standards; 228 of those were in Victoria. Another concern the member for Lilley raised was that some people might not meet the accreditation deadline of 1 January 2001. What is his point there? Is his point that people have not been working at it; or is his point that there was a lot of work to go through? If his point is that some aged care providers had a lot of work to do, does that not of itself highlight where we have come from? If it were easy, if it were simple, if everything were hunky-dory, wouldn't it have been a walk-up start for these facilities to be accredited to meet those aged care standards?The point is that there is work required in many aged care facilities to meet the standards required of them. I could talk more about this subject but I am happy to introduce the member for Isaacs, my colleague in the adjoining electorate. I hope she makes a terrific maiden speech or first speech, as the case may be. I hope it goes well. I look forward to a good working relationship with her. On behalf of the coalition, good luck with her first speech. (Time expired)11:18:0021235Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—Despite the anxiety of my colleague to introduce the honourable member, I have some other matters I need to address first. Opposition members interjecting—XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—I think you might actually be quite supportive, when you hear it. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to suspend standing order 81 for the duration of the first speech by the member for Isaacs.Leave granted.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—I wish the member for Isaacs well, and move:That standing order 81 be suspended for the duration of the first speech by the member for Isaacs on the second reading debate on the Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000.Question resolved in the affirmative.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Before I call Ms Corcoran, I remind honourable members that this is her first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to her.11:19:0021235Corcoran, Ann, MPMs CORCORAN009CWIsaacsALP01—It is with a combination of many feelings that I stand here today to deliver my first speech in this House. I feel at once privileged and humbled by the honour that the voters of Isaacs have given me in asking me to represent them in federal parliament. I am aware of the privilege of being here and the responsibilities that go with this privilege. I want to assure the people of Isaacs that, for however long they want me here as their representative, I will do my utmost to discharge those responsibilities with care and compassion.I am very pleased and proud to be standing here as a member of the Australian Labor Party. I am conscious of, and grateful to, the many dedicated ALP people who have, one way or another, directly and indirectly brought me to this point. I feel sad about the event that led to the by-election and understand the sadness and distress this has caused and will continue to cause many people. The people of Isaacs valued Greg Wilton enormously; he had the reputation of being a good listener and one who followed through with matters raised by his constituents. He was a fine example of a good member of parliament.Before I go any further, I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to a number of people. I would not be here today without the encouragement and support of many people—family, personal friends, and members and supporters of the Labor Party. All of these people offered, gave and continue to give me the vital emotional and practical support one needs in the lead-up to an election and in this job.I want to place on record my special thanks to my family: my parents, Bob and Tonie Corcoran, my husband Henry, my children and their partners, my brothers and sisters and, of course, my grandchildren. During the period leading up to the election, they all set aside large amounts of their time to do all the things that go with campaigning. Even my two grandsons got out and letterboxed, one from his pram.I do not have the time to name the many Labor Party people and supporters who worked hard during the campaign, but I do thank them very much for their support to me and for their ongoing commitment to the Labor Party. I would like to record my special thanks to Kevin Howlett, a longstanding and stalwart ALP member and friend, for the part he played in encouraging me to nominate in the first place. I would also like to record my thanks to my personal friends, who gave me unquestioning practical and moral support throughout the campaign. It is good to have family and friends in the gallery today and I thank them for being here.The Australian Electoral Commission describes Isaacs as an outer metropolitan division that covers an area on the eastern side of Port Phillip Bay from Cheltenham to Seaford, then inland to Cranbourne. It covers an area of approximately 180 square kilometres. The electorate includes what some would call older working-class suburbs, newer estates with young families, a country town fast becoming part of the suburbs, some farming districts and industrial estates and some more affluent areas along Port Phillip Bay. Isaacs has a beautiful long, sandy beach. Overall it may be fairly described as a very healthy and good place to live. It is as typical of the whole country as any electorate, and more so than many. Over the last 20 years the people of Isaacs have usually chosen Labor to represent them in Canberra, and I interpret this as confirmation that the Labor Party and its policies reflect the attitudes and spirit of average Australians. The seat of Isaacs is named after Sir Isaac Isaacs. Sir Isaac was active in both state and federal politics and played a substantial part in the federation movement in the 1890s. He is best known, of course, because he was the first Australian born Governor-General. There are two aspects of Sir Isaac's life that I want to highlight today. The first is the reputation Sir Isaac earned during his appointment to the High Court of Australia. The Australian Dictionary of Biography describes Sir Isaac as:... one of the earliest judges to give explicit recognition to the social implications of decision-making and he spelled out social (and, where appropriate, economic) policies, often in detail, in his judgements ... He spoke of the need for courts to be “living organs of a progressive community”.He was committed to the Australian Constitution and the principle that it forms the basis of laws and judgments in Australia and that the rights or wishes of the various states must be subordinate to the Commonwealth.My many teaching friends may be interested to hear of Sir Isaac's attitude to the value of education. At one point the High Court was asked to determine whether or not the education activities of the states constituted an industry. The majority decision of the High Court was no, that they did not, that the states' education systems bore no resemblance to an industry. Its decision rested on the argument that teaching was concerned with the production of a good citizen but that teaching was not connected directly or indirectly with the production or distribution of wealth. This decision implied that there was no connection between education or good citizenship and the advancement of the nation and industry. Sir Isaac dissented. He said that teaching did contribute to the development of the nation and was therefore an industry. He added that if the majority view was correct then teaching parrots to say `Pretty Polly' and to dance was an industrial activity but teaching Australian youth to read and write and generally training them to be more efficient citizens was not wealth and not an industrial activity. It is good to know that the value of education is recognised differently today. It is also reassuring to be representing an electorate named after a person of Sir Isaac's reputation.The second aspect of Sir Isaac's life is his appointment as Governor-General. Whilst he is, correctly and rightly, remembered as the first Australian born Governor-General, the circumstances surrounding his appointment warrant attention. The Australian Prime Minister at the time, Labor's James Scullin, must be given credit for the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs. Up until that time it was the tradition that the Australian Prime Minister prepared and submitted a list of suitable candidates for the role of Governor-General to the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, who would, in turn, submit the list to the King. James Scullin defied tradition and put forward one name, and one name only—and the name of an Australian at that. Months of controversy ensued. There were three main objections from Britain to Sir Isaac's appointment. The first objection was the lack of consultation with England. The second objection was the King's reluctance to appoint a local man who, it was argued, would inevitably have a personal involvement in Australia, whereas a `distinguished citizen of the United Kingdom would better secure the bonds of the Empire'. The third objection was Sir Isaac's age, as he was in his mid-70s at the time. The Australian conservative opposition, who incidentally called themselves `Nationalists' at the time, also vigorously opposed the appointment. James Scullin stood quietly firm and resolute throughout the furore, and nearly a year later King George V reluctantly appointed Sir Isaac Isaacs as Australia's Governor-General. The success of this struggle was a significant step towards Australia's independence. All parties have now accepted the suitability of an Australian as Governor-General—although some have advanced more slowly than others have.I am here today because, like most people here, I am interested in doing what I can to further the wellbeing of our society. I want to do my bit to fix the things that are wrong, to further develop the good things and to plan and think for the future. Every society has its powerful and affluent members and its weaker and disadvantaged members. It is a sign of a good society that the weak and disadvantaged are looked after by the more able. A good society will make decisions that protect the weaker members—even to the disadvantage of the strong. I am particularly interested in working to ensure that Australia is a good society that gives proper care and attention to all its people, whatever their strengths, weaknesses and capacities. I believe that the Labor Party is the party that has the interests of a good society at its heart. It was the Labor Party which introduced Medicare. It was the Labor Party which saved the Franklin River wilderness. It is the Labor Party that has consistently supported the arbitration and conciliation system. It was the Labor Party which made it possible for ordinary Australians to attend university. It is appalling how many of these gains are now under threat from the present government. I am concerned about the number of people who are unemployed and the unreasonable stresses many of those who are employed are facing. It is ludicrous that there should be so many unemployed people, whilst so many who have jobs are required to work an ever-increasing number of hours per week. These people feel that they must accept the long hours and deteriorating conditions or risk losing their jobs. This insecurity of employment is a real threat to the many Australians who have little but their regular pay with which to support themselves. Current insecurity is partly a product of changing technology, and I am not suggesting for one minute that progress should be hindered. I am saying that the victims of change should not be left in poverty, idleness or despair; they should share in the benefits of the new developments.A passage from Ben Chifley's last speech, made in 1951 when he was Leader of the Opposition, is still appropriate today. He said:The government hits trade unions and everything associated with them. Vested interests which stand behind the government want to see unions destroyed.The sad thing is that Chifley's words are still true today. I am proud to be a member of a union and to be part of the movement that has done so much to improve the lives of working people.I want now to spend a few minutes talking about the importance of politics and the political process and my concern that we are not giving our democratic process the care and nurturing that it needs. Our democratic process should be highly valued and protected. But it is not. Everyone here knows of the constant denigration of politicians and politics that is a part of our society. It is totally acceptable for anyone anywhere and at any time to sneer at or deride politicians. Any comedian short of a joke can throw in an uncomplimentary line about a politician and get a laugh, as can any guest around the BBQ or dinner table. The well-intentioned sceptic who asks questions and seeks evidence before being convinced should be applauded, but the cynic who condemns without thought or investigation, and usually with a sneer, is neither useful nor humorous.There is an old saying that you can ignore politics but politics will not ignore you, the message being that one ignores politics at one's own risk. The informed person knows that political decisions are made all the time and that these decisions affect every aspect of our lives. So why do we allow the political process to be denigrated? Are there those who do not mind if elements of our society remain misinformed? Does it suit some people that others remain ignorant of the importance of taking our political responsibilities seriously? Or have we become blase about our democracy? In my view, it is the responsibility of all Australians to promote and protect our democratic system of government.How do we go about protecting our democracy? One place to start is right here in this chamber. Question time is traditionally the time when the government of the day is held accountable and when ministers are asked questions on urgent or important matters. The third edition of the House of Representatives Practice describes question time as `a time when the intensity of partisan politics can be clearly manifested'. The editor of this book, the then Clerk of the House, is to be congratulated on his restraint. Question time should be a time for tough and unrelenting questions where they are warranted, but it has become a time for consistent personal attack, for exchange of abuse across the chamber and for aggressive and unprofessional behaviour—and all this whilst often the question remains unanswered. I am sure that every one of us here would banish any child from our dinner table if they behaved in such a way. Yet we encourage students to watch question time, we broadcast question time and we honour distinguished guests and overseas visitors by inviting them to witness question time. In other words, we hold up question time as a fine example of our democratic process at work. It has been suggested to me that a rowdy question time is a useful stress relief mechanism. It has been likened to a footy match where normally well-behaved men and women become loudly and indiscriminately aggressive. It has also been suggested to me that question time is a bit of theatre and no more. I suggest that the rest of Australia does not see question time this way. I think the rest of Australia sees the behaviour in question time as a useful confirmation that politicians and the political process are, at best, irrelevant to the real world and so can be safely ignored or, at worst, a nasty business and best left alone. I am not suggesting that improving our behaviour in question time alone will secure our democracy, but it would be a start. Nor am I suggesting that our present system of government is perfect, but we should protect what we have and work constantly to improve it. Mr Deputy Speaker, I am aware that, as this is my first speech, you and the House have allowed me discretion to talk about my electorate and my personal issues, and I thank you for that latitude. I do intend to say something about the bill before us, which by the way happens to have a close and unhappy association with my electorate. The Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000 is a useful one, although the events that prompted it are dreadful. I am sure we all recall the circumstances that led to the Riverside Nursing Home, which is in Isaacs, being forced to close. There were a number of disturbing aspects associated with the closure of Riverside, and I am not going to revisit them now. It is enough to say that most of these aspects revolved around the lack of regard for the residents and their families, despite the best efforts of the Riverside staff, who were working there under difficult circumstances. Once it was finally established that Riverside was not providing adequate care, the only option open to the government was to close the facility immediately and without notice. This bill moves towards improving the process when an aged care facility needs to be closed down. It allows a notice period to be given before the closure so that the residents and their families have time to make plans. The bill also allows those providers and their key personnel with prior convictions to be targeted and removed. The bill is showing a welcome shift in focus. The focus is now moving to the wellbeing of the people in need of care rather than the providers' interests.As admirable as all of this is, it does not address one of the core issues associated with aged care, and that is the lack of aged care beds. In Victoria, we have something like 35,000 aged care beds, of which about half are for nursing home type patients. The government's own target for aged care beds is 90 for every 1,000 people aged 70 years or more. Based on this target, Victoria has a shortage of over 3,500 aged care beds. Despite this shortfall, Victoria's additional allocation this year was a miserable 50 beds. At the same time, approximately 60 beds were lost when Riverside closed and to date only 30 have reopened. This shortage of aged care beds is distressing for those needing the beds and also for their families. It also impacts on the rest of the community. Those patients waiting for an aged care bed often occupy a high cost public hospital bed whilst waiting for more appropriate accommodation—a hospital bed that should be available for acute care and emergency patients. I return to my earlier statement that the hallmark of a good society is the quality of its care for its less able and weaker members. I note that this bill goes some way in improving the care of our aged people, but I also argue that we have a long way to go. Mr Deputy Speaker, with your indulgence I have covered a range of matters today. I have talked about the nature of my electorate, the qualities of Sir Isaac Isaacs, for whom it was named, my concerns that we look after our weaker or less able members of society and the need to cherish and nurture our democratic system of government. Finally, I return to the electorate of Isaacs and its people. I am a committed member of the Australian Labor Party, as I believe it is the party that can do most for the people of Australia. I also believe that members of parliament should serve all of their constituents without regard to affluence, power, political allegiance or the lack of any of these attributes. As I said at the beginning of my speech, I intend to represent the people of Isaacs fairly and in a manner consistent with these beliefs, and I look forward to doing so.Opposition members—Hear, hear!11:37:0021239Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I would like to extend my congratulations to the member for Isaacs for a very fine speech. I must admit to the member for Isaacs that I was somewhat an involuntary listener. I was here to speak to the Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000, but I am very pleased just the same that I was able to share in the very special moments that she presented in speaking about her electorate. I commend her on a fine speech and welcome her to the House, and I hope that she has many years in this place.I would like to add to the comments of previous speakers on the R1157Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000, including those of the member for Lilley and also those of the previous government member, the member for Dunkley. When I came in here with the member for Dunkley, I thought we were speaking on the R1157Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000, which deals specifically with certain amendments. It was quite amazing that the member for Lilley went on a wild tirade, like he always does, about everything except the aspects mentioned in the bill and what we are here to deal with. One of the things I remember when I was elected in 1996 was having to deal with a very unpleasant situation regarding an incident in the Peninsula Nursing Home. One would think that we are talking about a completely different issue when we speak about these incidents, but this home had been conducting fraudulent activities that dated way back to the 1980s. It was only this government that brought the two key directors of this nursing home under more scrutiny and, as a result of that, matters proceeded to court hearings, the directors were prosecuted and, although I do not think they are incarcerated at the moment, they were given a jail sentence.There was a Federal Police investigation as well. The situation involved defrauding the Commonwealth of funds and ensuring that those funds did not go to the nursing home provided. So the care of nursing home patients was compromised by the fact that the previous Labor government did nothing. It is a bit rich to hear the member for Lilley come in here to speak about the time it has taken the minister to introduce the standards that she has set up—and I will go through some of those standards in a moment—and the lack of accreditation and a whole host of things when it took his own government years—and, even then, they did not prosecute those nursing home directors. It took our government to do that.However, I am here to speak about the amendments and I would like to deal with those. I would like to support the previous comments of the member for Dunkley and I would like to support the Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000. I would like to congratulate the Minister for Aged Care. She came into a portfolio—as did ministers before her—in an appalling state of affairs. The member for Dunkley mentioned the Gregory report, which dates back to 1994, on the appalling state of nursing homes. It was not uncommon for me, when I first got elected in 1996, to receive monitoring reports. I have to tell you that some of the standards and the state that nursing homes were in in that year were absolutely disgraceful. There were many times when I would look through those reports in 1996 and feel myself absolutely ill with some of the things that I saw. I really felt for the people in our aged care facilities.That is what this is all about. Those times are gone, and we have gone a long way to rectifying those problems. The building standards in those times were atrocious—the member for Dunkley mentioned four people being in a room—there was inadequate sanitation, inadequate ventilation and a host of other things. But I just want to reiterate—for the sake of the member for Lilley—some of the improvements that have occurred. When we look at the whole industry, one of the most important things to do is to look at the number of places that have been allocated. Some 17,200 places have been allocated to areas of need across Australia and, of these, 6,400 have been residential care places and 10,800 have been community care places. In fact, in the 1999 round, some 7,000 more aged care places were allocated and 40 per cent of those were allocated to rural and remote areas. More and more people want to stay in their homes as long as possible. This government has been at the forefront of ensuring that community care packages have increased, and around 4,300 community care places were allocated in the 1999 round. More than 14,000 new places have been made available for the allocation of the 2000 aged care approval rounds. There has also been an increase in the allocation of capital funding, and $30.8 million over four years was made available in the 2000 budget to assist rural aged care facilities to upgrade and to provide aged care in rural areas. There has been a capital funding stream of $1.8 billion over 10 years from 1998-99 to 2007-08 and an extra $25.6 million over two years was provided in the 1999-2000 budget particularly to access those rural and remote areas and special need groups. Currently, $28.5 million has been allocated to the aged care sector to assist in restructuring that sector.It is all very well for the member for Lilley to talk about the appalling standards that existed, but we have to start somewhere. One of the first things we had to do was to look at the building standards, and I mentioned earlier that those building standards were atrocious. One of the things we had to do was introduce a certification scheme. The minister introduced that with regard to residential care places and, particularly, building quality. Some 98.5 per cent of facilities have now passed certification, so that shows that government policies are indeed working. The Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency was set up—something that has never been done before—and a new set of standards was developed in consultation with the providers and consumer stakeholders. This particular agency has accredited 2,000 facilities. These things do not happen overnight. They have occurred over a period of time, but we now have some steps, some processes and a facility that will ensure that the nursing home sector has the highest possible standards.The government has moved two amendments to the Aged Care Act 1997 to bring further reforms to the industry, and that is what we are talking about here today. The amendments will give the department more power over providers who cannot or will not comply with the Aged Care Act. The first amendment will enable the department to give notice to residents and relatives of action to be taken against the provider of the care facilities. We have seen cases—Riverside is probably the most publicised case—of just how stressful such circumstances are. The previous speaker, the member for Isaacs, in her first speech spoke about that as well. It is a very unfortunate situation. I think wherever possible residents should be allowed to stay in the nursing home and that the key personnel and directors who are not doing the right thing should be removed, and this particular piece of legislation ensures that that happens. There is nothing more distressing for an aged person than to move them out of a facility. It is distressing not only for the aged person but also for the family and friends. It is a very distressing time, particularly when the resident has built up a routine, has made friends and is very familiar with their surroundings.The second amendment enables the department to take action to require the removal of key personnel, including those directors who have been convicted of an indictable offence, who are of unsound mind or who become bankrupt. Sadly, as I said earlier, I have experience of company directors in nursing homes who have not done the right thing. I do not feel very proud standing here speaking about a nursing home in my electorate whose directors were so convicted. This amendment is a last resort, but it is something that needs to be done. If people do the wrong thing by residents in any shape or form—whether it is by not giving them the right care, not providing the right resources or not appropriately using funds that the Commonwealth has provided for the benefit of the residents—they deserve to be punished, and punished severely. I must applaud the minister for the action she has taken, particularly in introducing these amendments here today. These are trying times for the industry. It is not an easy industry to administer, and I do not think any minister on either side of the House has ever found it to be so. The present Minister for Aged Care is very diligent. She is working with the industry in a number of areas to ensure that the standards are met. She also is a very proactive minister. Recently, she attended Wheller Gardens in my electorate to announce community care packages. Those community care packages are being very well received—in fact, the demand for them seems to be ever increasing—and it was a successful visit recently to Wheller Gardens. I must say it was rather controversial, because it occurred at the time of another distressing incident: Nigel Parodi was on the loose some 200 metres from the residents' facilities, so it was a very memorable occasion. But what I want to say today is that the government is being very proactive, and these aged care reforms will go a long way.Too often in the past the Labor Party swept these age issues under the carpet. That is what happened all along—they were just hoping that they would go away. The Gregory report was a stark reminder of just how critical the situation was when we came into government in 1996. We inherited an aged care system that had very little regard for maintaining the dignity of older Australians and ensuring that they had the best possible care. Addressing these shortcomings was one of the priorities of this government, and we have been able to do that. It is to the credit of this minister and this government that we had the faith to carry that forward. It is an industry that must always maintain high standards, and that is what we are all about: ensuring that the residents have those standards. The amendments here are very good amendments and they will ensure that aged care providers continue to provide those residents with the highest possible standards and the dignified care and attention that they deserve. I applaud, as I have said, those added measures to give the secretary to the department powers over the providers. Also, I agree with the improvements in standards set out in the act that relate to the improvement of physical building standards and the standard of care given to residents.Providers have been given a deadline for accreditation of 1 January 2000, by which time they must meet the standards set down in the act. The Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency will have visited all the facilities at least once—most more than once—and have processed applications by that time. The industry says to me all the time that there is an increasing amount of paperwork and that a considerable burden is placed on them. But I think that in the long run they will find it will be to their benefit. Many industries are going through accreditation; it is not something that is restricted purely to the aged care industry.These measures and the stringent standards set down under the act are tough measures and will have tough implications for aged care providers. While some operators may not like the standards that they are being forced to meet, these measures and sanctions are important because they provide the highest possible standard of facilities and peace of mind for residents. I have had the pleasure of providing accreditation certificates to several aged care facilities in my electorate. They are very proud of their achievement in going through the process. I commend the ones which already have received accreditation and are displaying their certificates in the foyers of their nursing home facilities. Aged care does not have a good history. All too often we see hysterical media reports about Melbourne nursing homes. Previous speakers have spoken about the severe risk to residents. In such cases, stiff penalties will be imposed. In the Adelaide Advertiser of 23 September a report states that following an audit of a local nursing home: Three sanctions have been imposed by the Department of Health and Aged Care restricting Commonwealth funding.None of us wants to hear about these incidents or think about the substandard facilities, but they do exist and we have to closely monitor them.Today I want to make the point very strongly that the federal government is acting, and is acting quickly. Under previous governments absolutely nothing would have happened. We would not have heard about these circumstances because Labor never wanted us to hear about them. They were not interested in improving the industry. They wanted to ignore the problems, and they hoped that, by ignoring them, they would just go away. That was their policy: `We'll just ignore them. They'll go away and nobody will be the wiser.' But this is not the approach of this government, as we have seen in the amendments before us today. They are a wonderful demonstration of the commitment this government has to caring for the elderly residents of our society. The most important things for us to consider are the health and wellbeing of older Australians. It is essential that the frail members of our society and their families have confidence in the aged care system, and particularly in the facilities that they are in.The electorate of Petrie has a very high number of nursing homes. I think the scenic beauty of the place has a lot to do with that. The member for Longman sits beside me: there are many scenic parts of his electorate. But I must boast of our beautiful peninsula. Clearly, the reason for the high number of people in nursing homes in my electorate is the water: people like to retire to enjoy the sea breezes and the beautiful peninsula views. So nursing home issues are of paramount importance in the electorate of Petrie. I am highly aware of the huge needs of the ageing population that we have there, and I am very pleased that these reforms will benefit not only the people of Petrie but also other Australians and their families.But the most important thing I like about what has been happening in the area of aged care is choice. The previous ALP government's record in this was absolutely appalling. They overlooked the fact that older Australians preferred to stay in their own homes, and people were not given choice. Within the area of aged care, older Australians have the choice of going into nursing homes or participating in community based care provided by residential aged care providers. In the past few years I have attended a number of community based forums where community and home care issues were raised. Yes, we do need to have a good standard of aged care facilities, but people much prefer to stay in their homes. The Blue Nurses and other community organisations are providing that at-home care. It is wonderful to see that people can stay in their homes as long as possible.One of the things I do want to highlight is the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report, Community care packages in Australia 1998-1999: a statistical overview. This shows that there has been a 37 per cent increase in the number of community care packages. This government has delivered an increase of 20,000 community aged care packages, compared with Labor's paltry effort of 4,400. In the two years since the period covered by this report, a further 22,000 aged care places have been made available, and this number includes 12,000 community aged care packages. The provision of both community and residential places delivers a great benefit to Australians and their families. There is nothing like staying in your own home as long as possible.Just in the last few weeks the minister has also announced the provision of 54 Commonwealth Carelink centres across the electorate, which will provide a single point of contact for the benefit of older Australians. These centres provide access for health professionals, general practitioners, carers and individuals to a range of agencies providing community care services. Quite often those aged members of our community like to access these services but do not know how to access them. Here will be a single point of reference where they will be able to go.These centres will hold a range of information relating to services, contacts, eligibility criteria and information relating to fees associated with these services. Over $32 million has been allocated to fund these centres, and they will greatly improve people's ability to access community care facilities such as HACC. This is another new initiative of this government that cares about aged people—unlike the member for Lilley; all he is interested in doing is scaring the aged community. Nowhere before has any government done as much for the health and aged care industry as this government has done. We care about older people. We care about providing the best possible services for them and ensuring that they have dignity both in their homes and in aged care facilities. The amendments here today are a good start. I know that they will provide much needed regulation, particularly in areas where directors and nursing home providers have not done the right thing. They are very sensible measures, and they will ensure that providers who are not complying with standards will risk action from sanctions or from the Federal Court. These are very practical and sensible provisions, and I know that they will help older Australians and their families have much more confidence in their chosen aged care facilities. It is unfortunate that it has taken terrible situations in previous nursing homes for them to come to the fore, but I know that we will now have a legislative framework that will ensure that older Australians can stay in facilities. We will have a situation where directors will be removed if they do the wrong thing. I commend the amendments and I also commend the minister for the fine work that she has done in setting up accreditations and ensuring that the industry is of the highest possible standard.11:56:0021243O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—When I sat down to work on this speech I started typing out the words: `This bill is important, because we have an obligation to the frail and elderly, as some of the most vulnerable people in our community.' I stopped and I thought, `I've heard that line so many times before; surely I can come up with something that sums up the situation better.' But I do not think you can. What else can you say when you consider our most important obligation to these people in the community. To ensure that those people who have participated and contributed so much over the years have access to quality care when they need it most is a responsibility for communities and for governments. It is a responsibility that we in the ALP take very seriously, which is why we have watched the events in aged care facilities over the last few years with such concern. No-one can deny that kerosene baths and gangrenous wounds have tarnished the reputation of the industry. Unfortunately, there are small areas of the industry that have done much to damage aged care standards and community perceptions of those standards. The Minister for Aged Care, in my opinion, has not acted in a manner to dispel community concerns.I am very fortunate that the homes in my constituency—and, I think you would agree, in yours, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick—on the whole have very high standards. In fact, most Australian homes have. But those standards are due to the dedication and commitment of providers and not to government action. You cannot have an aged care system which relies on people just choosing to do the right thing; you must legislate so the right thing is the only mechanism possible. You must force the minority of rogue providers to maintain standards. Only when you do this can you fully contribute to a culture of trust of aged care by those people who will utilise it. In Tasmania, as I have said, we have been fortunate to enjoy a high standard of care. We must ensure that the public have confidence when they make decisions about the futures of their loved ones.The Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000 seeks to introduce two technical amendments to the Aged Care Act. The ALP will not be opposing this bill, despite our belief that it does not go far enough. We have foreshadowed that we will be moving amendments in the Senate that reflect community concerns regarding the aged care industry, and these concerns are unfortunately widespread. The bill seeks to increase the flexibility of the provision of sanctions and add provisions on the suitability of personnel. What the bill does not do is address the shortage of nursing home beds and the demand on waiting lists, the failure to implement effective surprise inspections, ineffective sanctions which permit substandard care to continue, the Commonwealth Ombudsman's report regarding problems with the complaints resolution scheme, and the failure of the government to adopt its own recommendations into nursing home funding identified in its inquiry. The present government have not done a lot to ensure community confidence. When they came to office they repeatedly made spurious claims that they would be forced to clean up a mess in aged care. We were firmly and disingenuously reminded that this mess was Labor's legacy. I will not take the House's time today looking at the legacy that we inherited or the work that we did to improve aged care. If members are interested I refer them to the independent assessment compiled in 1995.What I do want to point out today is what the current government has done with aged care. In 1996 the then minister was saying that the government needed to act and act now. We are now in a position where by January 2001 all aged care facilities will have to be accredited to the Commonwealth standards. This should have been a realistic target, but there was a nine-month delay in the Minister for Aged Care implementing accreditation and the agency now have an obligation to visit 3,000 facilities before the deadline. If the minister had got her act together and finalised the fee structure when the opportunity presented itself in December 1998, accreditation could have commenced. Understand that the Labor Party fully supports accreditation of aged care facilities as a measure of protection for frail aged people. However, the implementation of this government's accreditation scheme has been appalling and has done nothing to inspire confidence in the community or the industry. Due to the minister's delay in implementing accreditation, we are now facing a crisis in many regions. If the minister had ensured that the accreditation process was implemented correctly, we would not have such a rush to accredit facilities and we would not have reports, as we did yesterday, of yet another serious breach.Under questioning yesterday the minister admitted that unregistered assessors have been included on assessment teams. This means that all affected facilities will have to undergo their assessment again. This is a serious waste of resources and yet another demonstration of the minister's inability to implement her own systems. Despite the government's predictions that only 33 per cent of facilities would gain the highest level of accreditation of three years we now find that 97 per cent are in fact granted this level. This is of great concern in the face of the fact that five of these high level facilities that received a three-year accreditation have now had their accreditation revoked due to their failure to meet basic care standards. Within months of being told that they would not be reassessed for three years these homes' standards had dropped to an appalling level.The accreditation process does not mean the government can shirk their responsibility for inspections. We can clearly see the minister's reluctance to ensure that all nursing homes are inspected and care standards are monitored in that it was not until February of this year, after pressure from Labor, that the first surprise inspection was finally carried out. And what a surprise it must have been, being the first one in three years of the government's system. How many elderly residents were vulnerable and unprotected during these years when the government were supposedly acting quickly to clean up their identified mess?Due to the government's bungling of the accreditation implementation 3,000 aged care facilities need to be accredited before the January 2001 deadline. This means that even the meagre amount of surprise inspections that are done will be reduced to allocate resources to accreditation. In the 10 months since the accreditation process began, just two per cent of facilities were inspected, leaving the residents of the other 98 per cent of aged care facilities without protection. Inspections are a vital part of monitoring standards and they work well with the accreditation process. One method cannot cancel out the other. Accreditation occurs with a week's notice. They do not take the unsuspecting provider by surprise. Surprise inspections are vital so that the community can be sure of the constant level of care provided in facilities. Those facilities that provide consistent high level care have no need to fear them. In fact identifying the rogues in the industry ensures the integrity of those facilities. How is the community to have confidence if the minister only ordered the first surprise inspection because the ALP and the media forced her to? My concern about standards, though, is not limited only to the investigation area. The sanctions imposed under the government's system do not provide protection to ageing members of our community. If the government wanted to protect residents of aged care facilities, it would impose sanctions that actually meant something. The current sanctions imposed on nursing homes, where there is an immediate risk to the health and safety of residents, do not guarantee immediate improvements or removal of the risk to residents. This year has seen a stream of media reports citing examples of nursing homes that have had multiple sanctions applied to them but where weeks later—not just days but weeks later—no action has been taken and residents are still at risk.Sanctions are worthless if they do not protect elderly residents. While I could sadly point to numerous examples, let us look at the case that has been raised in the parliament this week—that of The Oaks Nursing Home in South Australia. It was not inspected for three years and when an inspection finally occurred residents were identified as being at serious risk. A report dated 21 September was submitted. The government's system identifies that the provider has three weeks to appoint someone of their choice to advise on care, but 6 October came with no such appointment. The government's system allows an environment which has been identified as putting elderly Australians at serious risk of injury or death to be left for three weeks. As the minister well knows, a lot can happen in three weeks. We know because we remember Riverside Nursing Home.This brings me to the minor amendments included in the bill. The first involves increasing the flexibility regarding sanction implementation. This was a need very much highlighted by the Riverside Nursing Home case. As members will recall, the residents and families of Riverside Nursing Home had no notice of the evacuation. I am sure we all remember the distressing scenes that played out on our televisions. This measure will allow homes that are to be closed to have a progressive closure or winding back to allow families to take the time to be involved in the identification of new facilities. This can be a difficult and time consuming process. What worries me and others on this side of the House is the lack of any special provision to ensure that the rights and wellbeing of residents are adequately protected during this process. This is a vital issue as we will be dealing with homes that have already displayed a level of disregard for residents and that may be in a position of trying to maximise profits in the final stages.The second amendment deals with an ability to introduce provisions to monitor suitability of providers and key personnel in the operation of nursing homes. The Commonwealth Ombudsman's report on the complaint resolution scheme noted that the government had in the past identified providers with serious suitability risks, such as fraud, and failed to act upon them, despite having the power to do so. The government does not seem keen to take the responsibility due to it for monitoring such a standard and seems to expect providers to confess to their unsuitability. Further, it now wants homes themselves to be responsible for the suitability of key personnel. I believe the minister should be the one taking responsibility for this issue.Another distressing failure on the part of the minister is her unwillingness to act upon the Commonwealth Ombudsman's report into the Aged Care Complaints Resolution Scheme. This scheme is thoroughly damned in the report. Some of the problems identified are a failure to identify and pursue serious complaints, a lack of guidance and training given to complaints officers, a lack of impartiality on the part of complaints officers, poor record keeping and a lack of surprise visits when investigating complaints. What does the minister do when faced with these terrible facts? Does she implement the recommendations in order to protect elderly residents? No, she appoints a National Commissioner for Complaints and then fails to define what he will do or what powers he will have. This deflection does nothing to address the findings of the Ombudsman and yet again leaves the frail aged without an adequate complaints mechanism. The minister is not only unwilling to listen to the Commonwealth Ombudsman but also unwilling to implement the recommendations of the government's own inquiry into the funding of nursing homes. The recommendations of the Productivity Commission have been ignored. The government has chosen to continue with a policy of coalescence, which was described by the Productivity Commission as `inadequate and inappropriate'. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, coalescence is certainly not good news for our home state. While the increase in funding to Queensland under this process was needed, there is nothing equal about the policy.Tasmanian homes will suffer a real cut to aged care subsidies. If the government had not introduced coalescence, and you calculate a 1.4 per cent indexation of subsidies, you will find that Tasmanian homes will effectively have their subsidies frozen. By the 2006-07 financial year Tasmania should have received a subsidy of $124.07 a day at resident classification scale 1. With the introduction of coalescence, the resident classification scale 1 subsidy is $114.26 per day. The department's figures showed that from now until 2006 the RCS level 1 subsidy will increase by just 0.02 per cent per year. The minister seems to believe that every state has the same cost issues when providing aged care services. You can tell she is not from a regional area. Even the Productivity Commission has labelled this distribution of funding as `inappropriate and inequitable'.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr Brough—You can't whinge; you are from Tasmania, you get more than anyone. Do you want us to take it away from you?84SO'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE—All of the recommendations of the Productivity Commission were supported by the sector. Is the government now saying that it is going to take funding away from Tasmania in addition to what it is already taking with coalescence? We are receiving less under coalescence, and you know it. If the members opposite think the government should take away even more money from Tasmania than it is currently taking away with coalescence, then just go ahead with it and see how well you do at the next election—about as well as you did last time. All the recommendations of the Productivity Commission were supported by the sector. The government has chosen to ignore them.Labor supports the suggestion of a privacy commission that involves the establishment of a national benchmark of care from which funding could be derived. It is a mechanism that would go a long way to addressing the concerns in the community about care standards.The government refuses to address the critical problem of a lack of nursing home beds. In the electorate of Bass, 12.9 per cent of people are over the age of 65, which is higher than the national average of 12 per cent. Waiting lists are growing. In my electorate of Bass, there are close to 200 people waiting for a high need or low need placement in a nursing home. Many have been waiting hundreds of days. The distress that this causes both the elderly person and their family is immeasurable.The reality that the government will not face is that, with an ageing population and a growing number of people needing residential care, a significant number of additional beds needs to be allocated just to maintain current levels of service. It must be remembered that, whilst beds are allocated in Tasmania, many are still in the planning stage and therefore not currently in use. Reports indicate that even when these beds are online we will still not have the beds that are required.Before I conclude my remarks I want to draw attention to one of the outcomes of perceived problems in aged care. In Tasmania, many homes have spoken to me about the difficulty of attracting staff. This appears to be because aged care is not seen as critical care. This is not true, as anyone who has ever had contact with aged care facilities would know. My concern is that, due to the poor image of aged care this government has allowed to continue by not implementing effective monitoring, aged care is portrayed as an unsavoury, difficult work environment. The longer the minister fails to address community concerns the worse the image becomes. This reflects badly on those homes that are doing the right thing by their residents and places them in a difficult position both in the community and in their ability to attract staff. These are the consequences of government inaction on this issue. The government must act to achieve two things: firstly, to allow those good facilities to operate without continued poor media and, secondly, to ensure that the standards of care are consistent through appropriate mechanisms of ongoing assessment, including surprise visits. Surely the government sees that it has an obligation to ensure that dignity and quality of life are not compromised as people age. As a society we have a right to expect that our elderly will be treated with respect, dignity and compassion. We have a right to expect that our ageing relatives will be able to access the care and support they require when they require it. We have a right to expect that our government will be genuinely committed to protecting vulnerable members of our community and that the minister responsible for the provision of this service will show respect and compassion for people who require residential care. We have a right to expect an aged care system that allows people to be afforded a high quality of life and the dignity and respect they deserve. The Howard government's aged care system is yet to ensure these rights.Labor will be supporting this bill, although we shall be moving amendments in the Senate. We will support it because the issue of aged care is important and any effort to make improvements must be grasped. It is, however, more than just disappointing that the implementation contained in this bill provides so few changes when the scope for change is so large.12:11:0021247Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I will start by referring to the Minister for Aged Care. It has been my experience in working with the minister that the minister is indeed very much switched on to the needs and concerns of frail older Australians. Any requests I have put or suggestions I have made to the minister have been acted on promptly, and what the minister is doing in a very difficult portfolio is certainly something that she and the government can be proud of. There have been some very public difficulties with aged care. The member for Bass referred in her speech to the poor image of aged care. I do not see that in my own electorate in Townsville and Thuringowa. I do not see that at all. In fact, my nursing homes get quite appalled at some of the shenanigans that go on and how these things are blown up out of all proportion. It reflects quite badly on the opposition in many cases. When matters that the aged care industry know about, know what they mean and know how they are put in context are used by the opposition to make some kind of political point, they know it is not in the interests of older Australians. The opposition does itself great damage when they get into the trivia of these sorts of things. When I visit the Villa McAuley facility run by the Catholic Church, the Good Shepherd facility, the Masonic Home in Kirwan, Loreto Nursing Home, the Garden Settlement and so on, there is no doubt that the staff are caring, kind and committed to the job they do, and they jealously guard what they do as being of proper service to people in the twilight of their lives who need proper care. That is the view of the government as well, of course. It is also the view of the opposition, and that should continue.In relation to inspections and the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency, some claims have been made in the parliament today about there being not enough surprise inspections. That is a matter that I took to the minister, and it is a matter that was very satisfactorily addressed. We will see by the end of the year that very substantial inspection programs will have been carried out. There is no doubt that there have to be quality checks, and those quality checks are in place. They will be there on an independent basis. I can assure anyone who might be concerned that the government is determined to make sure that the process works as it should. The amendments to the Aged Care Act which parliament is considering today will bring about further reform. I was pleased to hear the member for Bass say that the opposition will be supporting the government's position, albeit with some amendments that will be debated in the Senate. These amendments will give more powers to the Department of Health and Aged Care over providers who cannot or will not comply with the act. They may be small in number, but, as happens in all walks of life and in all matters of government endeavour, you always get one or two dubious people. These amendments give the department and the agency the powers that are needed to make sure that these sorts of people are weeded out quick smart.This bill enables notice to be given to residents and to relatives when the approved provider of a residential aged care service faces possible withdrawal of approved provider status, revocation of places and evacuation of residents. This includes staged revocation of places as they become vacant. With these amendments, the coalition government is addressing community concerns over the treatment of senior Australians by aged care providers in their care. The government has responded to mistreatment by providers which has evoked recent public concern over such treatment. The bill also enables action to remove key personnel of approved residential aged care providers who have been convicted of an indictable offence or who are, in fact, of unsound mind. I think that is perfectly reasonable.Senior Australians are valuable members of our community. As such, their carers must treat them with the same respect as they would treat their parents. I believe that, if a provider has had a significant criminal problem in the past or is proven to be suffering from a mental illness, then they are unfit to care for our frail aged Australians. The bill is designed to give more powers to the department over providers who do not or cannot comply with the Aged Care Act, and it focuses on the interests and protection of frail aged residents in aged care facilities. Such providers will have their actions closely scrutinised by the department. It will certainly be a very effective watchdog in the aged care industry. Such powers will make it increasingly difficult for providers to offer substandard care for elderly residents.This bill represents further progressive reforms in aged care by the Howard government. The appointment of the Commissioner for Complaints and the program of random spot checks will tighten the grip on providers who negligently put their senior residents at risk. However, this bill introduces a range of additional options in dealing with aged care providers and their treatment of elderly residents. Particular measures introduced in the bill which I am pleased to see are: the option for the deferral of sanctions under the Aged Care Act; various measures including those dealing with the removal of a disqualified individual; and the introduction of certain offences where a person who is a member of the management team is a disqualified person and what might happen there.The coalition government has worked tirelessly to deliver better services for senior Australians. I certainly have those in my home city. The facilities at the Good Shepherd Nursing Home in Annandale, near Townsville, are just outstanding and the care and compassion shown by the staff are terrific. I have seen that in other aged care facilities in my home city, and I believe that that care and compassion will continue. It was announced in this year's budget that over $11 million would be spent over four years to allow the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency and the Department of Health and Aged Care to monitor and investigate issues relating to care standards. That money is being put in to make sure that services are delivered in the way that we all expect them to be delivered. The government is serious about getting ineffective aged care providers out of the industry through their removal as residential aged care providers. I think the introduction of the certification scheme will go a long way towards that aim. So far, I understand that 98.5 per cent of facilities have passed certification, and government policies are working. In closing, I note that the government is developing a National Strategy for an Ageing Australia. Some of its initiatives include: promotion in, and information to, the Australian community of the likely impacts and possible responses to population ageing—it is something we all have to be mindful of; the impacts of healthy ageing, attitude, lifestyle and community support, which are all designed to create world-class care; and the redress of community concerns and the advice to government on short-, medium- and long-term policy responses to population ageing as part of a coordinated national framework. I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in support of this bill. I think that, once this goes through the parliament and we see it implemented, it will go a long way to satisfying the concerns and improving the quality of care that we give to our older Australians.12:22:0021249Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—This Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000 is catch-up legislation. It is hard to find any other issue where this government has been so widely criticised by the general public than in its aged care policies. From the time the government announced its intention to charge up-front accommodation bonds for people seeking to enter nursing homes and then the Prime Minister's backdown on this issue due to public outrage, through to the more recent scandals concerning the Riverside and Kenilworth private nursing homes amongst others, the government's aged care policies have been in total disarray. It is not possible to differentiate one aspect of aged care policy from another because they are complementary to each other. Whether we are talking about residential aged care or community based care, financial accountability or accommodation standards or medical care, they all lead in the one direction, which is to ensure that adequate aged care services for our elderly citizens are available. Specifically, this bill gives more power to the Department of Health and Aged Care over providers who cannot or will not comply with the act. The question that needs to be asked is: will this prevent the mistreatment of our elderly citizens in nursing homes or will this be like shutting the gate after the horse has bolted? This bill is also designed to require notice to be given to residents and relatives when the approved provider of a residential aged care service faces a withdrawal of approved provider status, the revocation of places or the evacuation of residents. One would think the notification of residents and their families would be not only a simple common courtesy but also standard practice. Unfortunately, this seems not to be the case. I feel that just giving notice in such circumstances is rather insufficient action. What should happen is that the disqualified provider should be required to find and arrange the transfer of people affected into an approved residence at their company's expense.This bill also enables action to be taken to remove key personnel of the approved provider of a residential aged care service where that person has been convicted of an indictable offence, is of unsound mind or has become bankrupt. This of course is an appropriate step to take in such circumstances. But, in speaking with a number of people who work in this industry, an interesting point has been raised in relation to this clause dealing with the removal of a person because of an indictable offence. The questions posed were: how long ago, and what type of indictable offence would be covered by this provision? These are both interesting points. Will a minor transgression, say, 40 years ago in somebody's younger years prevent him or her from working in a nursing home today? It is certainly a question that needs answering and needs some further clarification by the government. I believe that the commercial aspect of a privately run aged care facility will always raise the possibility of corners being cut to maximise profits. On a recent visit to the Qantas air base in Sydney on a committee hearing, I noticed the Moran private jet parked alongside the Packer private jet and the Tom Cruise-Nicole Kidman private jet, and I wondered about the excessive profits being made by operators of privately run aged care facilities. I ask the question: would not the general public be better served by the government providing more assistance for not-for-profit providers of aged care facilities, such as the Mayflower aged care centre and Southern Cross Homes—both of which operate very efficient aged care facilities in Western Sydney—than by the government lining the pockets of private providers? This bill will introduce a range of sanctions available to the Department of Health and Aged Care when dealing with nursing homes that do not or will not meet the standards demanded by the Aged Care Act 1997. I will not catalogue the many horror stories that we have heard relating to nursing home neglect. There is no need to go into the graphic details regarding the kerosene baths, festering gangrenous wounds, malnutrition and drugs being forced on patients against their will; but this is all part of the scene under this government's aged care policy. The newspapers and television have been rife with such stories, and honourable members need only access the newspaper clippings on the parliamentary database to acquaint themselves with these details. These horror stories that we hear are symptomatic of what is wrong with the system of aged care in this country. The neglect we hear about in the newspapers has been mirrored by the neglect that the Minister for Aged Care has shown to her portfolio. She is quick to take the kudos for the positive programs that have come out of her department, such as the Senior Australian of the Year awards—which are excellent awards—yet she refuses to take any of the blame when these horror stories appear. The department has fallen down on a number of occasions, but it seems that the buck stops just a little short of the minister. She can only be associated with good news stories, not bad news. Well, Minister, I am afraid it does not work that way. If you want to take the good, you must also take the bad, and in this portfolio there is certainly plenty of that.The measures contained in this bill seem sensible enough, so sensible that it raises the question: why were they not introduced previously? It seems the minister only reacts when the disgraceful state of some of our nursing homes is splashed across the newspapers and televisions. That, of course, is what this bill is about—a reaction. I doubt if we would have seen this legislation had the Riverside scandal not come to light. The bungling and ineptitude shown by the minister during that particular crisis showed up the shortfalls in her own legislation, and now she has to fix it or at the very least be seen to be doing something to fix it.To demonstrate just how reactionary this minister is, we only have to look back to 15 February this year, an infamous day in this minister's history. It was on this day that the newspaper reports appeared that not one—not one—surprise visit to any nursing home in this country had taken place in over two years to check on standards. Later that day, the minister ordered spot checks. One wonders how long the minister would have continued to do nothing had these newspaper articles not appeared. Even if inadequacies are found, this government still stands impotently by. I would like to quote from an article from the Age of Friday, 22 September entitled `Nursing homes face penalties'. It stated:A Melbourne nursing home classified as posing a “severe” risk to residents has had stiff new penalties imposed by the Federal Government after it failed to take satisfactory remedial action.On 24 March this year, the Kenilworth home was found to be substandard. The department imposed its first sanctions against that home. It went tut-tut at the home. It must have worked! The home did nothing to rectify the situation. The department subsequently imposed two more sanctions at various times. It wagged its finger at the home then gave the home a severe finger-wagging. This obviously jolted the home into inactivity. The newspaper article was describing the fourth set of sanctions imposed by the government since 24 March. The article went on:The Kenilworth Private Nursing Home, in Ivanhoe, has had five bed licences revoked and been invited to participate in urgent discussions with the Department of Health and Aged Care.They have been invited to participate in discussions. I bet they are quaking in their boots about that! This is a nursing home that has been classified as posing a `severe' risk to residents and has had four separate sets of sanctions imposed on it and it has only now been invited to participate in discussions. How hollow! It has lost the licence on five beds. Well, at least five seniors will be saved; but what about the rest of the residents? What happens to them while these discussions are taking place? After the tut-tutting, the finger-wagging and the severe finger-wagging comes the slap on the back of the wrist. What next for those nursing homes that ignore the standard of care set down by this government? The situation is simply not good enough. How long will it take for the government to act? While I applaud the recognition of senior Australians for their valuable community service, neither I nor other members on this side of the House will stand by while forgotten seniors in our community are forced to live in substandard and dangerous facilities while the government watches on and does next to nothing about it. The deadline for nursing homes to become accredited is rapidly approaching, but that deadline is creating problems and concerns. There is a very real fear that the department will not have finished with all the nursing homes and many will not be up to standard by then and therefore must close. On the one hand, this is a good thing because it means there will not be any substandard homes around. On the other hand, this will create a massive shortfall of beds in the industry where there is already a chronic undersupply of beds available. Members on this side of the House have on several occasions indicated the exact figure of the shortfall of beds in the health care industry. So it is a horrible catch-22 situation: close down those homes that do not make the grade and create massive problems of elderly residents being turfed out, or allow substandard homes to remain open, thus making a mockery of the legislation and the standards that it imposes.What is the point of setting standards and deadlines if the government itself sanctions the breaking of both? I have said that it may create a chronic shortfall in the number of beds available; but what is sad is that there already is a chronic shortage and it is getting worse every day. There are now fewer beds per 1,000 people aged over 70 than there were when this minister took office. I think we should dwell on those particular figures—there are now fewer beds per 1,000 people aged 70 and over than there were when this minister took office. The other fear is that many substandard homes are being passed as fit just to meet the deadline so the department can move on to the really bad cases. I acknowledge that this is a no-win situation for the minister—it is a very difficult area that the government has to come to grips with—her department, the industry and, most importantly, all the residents of the nursing homes that will be affected by this. But a simple slap on the wrist and an invitation to discuss the problem over a cup of tea and biscuits are not the solution. They are not nearly enough. More has to be done. A national effort has to be made to get these nursing homes that are currently substandard up to par.I indicated earlier in my speech that you cannot simply look at one aspect of aged care policy and ignore the rest. There is a linkage between all elements of aged care. I have previously written to the minister about insufficient community packages for the Blacktown local government area that I represent. Community care packages are planned and coordinated packages of community care designed to help people with complex care needs to remain living in their own homes. I advised the minister that the chief executive officer of the Mayflower Aged Care Centre had raised with me the need for increasing aged care packages in the general or English-speaking-background category. The lack of such packages places an enormous load on residential aged care facilities. I am advised that over the last four years, at least up to the current round of applications which closed in August, when the department advertised for expressions of interest to take up a new allocation of packages only ethnic specific packages were available. While there is certainly a need for ethnic specific community care packages, particularly in the area that I represent where we have possibly over 140 different nationalities, we cannot ignore the other aspect of it—that there is also an urgent need for ESB packages. As I have indicated, applications for a new allocation of community care packages are now with the department and providers are anxiously awaiting the outcome of their submissions. I will also be very interested when these announcements are made. I think the minister's response to opposition questions on aged care also leaves a lot to be desired. The member for Lilley, Mr Swan, indicated that he had some concerns in this particular area. On Monday, the minister was asked a question by the member for Lilley and she commenced her answer by insinuating that he should not be in parliament but rather giving evidence before the Queensland CJC. XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPMr Anthony—Probably a good suggestion.MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—This bit of political point scoring, which is still going on at the moment, naturally brought a smile to the face of some of the government members, while the Prime Minister himself nearly fell off his chair in amusement. I am sure that the people of this country would be extremely concerned that government members from the PM down accepted that opposition questions about aged care should be treated in such a cavalier manner. There is a time for point scoring, and I do not think a question about the neglect of the elderly in aged care facilities is such a time, Minister, particularly with your government's record.I will conclude with a few final points. This bill is a start but a start only. It does not go far enough and it does not address many of the other problems that are emerging in this important area. A sign of just how civilised a nation is is the manner in which it treats its elderly and infirm. Sadly, under this minister we seem to be slipping. Labor will be moving amendments to this legislation in the Senate in order to better home in and focus on the legislation. The government will do well to examine these amendments and not simply dismiss them out of hand. On this issue no-one has all the answers and, given past results in this area, the government needs all the help that it can get. The care of our elderly is an area of national concern. The elderly in our community have contributed to the fabric of our culture over their entire lives, helping to create the very country that we live in. They deserve a better deal than this government is offering; they deserve a better minister than the one currently occupying the position.I will make another point. Of all the areas of concern that people have been coming to see their local members in their electoral offices about in the past few years, certainly aged care has been one of the most prominent. Only recently, people have come in saying that they have had elderly relatives, such as mothers, removed from local aged care facilities and put into the local hospital. There seems then to be an argument about the condition of these elderly people: did their condition arise in a nursing home or did it occur in hospital? That particular argument seems to be going backwards and forwards. This is a particular case I have in my electorate at the moment, and I know that the relatives of this person have made the appropriate complaints to the department. I am very anxious to see how the system works in practice because I think this will be a real test of the system that the government has put in place.This raises another issue: the lack of palliative care. Unfortunately, this is an extension of aged care facilities. In the particular case I am referring to there was no palliative care place available for the person. Unfortunately, her condition was such that she needed that particular type of care. I understand that, as an extension of the Blacktown Hospital, the Mount Druitt Hospital does have excellent palliative care facilities, but at the same time there do not appear to be sufficient places available. As I indicated, you cannot just look at one aspect of aged care and say that that needs to be fixed up; you have to look at all aspects of aged care from community based through to palliative care. Hopefully, the government will see fit to introduce additional finance to enable organisations—and I am a strong supporter of not-for-profit organisations—to provide care for our older citizens.12:41:0021253Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise today to speak on the Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000. While Labor does not oppose this bill, we are concerned about what it is lacking, and I would like to address those issues now. The two technical changes in the Aged Care Act will help clear up the problems of families receiving little or no notice when an aged care facility shuts down and will change the regulations surrounding the suitability of the key personnel that are employed by providers at a nursing home. The first amendment provides greater flexibility in the imposition of sanctions allowing residents and families more warning time that evacuations such as the closure of the Riverside Nursing Home are about to occur. However, the government has not provided any special powers to ensure that proper care for patients is maintained when a nursing home is progressively closed over a period of time. This allows the disgruntled provider that is being shut down to abrogate the standard of care without any fear of punitive action. Remember: the fact that they are being closed is probably because they cannot be trusted with resident care in the first place. The second amendment relates to background checks of providers to test their suitability to run a home. Ironically, the minister already has the power to revoke a provider's approval if it is proved they should not be operating nursing homes. Until now, the government has been reluctant to exercise these powers, despite media reports about one particular operator convicted of a fraud remaining in charge of a nursing home. The amendments will put the onus on providers to vet key personnel for their suitability whilst still leaving providers themselves to self-regulate rather than be monitored directly by the government.I now turn to some broader comments about this government's mismanagement of the aged care sector. In March of this year I placed a series of questions on notice which took more than 60 days to be answered by the minister. After having brought this matter to the attention of the Speaker of the House, I received what I would consider an unsatisfactory response from the federal Minister for Aged Care, Bronwyn Bishop, to the questions on the state of nursing homes in my electorate. The minister provided no information in relation to complaints lodged about nursing homes, and questions about the funding they were likely to receive in the future were not answered. After the recent turmoil in nursing homes, I would have thought the minister would have taken these questions more seriously. Probably the most disappointing information that was finally provided by the minister was that there were absolutely no spot checks done in nursing homes in my electorate. In fact, until 14 February this year, the government's system had not conducted one surprise inspection in two years—not one! Whilst the majority of nursing homes are run by honourable people with dedicated staff, I think it is important that there is regular monitoring of standards of care. Indeed, those I speak to in the industry actually want this to occur so that they can say that they have been spot checked and that they are providing a reputable service. The only way to ensure accountability in this delicate area is to have regular spot checks. All companies or agencies that are the recipients of such huge public funding must be subject to checks: where is our money going; how is our money being spent? In the case of aged care this is even more important as we are dealing with the lives of the most vulnerable people in the community—older Australians. What I did finally find out from the minister was that there are 862 aged care beds in Chisholm. This number will need to be increased in a short period of time as suburbs like Box Hill, Burwood, Oakleigh and Clayton continue to be home to many aged residents, and the City of Whitehorse is expecting a shortage of nursing home beds in the immediate future. Twenty-three per cent of residents in my electorate are aged 65 and over and have very real and immediate needs for retirement villages, hostel care and nursing homes. Their needs are unmet both in my electorate and across the country. Twenty-one per cent of residents in my electorate of Chisholm are aged between 50 and 65, meaning that they are in the baby boomer bracket and will need high quality aged care facilities in the next 10 to 20 years. So that means 44 per cent of residents in my electorate—close to half—are in a position where aged care facilities will be an issue for them in the coming years. The shortage of beds is a growing problem. Despite the claim by the minister of a big increase in this current allocation round, there has not been one extra high care bed allocated in metropolitan Melbourne—not one. In the eastern metropolitan region, which covers the eastern part of my electorate, 20 per cent of patients have an unmet need for a bed for up to three months. This is up from five per cent for 1997-98. In the southern area, which covers another part of my electorate, waiting lists for high care places have jumped from three per cent to 14 per cent in the same period. I am sure I do not have to tell members on both sides what an incredible long period of time three months is to wait for a patient aged 80 years and over, probably suffering from a string of medical complaints which can deteriorate enormously during that three-month period. For the families of the patients anxiously awaiting a high care bed, that wait just increases the unbearable stress they are already experiencing. Anyone who has a relative waiting for a nursing home bed knows that this is true.Recently one of my staff has had to spend a week rotating with other members of his family to sit by his grandmother, who suffers from dementia, in a hospital bed to make sure that she did not wander off. The hospital had to take to restraining her in a chair, a totally unacceptable situation for all concerned; it placed a great deal of stress on my staff member and his family. In addition to the stress this causes families, it also puts stress on our public hospital system, as older patients are housed in beds for much longer than is needed while they wait for a place in a nursing home. This in turn means that other patients are not gaining access to the public hospital beds. This probably will only continue to worsen unless this government continues to acknowledge the enormous need there is out there for additional places. Of course, this is expensive and, yes, the costs will only rise. But it really comes back to the fundamental point: what do people pay taxes for, if they are to be denied quick access to quality care in the twilight of their years?Another issue I would like to touch upon is the bungled accreditation process. Labor supports a rigorous accreditation process and a tightening of the process of monitoring aged care providers. By delaying implementation by nine months in 1999, many places will simply not achieve accreditation in time for the 1 January 2001 deadline. This will leave the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency with just 16 months to accredit all 3,000 aged care facilities. It is now feared that inspectors have been diverted from monitoring standards into rushing accreditations. This has meant that just two per cent of facilities have been inspected by the agency since accreditation started, leaving 2,900 facilities without any checks. This neglect is occurring in an era that has seen unprecedented public concern over the state of nursing homes and their standards of care.Whilst facilities are visited during the accreditation process, this is not the same as a surprise inspection. As Labor's spokesperson on aged care, Senator Chris Evans, has pointed out, the accreditation and standards monitoring systems are complementary; the former does not replace the need for the latter. In my electorate of Chisholm I have been privileged to have been invited to present the accreditations of many nursing homes—at St Vincent de Paul homes, Oak Park Towers and numerous others—and I will actually be taking the next two weeks to perform this task again. I am happy to do this, but I am also concerned that, once you get a three-year accreditation, you will not see somebody through that facility again for the next three years. You will probably not have a spot check. As I say, many of the fantastic providers in my electorate of Chisholm actually want to have spot checks, want to be able to tell their patients and their patients' families that they are up to standard. I am satisfied at this point that these facilities do deliver high quality care to their patients, but I want to be satisfied that this continues.Labor supports the accreditation system but also ongoing monitoring of nursing homes. However, we support an accreditation system that meets reasonable deadlines and does not lead to the diversion of personnel from monitoring standards or to the usage of unregistered assessors. One of the other problems is that the government has failed to plan for any closures or disruptions to services that emanate from the accreditation process. Residents and families do not know what will happen if their nursing homes do not achieve accreditation and are closed down. Another element of the aged care system that I would like to address is the report released by the Commonwealth Ombudsman on the aged care complaints scheme. Some of the problems that the Ombudsman's report reveals were: a failure to identify and pursue serious complaints, the lack of guidance and training given to complaint officers, a breakdown in communication, a lack of impartiality on the part of the complaints officers; poor record keeping, inadequate criminal record checks and a lack of surprise inspections when investigating serious complaints. In response to this, the minister announced the appointment of a National Commissioner for Complaints and has not dealt adequately, still to this point, with these problems. We are still waiting to hear what the complaints commissioner will do and, indeed, what powers they will have.The last issue I would like to direct my comments to is the lack of effective sanctions on nursing home operators who put the wellbeing of residents at risk. There are plenty of examples of nursing homes, such as Kenilworth in Victoria, that have received four rounds of sanctions, yet it appears that the provider is still not complying with its responsibility in relation to aged care. Sanctions must actually elicit a turnaround in behaviour of a nursing home, and this does not appear to be the norm.In conclusion I would like to say several other things. The majority of the aged care dollars are provided for the most sick and frail: those over 75 years and in the last two years of their life. Only six per cent of the aged population are in nursing homes or hostels, yet this is where the majority of government funds goes. I think there will be a push for increased funding of home and community care, which will keep many older people out of residential care and in the more comfortable and familiar surroundings of their own homes. However, there will always be a need for high care, particularly as life expectancy rates increase. The longer people live, the more likely they will need to spend their final years in some form of accommodation. As the cost of advanced medical breakthroughs continues to rise, combined with the influx of people in the aged care bracket via the baby boomer generation, we will need to commit enormous funds into the aged care sector.With subsidies by the government running up to $120 a day per resident, we as a society must work out ways to meet the costs of caring for our older people. No-one can say the answer is obvious, but the government must pay much more serious attention to the issue than it has been doing, under this minister in particular. Whilst we support the general thrust of this bill, the government stands condemned for its failure to manage the accreditation system, for the lack of nursing home beds—particularly in my electorate—and for its lack of resolve to deal swiftly and appropriately with the shocking cases of neglect we have witnessed throughout this year.12:53:0021255Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I do not think any issue causes more angst within our community than that of ensuring that older Australians, those frail older Australians, have adequate care in their final years. The Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000 is reactive legislation. It seeks to amend the Aged Care Act by introducing two minor technical amendments to address flaws and inadequacies in the original legislation—amendments that many of the speakers before me have detailed. But, really, these amendments do not address the problems that are causing widespread anxiety within our community. They do not go to the core of the problems and the concerns that are gnawing at the hearts of frail older Australians and their families. It is amendments of that kind that should be being introduced here today to amend that original legislation that has failed all older Australians.The concerns that I have revolve around the shortage of nursing home beds in many regions—particularly in my own region of Shortland, the circumstances of which I will detail in a moment—which has led to growing waiting lists or waiting times for beds; the lack of surprise inspections to monitor care standards (and that has been demonstrated very visually in this parliament over some time); the bungled implementation of accreditation, which has left many residents and providers uncertain about the future of the operation of nursing homes; and ineffective sanctions, which allow substandard nursing homes to continue to operate. How will these amendments change those things? I cannot see how they will. I am also concerned about the systematic failure of the Aged Care Complaints Resolution Scheme, which has been identified in the recent Commonwealth Ombudsman's report, and the government's refusal to implement the recommendations of its own independent inquiry into nursing home funding. I submitted a question on notice to the Minister for Aged Care. As part of her answer to that question, she said: The Commission handed the final report to the Treasurer on 13 January 1999.This is the Productivity Commission's report. She continued:The Government has now authorised the release of the Report and it has been released today.That was back on 11 May. She continued:Comment will then be sought prior to a whole of Government response being made to the Report.The report was handed to the Treasurer in January, it took until May before being released and here we are now, in the middle of October, and still no action. That is just not good enough—not good enough at all. The important thing is that it is the elderly, those frail aged Australians, and their families who are being hurt by the government's inaction.The Shortland electorate, the electorate that I represent in this parliament, includes the northern part of the Central Coast and the southern part of the Hunter and Lake Macquarie area. In Shortland we are experiencing an aged care crisis—and neither the Minister for Aged Care nor the Prime Minister care. I will just give a few demographic details on Shortland. Nationally, 8.3 per cent of the population is aged over 70 years, whilst in the Shortland electorate the figure is 10.8 per cent. Shortland's population is ranked as being the 15th oldest, based on the 1996 census figures. The percentage of people over the age of 70 will increase over the years, as our population ages. So it will not get better; it can get only worse.In the Shortland electorate, there are 12 nursing homes with 586 beds and 16,716 people aged over 65. That gives a nursing home bed to person ratio of 5:28. Nationally, there are 1,490 nursing homes with 139,200 beds and 2,150,828 people over the age of 65. That gives a bed to person ratio of 4:15. Considering that over 10 per cent of the population in the Shortland electorate is over 70 years, wouldn't you agree that the number of beds that we have is very inadequate?The number of days that people have to wait for a bed—that is, the waiting time—has increased from 46 to 79 days. In 1997-98, it was 46 days in regional and rural Australia. Those were figures given at the Senate estimates. In the Hunter, we currently have a waiting time of 79 days, and that has gone up from 46 days. My question is: what figures will we have in the year 1999-2000? I can see it only getting worse, and the government is doing nothing to improve it. Not one of the amendments in this bill addresses that issue.Not only does chronic shortage cause great anxiety in elderly Australians and their families; it also impacts on our hospitals system. Whilst we have people waiting for beds in nursing homes taking up hospital beds, the waiting time for the people who need those hospital beds is increased. This blows out the waiting times and waiting lists for elective surgery and, as well as that, it causes great distress to the families and relatives of the elderly Australians who are being put in cold storage while awaiting nursing home beds.The care that elderly Australians who need nursing home beds are given in public hospitals is not the care that they need. They need to have a safe, secure environment where they are familiar with their surroundings. They do not need to be part of a hospital regime. It is just not good enough. The other aspect of people having to wait so long for nursing home beds is that, in my area, families are often threatened that if they do not take the first bed that becomes available they will be forced to go to Sydney. They have a total lack of control over what is happening in their lives—and this is one of the most difficult times of life for older people and their families. This is causing so much distress within our community, so I really feel that the government has to reassess the amendments that it has moved and come back with some other amendments that will really address the issues that are tearing at the hearts of Australians. I would now like to move to the issue of quality of care and the government's failure to address the problems being experienced in this area. When the health care complaints unit, the minister or whoever finds out that there is a problem, they are notified of the problem, yet fail to impose sanctions that ensure that the problems are addressed immediately and that the actions taken are not merely window dressing. I would like to talk a little bit about one of my constituents whom I have been working with for six to nine months. He came to see me in tears. His wife had had a stroke and had spent some time in Rankin Park hospital, where she was cared for and made dramatic improvements. Then she went to a local nursing home. I will not name the nursing home. I feel that maybe things have improved, because I have not received as many complaints about this nursing home over the last month or so. The toileting arrangements were inadequate; she was left for hours. She was covered in faeces. She was given the wrong type of food. She had a problem swallowing and she was given meat to chew. Her husband was constantly taking food in to her because the food was inadequate. There was no physiotherapy provided to her. To improve her physical condition it was very important that there be a physio present and that she have the right sort of treatment. When people she did not know came in, she would be saying, `Don't hit me, please. Please, don't hit me.' She had bruised arms showing fingerprint marks. She had a brace that should have been on her hand to improve its function, but that was not applied. There were numerous other problems.I referred the matter to the health care complaints commission. Initially I did it anonymously because the gentleman in question was worried about the treatment that his wife would have in this nursing home. But after a couple of weeks she was moved to another home, where, I might add, he is very pleased with the care that she is being given. So it is not that he is particularly fussy. The response from the first nursing home was that they had given education to the staff in October—and I might indicate the gentleman came to see me in March—and that they had had an audit of their continence program and decided that maybe the two-hourly regime that they had all of their patients on was not adequate. They reviewed it and changed it. Then we wrote again and we gave the complaints resolution commission the name of the gentleman and a mediation meeting was organised. They met with the son of the owner of the nursing home and they went through all the issues. At the end of it, I was advised that the gentleman in question was satisfied with the results. Members may imagine my surprise when I received a letter from him stating how inaccurate the report of the meeting was and how the mediation meeting had failed to meet his needs. He stated that the audit was taken in January. His wife was admitted in February. Even when she left there, nothing had changed. He had made a written complaint about one of the staff members and it was lost. Then they found it. First of all, he was told that that staff member had been sacked. Then he was told that the complaint had been lost. Finally, he was told on that day at the mediation that the person had been counselled and was doing very well.Throughout every issue that was identified at that mediation interview there were inconsistencies. So I thought, `What do you do? You send it to the Minister for Aged Care.' So on 19 July I wrote to the minister and received a response on 8 August saying that the minister had referred my letter to the department for investigation. It was now being examined and I would get a response from the minister. Here we are, 11 October. The original letter went off on 18 July, and I have still not received a response. I do not think that this is good enough. This is hardly a proactive response. It is hardly dealing with the matter as a matter of urgency. Obviously, if it takes that long for the minister or for the department to put sanctions in place, it is not working. I would like to come quickly to the issue of funding. The government's aged care reforms make a joke of the word `reform', because in actual fact they are ripping funds out of the nursing home system. If the current policies continue over the next seven years, an average 60-bed nursing home will have to reduce its staff by one person a year. That equates to poorer care for those people who are living in nursing homes. The issue of funding is so great that I have heard of one nursing home within my electorate of Shortland where there is a directive that patients not be given oxygen unless the doctor is present to give it to them. If you need oxygen, you need it quickly. But it is locked in the cupboard and the only way that the cupboard can be opened and oxygen given to the patient is if the doctor is there, and that could be too late. I am quite concerned that the government, while it is defunding nursing homes, is `funding' the telephone card excesses of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business which have cost the Australian people $50,000. The minister for workplace relations thought nothing of turning dogs on maritime workers. The Minister for Aged Care is now snatching money away from frail, aged Australians. Australian taxpayers, through the Commonwealth, contribute $40,000 a year for a nursing home bed—less than the minister for workplace relations's phone card account. Surely if the government can allocate funds to such excesses, it can show the same level of concern for the people waiting for nursing home beds in the Shortland electorate and other electorates throughout Australia. It is imperative that the Prime Minister show concern for all Australians, particularly older Australians who need the government to amend its flawed Aged Care Act. We need more money for nursing homes; we need more money to be available to help those people.The dogs are barking. They are demanding that the government put more money into nursing homes, that it at least address the issues raised by the Productivity Commission report. The people of Australia will turn the dogs on the government, just like the minister for workplace relations turned them on maritime workers, unless the government acts now.13:10:0021258Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—The Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000 seeks to bring in a number of minor amendments to the operation of the existing bill. The explanatory memorandum indicates that, in the broad, this bill gives more powers to the Department of Health and Aged Care through the secretary to the department and his or her delegates over providers who cannot or will not comply with the act. I might point out here that, in the government's great attempt to deregulate nursing homes and aged care, it has been forced—particularly through the incredibly bad incidents that occurred at the Riverside Nursing Home—to actually confront the fact that governments are still intended to be, and should be, regulators in this area of great need. Whether they want to walk away and just argue that the Moran model should be imposed on the whole of the aged care sector, whether they want to walk away from regulating that sector or whether they want to walk away from their responsibilities, the actualities of what has happened at Riverside and in other places has forced this government to make these amendments, and that needs to be clearly understood.The explanatory memorandum says it will do two other things. It enables notice to be given to residents and relatives where the approved provider of a residential aged care service faces withdrawal of approved provider status, revocation of places and evacuation of residents. We noted that in the particular instances in the past that did not happen and there was great anguish and concern caused to the families of those residents who were so affected at Riverside and elsewhere. The third thing that the explanatory memorandum points out is that this bill also enables action to require the removal of key personnel of the approved provider of a residential aged care service, being the corporate entity, where key personnel of that entity have been convicted of an indictable offence, are of unsound mind or have become bankrupt. These are minor amendments to a coalition regime that needs major amendment. Labor will not put itself in a position in which it will not support these amendments. We think they are just the minimum that needs to be done. We are aware that they address just two of the areas where a series of problems have emerged, but there are a vast number of other problems that need to be addressed. I will foreshadow, as other honourable members have, that we will be moving an amendment in the Senate to address one of the most significant areas of concern that people in the aged care sector have. Our shadow minister, Senator Chris Evans, has indicated that the proposed amendment would ensure that in cases where risks to residents are found an administrator would have to be appointed within three days. Under the current legislation the provider has up to three weeks in which to nominate and appoint an administrator. That was the case with the Riverside Nursing Home. The proposed amendment that Labor will move in the Senate would also provide clearer powers to administrators to ensure that they can improve care standards.The reason that Labor will be able, if its amendments are accepted by the government, to bring in a regime whereby you could effectively move in three days rather than in three weeks is that the amendment would seek to establish a pool of suitable administrators—those knowing and understanding the problems already in the aged care industry. Among those who are the most responsible in the industry—and, of course, they are the great charitable organisa--tions and institutions that run aged care facilities—there is a wealth of administrative experience. If this amendment is accepted—and I ask the government to look very closely at it—there could be ready and speedy implementation when an adminis-trator is needed at other nursing homes with problems similar to those of Riverside. The bill looks at two areas. It provides flexibility in terms of the implementation of sanctions, firstly, by allowing the department to provide up to 14 days notice of a closure or, secondly, by specifying that the closure can happen gradually as beds become vacant. It also takes action in terms of inappropriate personnel. Initially, I indicate that we think our amendment—and this is just one of a raft of amendments that could be made—should be looked at closely by the government and we feel it should be supported, because in a period of crisis, such as we saw with respect to the Riverside Nursing Home, people need to know that the government will regulate, act, speedily put in place an administrator and fix the problems as they become evident. I come from south-west Sydney, from the city of Bankstown. In that area of Sydney there is an underprovision of nursing home beds. There is also an underprovision of hospital services. Concomitant with that underprovision in both areas is an extended waiting time, which is getting worse in south-west Sydney, for people to take up higher care beds. Recently, the shadow minister provided me with information from the department that indicates that in south-west Sydney those times are growing longer, as they are in many other places throughout Australia. It is also a fact that in addition to waiting times increasing there have been no higher care bed allocations to my area of Bankstown. I am grateful that the Department of Health and Aged Care recently provided me with an electorate profile for New South Wales and for my electorate of Blaxland. Section C makes for very interesting reading. It underlines the underprovision in this area of Sydney. As at June 2000 there were 2.6 hospital beds per thousand head of population for the Blaxland electorate. The average for New South Wales was five hospital beds per thousand head of population and for Australia as a whole it was 4.4. That in and of itself is a problem and a difficulty for the people in my electorate and in the city of Bankstown. But that problem is not just evident here; in other areas there is chronic difficulty with respect to getting people into aged care facilities and also increased waiting times. That is because there is one place that people will go, and that is to the public hospital system. So we have an underprovision in Bankstown in respect of hospital beds. We have had a series of problems over time in terms of wards being closed down and even with the beds that exist not being available. There is an ongoing problem at the Bankstown-Lidcombe Hospital in terms of beds being taken up that could be used by people who should properly be in aged care. What do we find when we go to the even more dramatic illustration in terms of high level service nursing home beds in Blaxland as compared with the rest of New South Wales and Australia at large? In Australia at large, there are 50.9 high level service nursing home beds per thousand of population. For New South Wales, that figure is 55.3. What is it for Blaxland in south-west Sydney? It is 37.5. We are dramatically under-represented in contrast to other areas of New South Wales and Australia. That means that Blaxland is getting no nursing home provision and no allocation in this year's provision but rather is getting lower level service hostel places. In fact, Blaxland is on the average for New South Wales. It is 41.1 in Blaxland and 41.2 in New South Wales, but that is still under the Australian average of 45.5 hostel places per thousand of population. The only area in which Blaxland comes above the average is in the community aged care packages. In Blaxland that figure is 14.7 aged care places per thousand of population whereas it is 10.6 and 10.3 in New South Wales and Australia respectively.The people who deliver those community aged care packages do a tremendous job. It has been my great pleasure over the past 15 years, particularly in the past four years as a member of this parliament, to have assisted the Bankstown Frail Aged Persons Homes Trust, the Uniting Church and a number of other organisations in gaining community care packages, in gaining hostel beds and in gaining nursing home beds. However, the simple reality is that Bankstown is underprovided for. The electorate of Blaxland is also underprovided for. That places great pressure on an area which has, like the rest of Australia, an increasingly ageing population, but it is even more so in Blaxland given its profile.The minister's two slight amendments—one with regard to those who are of unsound mind, those with criminal convictions and people who are inappropriate to provide services within an aged care institution and the other that there can be an array of sanctions and a degree of flexibility with regard to it—do nothing to address the absolute deficit that the people of Blaxland face in terms of adequacy of provision in hospital beds, which are overloaded with people who should be in nursing home facilities, in hostel facilities or in general aged care facilities. The only place where they get more is through aged care packages.Over a decade and a half, I have been working in Blaxland to try to provide better aged care for people in the area. Under the Labor government, we brought in an extraordinarily effective system. It is a system which is not only targeted in terms of Commonwealth cost but also targeted in terms of the needs of the people in the community. When we came to office, the only solution people had if they became incapable of looking after themselves at home was to move into a nursing home. That was entirely inappropriate for people who were relatively fit and well compared with their peers in those nursing home places. That had a debilitating effect upon those who went into inappropriate care.Labor's three-level system, which comprised community care packages, hostel programs as well as nursing home places, had a series of great benefits. The first was that 96 per cent of the aged population remained at home. If they became somewhat disabled or found it far more difficult to live at home, they could still remain at home because of the programs we put in place. If they needed appropriate nursing care at home or assistance in the home through the Home and Community Care Program or Homecare, our program allowed the Commonwealth and state governments and nursing providers in the area to work together to ensure that people could live lives as healthy and as full as possible because assistance could be given to them in their homes.The hostel program was basically not available as a possibility for people to go to as an interim step. Of the four per cent of the population who found they could no longer take care of themselves, people could go into hostels instead of into an inappropriate nursing home. The Bankstown Frail Aged Persons Homes Trust, with four hostels throughout the city of Bankstown, has a remarkable record as a non-profit organisation providing for the needs of people in that category. How are they assisted to do that in terms of capital funding and monetary support by the federal government over time? Labor in government increased spending on hostels by 15 per cent in real terms year on year, budget after budget. The hostel program we had in March 1996, before the coalition took office, had grown exponentially because of a deliberate government policy to meet the need that was there. Growth of 15 per cent a year— year on year—in the budgetary circumstances we faced was a brave commitment but one that we followed through on, to the benefit of all those people who have enjoyed the care of the Bankstown Frail Aged Persons Homes Trust and all of the other similar hostel places throughout the whole of this Commonwealth. Another thing we did in relation to particularly charitable institutions—the Uniting Church, St Vincent de Paul and the great not-for-profit providers within the nursing home sector—was provide capital funding to rebuild their facilities. The great and continuing problem Labor had in office, identified fully in the Gregory report, was that the for-profit private nursing homes took their profit and whacked it in their pockets, instead of reinvesting it into nursing homes. It was those private providers who conducted an exercise in greed, rather than an exercise in reinvestment and investment in providing not just adequate but full nursing home care to people. That was a key problem in terms of budgetary provision. What was the solution of this aged care minister and this government? It was to make the person who ran the Moran group, the leading edge of the private industry, the principal adviser on Australia's nursing home and aged care facilities, utilise their model and spread it to the rest of the Commonwealth. The impact on the Bankstown Frail Aged Persons Homes Trust, with four separate hostel facilities and one nursing home and dementia facility in Georges Hall, was a dramatic increase in their costs. That resulted from the demand that all of those facilities have exactly the same kind of standards. From a tripartite approach of community care, hostel care where appropriate and nursing home care, this government conflated it to two levels—community care and aged care institutions. There are some people who regard that as a positive and think it is good that the future model should actually be based on that and that alone. I think there are great strengths in what we did before. In the particular area of private nursing home provision, where is the necessary budgetary funding coming from? It is coming from the pockets of the people who will be forced into using those facilities, because this government will not provide that provision. But it should have come from the private nursing home providers themselves. It should have come from them, out of the 20 years of profits they took out of this sector. What we are debating here is two minor and relatively inconsequential amendments to a bill that needs to be dramatically amended. The way to amend it chiefly is to give the flick to this coalition government and put in place a Labor government and an aged care minister who are concerned with providing the best that the Commonwealth can provide in terms of aged care. Let us bring back an aged care minister who is concerned with regulating the industry, an aged care minister who will not step aside from all responsibility in regard to the department and the legislation she is concerned with, who will not flick responsibility to anyone passing by and who will take ministerial responsibility for the deficiencies that are so utterly apparent. Just this day the shadow minister, who would make a great Minister for Aged Care—one who really does care—released a media release titled `Minister for Aged Care bungles again in breaching act'. It says:Under questioning from Labor, the Minister for Aged Care today admitted that there had been a serious breach of the Aged Care Act. There has been a clear and serious breach of the Act which requires that only trained and registered assessors will be included on accreditation assessment teams. So said Senator Chris Evans, shadow minister for the aged. What have we found in regard to this process? We have found a catalogue—a great long index—of mistakes, stumbles and purposeful or purposeless administrative errors from this minister. We have found a minister who argued that there would be on-site inspections. When we got to 15 February, we found that there had been no inspections where people had not been ready; not one person had gone in. When Labor put the hammer on Bronwyn Bishop, the Minister for Aged Care, directly after that out we went, bang, and there was an inspection. (Time expired)13:30:0021262Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—We are debating today in this Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000 some relatively inconsequential amendments that do not address the real problem of aged care in this country. The real problem for aged care in this country unfortunately is not in the chamber right now, but I dare say that when the Minister for Aged Care comes to this chamber she will postulate about the great job that this government is doing for aged care. I will quote from a newspaper later on about the sorts of games that this minister gets up to by not addressing the problem. This legislation does nothing to resolve the greatest problem in Australia today for aged care and that is the lack of beds. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you will agree with me that the greatest problem that we face as members of parliament is when the partner of a person requiring aged care or the family of a person requiring aged care visit you and ask what can be done about getting mum or dad or husband or wife into a nursing home or hostel—one that exists in the town where they have lived and reared their family and where their network, where their friends and their family are. I can tell you that, in the case of the electorate I represent, often that cannot be done. You find all too commonly that that is a trend that is increasing. It is increasing in the electorate of Paterson, because since 1996 when the Howard government came to office there has not been a single aged care bed created in that electorate. In fact, we are worse off; we are 19 beds lighter than when the Howard government came into office in 1996. But you have to sit and tell families, `I am sorry, the beds are not there.' That means that a family—a husband and wife—can be split and they end their life, their partnership, seeing one another only on that occasion when a friend or family member can take one to visit the other. Often when you are in your 80s you do not drive and if you have to travel a distance, particularly from a country town where you do not have public transport available, the opportunity to visit your loved one is indeed not a very common occurrence. That is the problem that really needs to be addressed by this minister. All her posturing is not doing one thing to resolve that problem.It is interesting to listen to the people on this side, because it would appear that for virtually all of the electorates represented by a member speaking today, the common factor is that the number of beds is less than average. Of course, I was very interested to receive an electorate profile for New South Wales—electorate number 38 of 50, the electorate of Paterson—and I thought, `This is going to be a little bit of government propaganda.' And so it is. There are pages there that are defining terms and so on, but you get down to the nitty-gritty. I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you went through yours, and I hope it gave you better news than mine gave me.When I looked through the statistics, what did I find? I found something that I knew already, and that is that the electorate of Paterson, because it is an ageing community, has a higher number of people in the age group who require aged care. We have a greater representation than the national average in the 55- to 69- and the 70-year plus age groups. But then when I had a look at the aged care facilities that were provided I found that the Paterson electorate has an average of 32.5 high care beds per 1,000. The national average is 55.3 beds per 1,000. For low care beds, the electorate has 39.4 beds per 1,000. The national average is 41.2 beds per 1,000. For community aged care packages, we have 6.4, and the national average is 10.6. The Paterson electorate is very similar to that of Gilmore in that it is spread out and there is no large conurbation that is the major part of the population but lots of smaller towns with lots of families and some excellent aged care facilities. The amazing thing is that we are debating some minor amendments about quality control. In the electorate of Paterson, we have some of the best aged care facilities that one would find anywhere in Australia. Most of the church groups and some community groups have built modern facilities, mainly thanks to Graham Richardson and the Labor Party, because they put this policy together, they developed this concept of communities having aged care facilities and they funded the beds in places such as Dungog, Gloucester, Bulahdelah, Hawks Nest and the small community of Stroud. Stroud Community Lodge is a fantastic facility that is staffed mainly by volunteers with a few professionals. Those are great facilities for the towns and great job providers. In rural areas where it is difficult—and it has been difficult for any side of politics—to create jobs, these facilities exist. They are top quality and they have waiting lists as long as your arm.Since 1996, not a single extra bed has been supplied to any one of them. Year in, year out, those facilities apply for extra beds. Can they get a bed? No. How does my electorate's average compare with the national average? I have already told members. My electorate has about 60 per cent of the national average. That is not good enough. I really want the Minister for Aged Care to come into this House and tell the people of Australia when she winds up this debate why this government is not providing additional aged care beds in areas that need them desperately—because there is a desperate shortage. I will tell members one thing that I have done. I thought that I might be able to shame this minister. I should have known better. I welcome the minister, as she is now in the chamber. Last week I put out a media release to advise the people of the Paterson electorate just how their aged care facilities and the population requiring aged care compared with the rest of Australia. Today, we got a response from both the minister and the other great postulator of this parliament who parades as the senator representing the Hunter. I always thought that senators were supposed to represent the state. But this guy—before he buzzes off to South America on Sunday—together with this minister have put out a statement with the headline `Funding boost for Hunter aged care'. I thought, `You beaut! That media release has worked. I am going to hear about another 40, 80 or 200 beds that we need to bring us up to the national average.' Did I find that on reading the article? Not one bit. What I found was a statement about some recurrent funding—something that will happen every year for aged care assessment teams.I would just like to tell the people who are listening that aged care assessment teams exist in every health care area. They go around and they assess people for their health care needs. It is a vital part of the health care industry. However, it has been ongoing; it is something that has been in existence for a long time before this minister came to office and they have been getting funding from the federal government. Yet this minister, together with Senator Tierney, has the gall to say that it is a boost for Hunter aged care. It will not create one extra bed. It will not create one extra place. All it will do is tell more people that they need to go to an aged care facility. But surprise, surprise! `We don't have any more aged care beds for you.' That is what it is about. Let me just quote from the media release. It says:Canberra hits back at claims the Paterson electorate is being denied aged care services. Aged care minister Bronwyn Bishop has announced funding of $1,159,869 for electorates—That is five electorates in the Hunter. If we divide $1,100,000 by five, we find out that we are getting about $250,000 or a bit less for an aged care assessment team. Not one bed, not one aged care package is being provided and not one extra family is being cared for by this minister and her grandstanding headline. That is the sort of insensitivity that the opposition is fighting this government about. It is fighting this government about identifying what the real problem of aged care is. This minister can stand there at the box when I am completed and postulate all she likes, but at the end of the day she will not have created one extra aged care bed in the electorate of Paterson in all the time that she has been the minister. In fact, she has overseen the decline by 19. Perhaps the minister might tell me about the 40 beds that went to the Uniting Church 12 months ago for a facility at Salamander. I am very pleased that I was talking to the Uniting Church today, and I know that they are going to start building in February. Let me go back again to bed licences that are allocated. Bed licences that are allocated and not built actually save this government about $80 per bed per day. Perhaps the minister would like to tell the people of Australia how many bed licences have been allocated with the beds not provided and what the actual saving to this government is. Three weeks ago we heard the Treasurer of this country stand up and say, `I'm the greatest Treasurer. I have delivered the greatest surplus.' The greatest surplus of what? Certainly not a surplus of services that are needed by the people of Australia, particularly the elderly! If this minister did her job she would have gone straight around to the Treasurer's door, banged on it as loudly as possible and said, `That surplus is a disgrace when we have the shortage of beds in this country that we have.'I represent an area in which there is another facility, and that is Harbourside Haven. Anyone who has holidayed in Port Stephens would know that Harbourside Haven occupies a magnificent site on the shores of Port Stephens. It is a you-beaut facility, an aged care facility that has self-care units and low care beds. I think it has about 80 low care beds and about 58 high care beds. I thought that this government was about rewarding excellence, about taking organisations that do a good job and supporting them so they can do more. Since John Howard became Prime Minister of Australia, Harbourside Haven has not had a single bed allocation.As a matter of fact, Harbourside Haven is about to open a new facility. It went to the RSL, which had a facility at Narrabeen, and bought 20 beds from it. People should be aware that if you have a licence you get a subsidy from the government to operate that bed. It bought 20 bed licences from the RSL and then said, `There is no point in building a 20-bed facility. We will go ahead and build another 26 beds that will not be licensed. We will simply have to rely on the community and say that, although those beds are there, they will be dearer because they do not attract a subsidy from the federal government. We can't get a bed licence to operate these beds.' That is one of the best aged care facilities anywhere in Australia. It cannot get a licence in an area that has about 60 per cent of the average number of facilities in Australia per thousand people. That is what this minister is administering. I invite the people who are here today listening to this to note the words of the minister, because she will be telling us what a wonderful job the government is doing. I invite them all to go back to the community and check on the state of aged care in their own community and find out from their local member how we compare with the national average. I bet that they are like virtually every other electorate and that the average is below the national average. I sincerely hope that the minister has listened to some of the things that I have said. I have noticed from her reaction that perhaps she does not believe me. I thank the minister for the electorate profile that arrived on my desk last week. I believe the department has told me the exact truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The profile has advised me and all of the people in the Paterson electorate that they are being neglected on a grand scale as far as aged care is concerned. I will be reminding them right up until the next election that they have not had a single bed licence from the Howard government. There has not been an extra aged care bed in the Paterson electorate since you have been minister, and there is not much likelihood of it happening, either; there are no buildings under construction. I am grateful to the Moran group, because as you know—and, Mr Deputy Speaker, I must apologise for not addressing my comments through you— 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I was giving you a little latitude. UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Thank you. Earlier in the year, the Moran group, which bought one of the older facilities in Raymond Terrace—the only aged care facility in Raymond Terrace—made an announcement that it was going to close the Oban Nursing Home and move the bed licences to Nelson Bay. I called a public meeting, and there was standing room only. Some 300 to 400 people were there. I congratulate James Hayman of Moran health care on overturning that decision. It has now decided—and it announced this only about three weeks ago—that it will rebuild the Oban facility and have 25 high-care beds and 25 low-care beds and that it will be a you-beaut new facility. That is the sort of thing that I support. But, unfortunately, that does not represent new beds; it represents a loss of beds. Oban originally had 69 beds and it has gone down to 50. The minister and Senator Tierney can mention that in their press releases and puff out their chests, but it represents a loss of beds and it does not represent extra care. As I said, they are the sorts of issues that we will fight on. This minister really needs to address the real problem of aged care, and that is providing more beds in areas where they are needed.13:49:0021265Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000 has been introduced to enhance the tools that will be at the disposal of the department in order to better ensure that there is good care for individuals who need aged care. About 80 per cent of our aged population do not need services. They are healthy. They live great lives. They contribute to the economy. Many of them remain in the work force. However, about seven per cent of people over the age of 70 require residential aged care. Up to another 13 per cent will perhaps require Meals on Wheels or help with housework, gardening and that sort of thing. For those people who do need residential aged care, it comes in two levels: high level care, which we used to call nursing homes, and low level care, which we used to call hostels.I noticed during debate on this bill that many members on the other side seemed to use the term `nursing home' as being synonymous with any aged care facility. It is not. It was the old meaning of high level care. With the introduction of our Ageing in Place policy, it means that, for instance, in a low level care facility where the proper infrastructure is put in place, you can indeed have a high level care resident receiving good care. So there has been a dramatic change in the way we view all care. The need for the reforms was paramount. Members from the government side, the member for Petrie in particular, mentioned the Gregory report, which of course was commissioned by the Labor Party when in office but never acted upon. The Gregory report identified that there was a massive injection required in order to refurbish the physical assets—that is, the homes themselves—to bring them up to acceptable standard.In bringing in our new reforms, we addressed the Gregory report and have provided a stream of money that will provide $1.4 billion over 10 years for refurbishment of high level care facilities. A further $1.6 billion will be provided over 10 years for the refurbishment and maintenance of low level care facilities. However, there was also the need to attack the poor standards that had been allowed to develop under previous Labor governments. They were standards where the name of the industry was poor and where it was known that bad practices were condoned and swept under the carpet. There had never been an attempt by the previous government to clean it up.In 1996 we announced our new reforms which would require all facilities to be both certified and accredited. Certification means that the building is of sufficient standard in terms of accommodation, the number of beds in rooms and the number of toilet facilities and also, importantly, that fire prevention measures are put in place. We also put in place an accreditation scheme which says that any facility which is not accredited by 31 December this year will no longer receive federal funding. The Aged Care Act 1997 gave the power to establish an Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency and for that agency to be charged with the responsibility of conducting site visits and measuring the acceptability of the service against 44 standards. The maximum accreditation period is three years, although accreditation can be given for one or two years. It was necessary for a regulation to be made to put in place a fee structure. The member for Lilley shows, by some of the figures he used, that he has a much better understanding of floating voters in safe houses than he does aged care residents in residential aged care facilities. I trust that his evidence to the CJC will be better than what he said today in his speech. VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr Griffin—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The minister is clearly irrelevant. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the honourable member. I call the minister, and of course she will be relevant to the bill. SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Absolutely relevant, Mr Deputy Speaker. I notice that the member for Lilley said that less than two per cent of aged care services across the country had been accredited. Well, 88 per cent of aged care services across the country have already had their site audits, which is the major factor in accreditation. The agency has assured me, as I have previously told the parliament, that all facilities will have gone through the accreditation process by the due date. Facilities that are at risk of not meeting the standards because they either cannot or will not meet the standards are being case managed. Those that simply cannot or will not, ultimately, we want out of the industry. Already we have seen many who simply cannot meet the new standards leave the industry. None of those beds, however, are lost. When we have a round of places, those places are in fact a free public good. We create them and we give them away for free. Subsequently, they can be traded on the open market when people want to buy additional places. To have equity in the way in which we allocate those places, we have adopted a formula that was actually established by the Labor government in 1986. That formula was that, for every population of 1,000 people aged 70 and over, there shall be 40 high care places, 50 low care places and 10 community aged care packages. Community aged care packages are very important because they allow people to have low level, hostel-like care in their own homes, where most people want to be. When we took over in 1996 there were 4,000 of those packages in existence. Today I have allocated 24,000. When we took over in 1996 the Auditor-General did an audit of the number of places that were available, measured against that standard. That audit showed that the Labor Party never met its own standard and that we were 10,000 places short across the nation. As a result, in the last two years as minister I have been responsible for allocating 22,000 places to make up the shortfall on the 10,000 and to provide for growth. UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—In Paterson today they are shorter today than when you came in. SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—I hear the interjection of the member for Paterson and I am getting ready for his apology. He said he did not get any new places. There are 71 regions across Australia. That was the case under the previous administration and that is the case under this government. For the Hunter region there are 285 high care places. You are over the national benchmark but you are short with hostel places—UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—That's the Hunter region. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The minister will address her remarks through the chair and the member for Paterson will exercise more restraint. SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—You are part of the Hunter region. Members will not be surprised to know that the planning is done not on the basis of individual members' electorates but on regions, of which there are 71 across the nation. The electorate of Paterson, which changes its boundaries from time to time—the member has a lot of angst because his seat has just become more marginal—has in fact had an additional number of low care places. These places have come to his region from the pool of 346 places and, indeed, 150 additional low care places. The member for Paterson mentioned the Oban home. The department had a concern that the facility was too small for the number of residents that were accommodated in it and that both their comfort and dignity were at risk. Therefore, the department required that it be reduced to 50 beds. However, a 60-bed facility will be developed at Bagnalls Beach, which is also in Paterson. Pending departmental approval, this plan will see two facilities developed with a total of 110 places—an increase of 42 places. I refer to the points made by members relating to the so-called delay that occurred with regard to the establishment of the fee structure for the accreditation system. This occurred for the simple reason that the Labor Party would not agree for the instrument that had to be made, which was subject to tabling and disallowance, to be passed through the Senate. So there had to be a consultation period with both the Democrats and peak groups in order that it pass through the Senate so that the process could be completed. I seek to continue my remarks after question time. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the minister will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Ministerial Arrangements2126714:00:0021267Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—May I remind the House that the Prime Minister will be absent for part of question time today as he is attending the memorial service for the late Dr David Tonkin in Adelaide. Can I also inform the House that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, the Hon. Peter Reith, will be absent from question time tomorrow to enable him to attend the funeral of his mother-in-law in Melbourne. The Minister for Employment Services, the Hon. Tony Abbott, will answer questions on his behalf on portfolio matters, and the Hon. Peter McGauran will be Acting Leader of the House.Questions Without Notice212672126714:01:0021267Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business.5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—Reith the rorter!PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Indeed, a relevant interjection.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has the call and will move to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—It was a good interjection, though, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—There is no such thing.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Minister, can you confirm that thousands of small business operators with annual incomes of less than $50,000 who mistakenly registered for the GST but were not aware that they did so will be forced to pay the Australian Taxation Office one-eleventh of their income earned between 1 July and 30 September? Minister, why should you be forgiven your telecard mistake when you will not forgive the innocent mistakes of others, even though it might cost some their livelihoods? Minister, why is there one rule for your indiscretions and another for honest small business operators?21267Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I cannot confirm the proposition in respect of those who have registered under $50,000, but I will certainly make inquiries and advise you accordingly and as appropriate.2126714:02:0021267Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister explain to the House the government's commitment, announced by the Prime Minister, to address the problems of salinity and water quality in our river systems? What benefits will there be for ongoing productivity in Australian agricultural industries? How will rural communities and the whole of Australia benefit from this action plan?21267Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for Mallee for what is a very important question and builds on the nationally significant announcement made yesterday by the Prime Minister of a new $1.4 billion program to address salinity and water quality issues. The member for Mallee is amongst the many members in this place who live with the issues of salinity and water quality all the time. He is in a very productive electorate, one which is providing a great deal of leadership in the way in which water can be used wisely and well to extend production in a sustainable way. This action plan has the potential to mobilise the community to address issues which are of great significance to all Australians. There are many communities already where there is evidence of the damage that can be caused by salinity, and they are not all in rural Australia; there are many examples also where urban salinity is a significant issue and where the problems need to be addressed. At last we have a government that is prepared to take a positive step and to provide the leadership to help mobilise the states and local communities towards a nationally coordinated plan of action. I welcome the generally supportive response from the community. Indeed, we even had a press release from the Leader of the Opposition which was warmer than we usually get, but of course Labor would have done it differently. They always have a different approach that they would have taken. There are some concerns in the community about the different approach that Labor would choose to adopt. They make it clear that, as far as they are concerned, they would tell the states what to do. They would tie any government contributions to abiding by a plan developed by Canberra. There would be no avenues for local consultation and no capacity to address and mobilise the issues at the local level. I think that demonstrates one of the very clear differences between our approach to these vital issues and Labor's. Labor believe in the big stick. They believe in attempting to belt people around the ears and particularly demand that states sign up irrespectively. We acknowledge that one size does not fit all. The issues are vastly different. From the Murray-Darling to North Queensland, salinity issues are at different stages in many places. There are large parts of Queensland where salinity is not an issue at all, but of course that does not mean that appropriate care should not be taken in the future. Our action plan is not antidevelopment; it is about ensuring that development is sustainable and that we use our water wisely and well.As a result of this strategy, we have the opportunity to mobilise communities through local action plans and the development of specific endeavours to ensure that water quality is maintained throughout the nation and we address some of the degradation issues associated with salinity. This is a major initiative. I welcome the cooperative response that we have had from many of the states, and I hope that the opposition will drop its negativity and seek to work cooperatively with land-holders, not seek to strip away their rights, as so often happens, or in Queensland and New South Wales take away the rights of land-holders without any compensation. We recognise there will be some costs associated with a strategy of this nature, and they have to be met by the whole community. Our approach is different from Labor's. We will achieve real outcomes; Labor will just continue to argue and achieve absolutely nothing to redress these major national concerns.2126814:06:0021268Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Community Services. Are you aware that Centrelink's official policy in relation to social security debts is `all debts incurred must be repaid'? Are you also aware that families receiving family tax benefit payments from Centrelink who are found to have inadvertently underestimated their income by as little as $1 a week are required to pay back every cent of that overpayment? Are you further aware that the average debt raised against families in receipt of family payments is currently around $1,000? Minister, why do you have a zero tolerance approach when it comes to Centrelink overpayments to struggling families when your government allows a minister to pay just two per cent of the bill for the misuse of his telephone card?8H4Hawker, David, MPMr Hawker—Mr Speaker, I would ask you to rule that question out of order. That question asks the minister about an area for which he has no responsibility.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Wannon raises a point of order, but the question included a preamble which invited the minister to comment on a number of areas that are of his portfolio responsibility. 21269Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—Centrelink and the government have introduced a number of measures to try and get more compliance and to get more accuracy of payments. Of course, that is what taxpayers demand. As far as Centrelink is concerned, over one-third of the budget goes out in social security payments. With the family payments, we have introduced a policy of full reconciliation. That means that we are encouraging those receiving social security payments, and particularly family assistance, to ensure that they declare to Centrelink their correct earnings. This means that, for the first time, as at the end of this financial year, those individuals and those families—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPXJ6Mr ANTHONY—The Leader of the Opposition may choose to listen to this. Those families that overestimate their income for the first time will be able to have a top-up payment to ensure that they get their correct entitlement. Why should we not be encouraging families to get their correct entitlement? Under these changes, for the first time, they will be able to receive more if they have overestimated their income. This is a measure that we have introduced. The important point is that there have been enormous increases to families—over $2.4 billion in family assistance, something that you never provided—and very generous savings bonuses that go towards older Australians, which you never provided when you introduced wholesale sales taxes and failed to give tax cuts.2126914:10:0021269Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Would the minister inform the House of the economic and conservation benefits that will arise out of the government's major salinity and water quality initiative—in particular, what benefits will accrue to the Murray-Darling river system? Is the minister aware of any criticism of this initiative or of any alternative proposals?21269Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The Commonwealth government has announced some wonderful initiatives and I thank the member for Ballarat for his continuing interest and, particularly, for the representations he has made to me on behalf of the problems associated with the Avoca catchment. The Commonwealth's announcement of a salinity action plan is just that: a plan for action that will maximise both economic and ecological gains for our nation. In the area of South Australia and the city of Adelaide, it will maintain a very important resource for that city in terms of its water supplies. It will do so by initiating a national effort at the Commonwealth, state and community levels by utilising already available data research and new Commonwealth government agency initiatives arising from research introducing aerial magnetic data information from enhanced analysis, which I call the `ultrasound' of the earth. This, in conjunction with other known information, allows us to now identify the locality of salt, the quantities that are in the soil, the depth at which it is in the soil and, where it is in a stream, the direction of flow.Suddenly, we have a planning tool that will give us the opportunity to be very surgical in our approach to this problem. A classic example already discovered is the Haughligan Creek, accredited with delivering some 13 tonnes of salt a day into the Murrumbidgee system from a surface flow. The new technology has identified that the real villain is 40 metres below the ground, and that salt is eventually intersecting with the surface river. At 40 metres, a reafforestation project would have no benefit whatsoever, and we must of course revert to engineering solutions already practised in the Riverland of South Australia, where we intercept such salt flows with pumps and other activity and pump it to evaporation ponds, where even that salt can be turned into an economic benefit. The whole background to this policy is to bring the economy and the ecology together. These sorts of solutions are very important.In terms of the Murray-Darling, suggestions that wide scale reafforestation would fix the problem overlook the scientific fact that we would achieve a 20 per cent reduction in freshwater surface flows to that river system from those reafforested areas. So that would have downside effects in Adelaide and in the great Murray irrigation areas. In other words, the Howard government is doing its homework and will propose outcomes the development of which it is prepared to support financially. It now seeks the support and involvement of the constitutional land managers, the states, to confront this problem in a joint effort. Most state governments have responded positively, but one has not. Premier Beattie has felt obliged to refer in the paper to this very positive, well-planned, well-documented commitment as a `stunt'. When it comes to stunts, there is no greater expert than Premier Beattie—in fact, he is a gold medal performer. The fact is that it is time that Premier Beattie got out of the make-up room and got into the engine room of his state. It is time that he took some responsibility for what happens. Premier Beattie still thinks a forest product is a ballot paper or an Electoral Commission white card! The reality is that he has done nothing in an environmental sense. What happens every time he is asked to address the environment in Queensland? Does he do what other state governments have done—get on with the job? No, he comes running down here and says, `If you don't give me the money, I won't do it.' New South Wales did not take that position on land clearing. Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia did not think that was necessary. Why does Mr Beattie always have to avoid his responsibility by trying to lay the blame elsewhere? At last, when he gets the opportunity to join with the Commonwealth in an arrangement where there will be substantial Commonwealth funding, what does he do? He calls it a stunt. He only understands politics; he does not understand the environmental management of his state. It is time he gave the people an opportunity to make a change. But there is a bit of a problem: let's sort out the electoral rolls first.2127014:15:0021270Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. Minister, can you confirm that a veteran who contacts the Department of Veterans' Affairs about an unusual payment and is reassured that the payment is correct is required to repay the amount in full if they are subsequently told, within a month and a half, that the payment was wrong after all? Minister, given that Minister Reith is not being required to repay his $50,000 telecard debt in full, how is it fair that a veteran in the circumstances I have described is required to pay for someone else's error?21270Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I am not quite sure about the issue that the member for Cowan is raising. If he has had a representation from a veteran in relation to an overpayment where the mistake has been made by my department, he should make that representation to my office. If he is genuinely interested in the welfare of veterans in this country, rather than turning them into a political football he would make representation to my office. I would also remind the House that, as many would be aware, we have one of the most, if not the most, generous repatriation systems in the world.83REdwards, Graham, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Cowan has asked his question. The minister has the call.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—I remind the other side of the House that, as I have said in this House before, my door is always open for representations on behalf of the very special people of our country—the veterans and war widows.83REdwards, Graham, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Cowan!83REdwards, Graham, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Cowan, for the third time! 84CThompson, Cameron, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Blair!AV5Quick, Harry, MPMr Quick—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I ask you to ask the honourable member to withdraw that unseemly and unparliamentary comment he just made about the honourable member. OK6Nairn, Gary, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Eden-Monaro! The chair does not require your assistance. The member for Franklin was referring to the member for Blair, I presume. I did not hear what the member for Blair said. If he said something that was uncharitable to another member, I ask him to withdraw. But I did not hear what he said.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Did the member for Blair make an unparliamentary remark?84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr Cameron Thompson—No, I didn't, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I accept that.AV5Quick, Harry, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Franklin! The member for Franklin is aware that he has acted outside of the standing orders.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order under standing order 76. I think it is uncharitable for the member for Cowan to have been calling the minister a fraud, and I would ask him to withdraw that imputation83ZIrwin, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler will find herself no longer in the parliament! The House will come to order! I did hear the comments made by the member for Cowan. His comments were not of themselves unparliamentary; they were uncharitable. I have accepted on face value, as I always do the word of members, that the member for Blair did not make an unparliamentary remark. The member for Franklin responded in an uncharacteristic way, and I have asked him to desist.2127114:20:0021271Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of recent surveys in relation to business confidence? What does this indicate about the underlying strength of the Australian economy?21271Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for McEwen for her question. I can inform her that recent surveys of business confidence in Australia show that business confidence remains strong, consistent with a strongly growing economy. The most recent of those is the national survey, which was released yesterday, saying that, notwithstanding that business conditions were down, business confidence was strongly up. That confirms the outcome from the national accounts in June this year showing that, for the 13th consecutive quarter, the Australian economy grew above four per cent, a record of growth which has not been matched since we took measurements in Australia. There have been periods where there has been higher growth followed by credit squeezes or recessions—or, in the case of the Labor Party, the recession it said Australia had to have!—but we have not had growth above four per cent for 13 consecutive quarters. As the world economy strengthens, I expect that will also strengthen Australia's exports, making sure that they contribute to growth in forthcoming quarters.The productivity improvement in Australia has also been very strong, with multifactor productivity in Australia growing throughout the 1990s faster than in the United States—something that is not commonly understood. So we have a high growth, low inflation, high productivity economy. I have seen some claims that the all-ordinaries index in Australia does not have a substantial share of market capitalisation in the so-called new economy stocks. Can I say that measuring new economy stocks in the all-ordinaries index to include telecommunications, media and technology shows that the percentage in those stocks—which was two per cent in 1990—is now, in the year 2000, at 32 per cent.In addition, I can inform the member for McEwen that Merrill Lynch recently released a global ranking system designed to estimate growth potential of economies around the world. It ranked Australia third out of 35 countries with growth potential—third after Sweden and Singapore—narrowly beating the United States into fourth place. The OECD found recently in its report on the science, technology and industry outlook:... small OECD countries—Australia, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, the Netherlands and Norway— have all undertaken a broad programme of structural reform which has improved the business climate, strengthened competition, pushed firms to improve performance and enabled innovation and growth to flourish.There have been structural reforms in the economy, together with our openness to new technology and the reforms in industrial relations. I pay tribute to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business for having the courage to push through landmark reform on the waterfront—this landmark reform on the waterfront now being hailed by Premier Bob Carr, the Labor Premier of New South Wales, for lifting productivity on the waterfront. It is the lift of the productivity potential, it is the leadership that is shown by ministers such as the minister for workplace relations and it is the leadership in relation to taxation that are going to give Australia the growth opportunities. One thing you can say about the last decade is that young kids have a much better chance of getting a job under a coalition government than they ever had under the Labor Party. We intend to give them a better future.2127214:25:0021272Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. It follows directly on from the previous answer by the Treasurer. Minister, do you recall your many statements during the waterfront dispute justifying the mass sacking of 2,000 Australian workers because they were alleged to be rorters, including your statement on 23 September 1997 accusing waterfront workers of `rorting the system day in and day out at the expense of the vast bulk of the Australian population'? Do you also recall claiming in parliament on 10 March 1998 that those workers were rorting the system because they sought a wage claim of $90 a week? Given that unauthorised use of your telecard has cost the taxpayer an average of $192 per week over five years, don't you deserve to be treated just the same as the waterside workers?21272Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Members might remember that on the waterfront we had the practice of double headers. Double headers meant that if a ship—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne was granted a good deal of licence in asking the question and will be courteous enough to hear the answer. WI4Mr REITH—was not stevedored in one period of time, then the arrangement was that you would have to finish the stevedoring in the second shift. It was widely acknowledged—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Like, if you didn't have your telecard, someone else—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Deputy Leader of the Opposition!WI4Mr REITH—that the system then operating on the waterfront—CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Burke!WI4Mr REITH—was that people would go slow on one shift so they could get onto the double header.DT4Crean, Simon, MPCE4O'Keefe, Neil, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have already mentioned courtesy to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The minister has the call, and the member for Burke has been warned for the second time.WI4Mr REITH—On those double headers you would be paid double time and a half for the whole of the shift, even though you had timed it so that it would only take you an hour or so to finish and you could thereby achieve double time and a half for the whole eight or nine hour shift. No-one, apart from the Labor Party, thought that that was a fair deal. Furthermore, the people who were involved in that knew exactly what was happening. It was public knowledge.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition!WI4Mr REITH—In respect of the usage of my telecard, the fact is that I did not know. And the reason I did not know is the previous Labor government put in place a system that I did not know. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPWI4Mr REITH—The Leader of the Opposition interjects and says we put that system in place for privacy reasons.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—No, from you.WI4Mr REITH—You claim it was from us, okay.PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition! The minister has the call.WI4Mr REITH—I do not see that as a matter of dispute. No-one in this House would quibble with the idea that there should be privacy arrangements made in respect of people's telephone calls. If you are in the Labor Party and somebody gets access to all of the telephone calls you have made for a preselection faction contest, that would be a matter of political embarrassment.I do not make that statement as some sort of cheap political point on my behalf as an accusation, but it is the fact. The fact is that none of us knew—not one person in this chamber knew what their telecard account was. Like most people, as you can imagine, I was pretty surprised when they rang up and said there had been this massive use of my telecard. The simple reason for that is not only was I not told but on the public record the senators and members handbook was telling us that we would be told. Because I never used my telecard—basically had stopped using it—I was perfectly entitled, as every other member in this House would be entitled, to assume that, if they were not telling you when they said they would tell you if you were using it, then obviously I got no information, therefore I knew nothing about it.It is said that I paid back two per cent—that is the Labor claim in the Senate. The fact is that I sat down with the Department of Finance and Administration and they went through every account. For those accounts that were related to me and/or my son I paid back 100 per cent. That was done by me and at the same time I said that I believed the police ought to come in and investigate the matter. So the very simple answer to this matter is that I was not informed until August last year and when I was so informed I acted properly and ensured that people were properly informed as to all the circumstances, as I knew them. The government then properly followed the processes already put in place.2127314:31:0021273Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Will the minister advise the House about recent calls for the passage of legislation to reform non-government school funding? Is the minister aware of any threats to school budgets for next year?21273Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his question. With little more than 10 weeks to go now until the end of the school year Labor still has no position on the schools funding legislation in the Senate. Commonwealth funding for all schools dries up on 31 December. Unless the Senate passes the legislation without delay schools are going to face serious budgetary difficulties. An open letter has been sent to all senators urging quick passage of the legislation. The letter says:The bill is a significant reform and a fairer and more valid measure of need than the present ERI scheme.It goes on to say:Any further delays in the passage of the bill would certainly cause serious problems for the more than 2,500 non-government schools that have no funding certainty beyond December this year. It is therefore important for this bill to be passed quickly, and the undersigned organisations seek assurance from all senators that the bill will pass through the Senate as soon as possible.That letter is signed by the Most Reverend Goodhew, the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, on behalf of the Anglican Church of Australia, the Reverend Professor James Haire on behalf of the Uniting Church of Australia, Peter Crimmins on behalf of the Australian Association of Christian Schools, Dr Bruce Yulden on behalf of the Seventh Day Adventist schools; Adrian Jericho on behalf of the Lutheran schools, signatories for the Rudolf Steiner Schools Association of Heads of Independent Schools, and the NCISA. Not only have all the leaders of the Protestant churches in Australia written to the Senate requesting immediate passage of the legislation; the bill also has the endorsement of the National Catholic Education Commission and all the Australian Catholic bishops. Only the Labor Party says that this bill is unfair. It is time for the leader of the Labor Party to exercise some leadership and determine what the Labor Party's position actually is on the bill. Yesterday the member for Dobell said:The opposition moved amendments in the House of Representatives debate and will be moving amendments in the Senate.But today the Australian reports that:A spokesman for opposition leader Kim Beazley said yesterday the Labor Party had not decided on how or whether it would seek to amend the bill.So we have the usual typical policy confusion in the ranks of the Labor Party. It is so dedicated to misrepresenting this legislation that it has isolated itself from all the Australian churches on this matter of educational equity. No-one believes the position. The Labor Party, through the Leader of the Opposition, tries to defend a discredited, politically corrupt funding system which has been abandoned by everybody else in the non-government sector. It is time for this weak Leader of the Opposition to decide what the Labor Party's position is on the bill and get his colleagues in the Senate to pass it as soon as possible.2127414:36:0021274Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Are you aware that the category 1 school attended by Minister Reith, Brighton Grammar, will get an extra $900,000 a year under the government's new schools funding system? How can you claim your new system is fair when there are 472 other private schools, including Westernport Christian School in the electorate of Flinders, whose annual increase under the government's new funding system is less than the minister's phone bill of $50,000?21274Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—Let me make it clear—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The minister has the call. As members on my left are aware, corporate interruption obliges the occupier of the chair to issue a general warning. I never consider that to be an awfully fair action to take, but if I am left without choice, clearly, that is what I will do. I call for those on my left to exercise a little more courtesy. BT4Dr KEMP—There is no-one I know who has worked harder to advance the cause of low fee Christian schools, particularly in Victoria, than the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. This question is all about the Labor Party's theme today of double standards. There are no double standards on this side of the House. If we wanted examples of double standards, they may be seen in the fact that the leaders of the Labor Party—from Bob Hawke to Paul Keating to Kim Beazley to Simon Crean—all sent or send their children to private schools, whose fees they want to put up out of the reach of ordinary Australians and the people who are entitled to educational choice. That is an example of double standards—pursuing a policy which is designed to push school fees up out of the reach of ordinary Australians while they access those schools themselves. Let us have no more cant and hypocrisy from you on that side of the House.2127414:39:0021274Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, would you inform the House of the latest data on the uptake of Australian workplace agreements and are you aware of any support for further reform to the Workplace Relations Act?21274Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Makin for her question. I know that she will be very pleased to hear, as other members on this side will be, that we are seeing an ever increasing usage of the Australian workplace agreement, which is a form of agreement introduced by this government back in 1996 and which, importantly, gives people choice at work—whether an employee or employer—as to how they settle their arrangements. During September we had 5,534 AWAs filed and 5,529 approved, bringing to an all time record high the quarter figures for the volume of AWAs filed and approved. AWAs are working; they are increasingly being taken up by the community in the business sector. The number of AWAs approved in the first nine months of this year is 52 per cent higher than the corresponding period in 1999. Whilst the numbers are of importance and, obviously, of interest, the other point to make is that people have a choice. It is not a question of the numbers; it is just the fact that we believe workers and employers ought to have a choice about how they go about running their own businesses.I am also pleased to be able to say that we introduced a form of collective agreement, which is called a 170LK. That form of collective agreement is not with the union but with the workers directly. The Labor Party talk about collective bargaining, but their idea of a collective bargain is all the workers being told what to do by the unions. It is certainly never the idea of the rank and file of the workers themselves getting together and collectively bargaining. We introduced that system. It is another choice we gave people. As at 30 June this year there have been 2,177 of those agreements, covering approximately 197,000 workers. When you put those two forms of agreement together, we are talking about well in excess of 300,000—probably 320,000—people who have had the benefit of a new system that we have introduced.Looking forward and seeing the continuing growth of AWAs and the non-union collective agreements, then we would think that, as at August of this year, there could have been in excess of 467,400 employees covered by both sorts of agreement. I mention that figure of nearly half a million employees because if the Labor Party are ever elected and get their way then those half a million employees will have a basic choice denied to them because the Labor Party do not like people making agreements without the union bosses dictating the outcome. These agreements have meant that people have enjoyed higher pay, more flexible arrangements and family friendly arrangements. It is part of a modern work force that employers and employees should be able to make these arrangements.Why is this important? There has recently been a very interesting survey by the Business Council of Australia. They asked their CEOs what they thought about the need for further reform in the area of workplace relations. Ninety-one per cent of these chief executives said they wanted to see further reform but, more importantly for the community as a whole, their view was that such reforms could deliver a 20 per cent improvement in business performance across Australia. Think of the increase in living standards for ordinary workers that we could have if we could get that sort of improvement in the business community.We have made a lot of reforms but, as these business leaders are saying, the opportunity costs of the system, its limiting act on the art of the possible and its capacity to obstruct, deter and delay change, innovation and improvement are basically holding the system back. They are absolutely right, and what is the Labor Party's policy? Not only are they not looking forward, their policy is to go back to a system Australia discarded in the 1970s. It was a system that even the Labor Party discarded. Now, of course, it is policy for the Labor Party if they are elected. The people who will miss out if Labor's policy were ever enacted are the very rank and file people they claim to represent. We are determined to continue reforms because this means a better deal, particularly for the workers.2127514:45:0021275Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Finance and Administration. When were you first advised of the potential fraud against the taxpayer involving Minister Reith's breach of his telecard entitlement? Given that it was your department which conducted the initial investigation, when did you, your office, your department or your junior minister first advise the Prime Minister, his office or his department of the matter? 21276Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The Leader of the Opposition has asked me when I was first advised of a matter relating to an unusual amount occurring on the telecard of one of my colleagues. I was informed of that in April this year. I can further inform the House that the Special Minister of State, who has responsibility under the administrative orders for these areas of members' ministerial and parliamentary services, was informed of it in August last year. At that time, my colleague the minister for workplace relations, as he has informed the House, also became aware of it. At that time, as is the normal process, an extensive investigation was instigated by the department of finance. That investigation into the numerous calls that related to that account—it involved over 11,000 calls made from several hundred different locations—was undertaken by the internal audit committee, and subsequently referred to a senior departmental committee that is established in the normal course of events for such matters that may involve irregularities.Those matters were then canvassed with the minister for workplace relations in April and early May this year. The initiative was then taken by the minister for workplace relations—at least, with the concurrence of the minister for workplace relations; I believe at his request—to refer the matter to the Attorney-General for further investigation by the police. Those investigations are still going on. I believe the matter was brought by my colleague to the attention of the Prime Minister—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Why not you?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition!HQ5Mr FAHEY—when there was sufficient information from the extensive investigations that were being conducted by the Special Minister of State. I think all members would appreciate that there is an extensive amount of work that had to be conducted that was carried out diligently by the department, and matters were then progressed, as the House has been informed quite extensively over the last two days.2127614:48:0021276Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. Would the minister inform the House of the need for a modern communications sector in Australia? Is the minister aware of alternative views on this issue?21276McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the member for Grey for his question and his interest in this subject of telecommunications. The honourable member knows well, as do the Labor Party—not least of all the Leader of the Opposition—that Telstra's present state is untenable. After all, they are briefing the media and, indeed, some of the board members of merchant banks that that is the case. We know the Leader of the Opposition supports the privatisation of Telstra. He has a track record on this. We have the evidence of Frank Blount and others, which I will come to in a moment. The Leader of the Opposition's position on Telstra is the same as his position on the GST. He once opposed the GST; he now supports it. With private health insurance, once he passionately, totally, obsessively opposed it; now he supports it. It will be the same with funding for non-government schools. He is presently opposing it; but we have already got a sense that he is going to end up supporting it. He will do the same flip-flop on Telstra as he has on all those other matters. Frank Blount, the former head of Telstra, let the cat out of the bag when he told the Age last year that, before he took the job, he came out to Australia and he attended a meeting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I raise a point of order. Mr Speaker, you would recollect that I have given a personal explanation in this parliament in which I pointed out that Frank Blount had denied that any such conversation had taken place.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition is aware that he cannot give a personal explanation on behalf of Mr Blount. The Leader of the Opposition is aware that, under the standing orders, I will, of course, always hear where members have been misrepresented, but members cannot indicate where someone else has been misrepresented. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Leader of the Opposition was misrepresented by this minister, because he directly said that the Leader of the Opposition supports the sale of Telstra and presumed to predicate it on the assumption of this false report. Standing order 76 makes it very clear that you cannot so misrepresent and page 476 of House of Representatives Practice says that it is unparliamentary to impute false motives to a member of parliament. It is absolutely out of order to be doing and saying those things which he is doing, and you should sit him down right now.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—There he is!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has run out of grace!CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—The minister is referring to a matter which is on the public record, which was reported in the Age. Since time immemorial, ministers have stood at this dispatch box and referred to matters which are on the public record. This new doctrine that, if there is some matter on the public record that is embarrassing to the Leader of the Opposition, it can be kept out of the parliament is not only a new doctrine but one that would turn around the practice of this House for decades. I ask you to rule the point of order out of order.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, further to that point of order: the matter which I was referring to was a statement by Mr Blount subsequent to that report. He was quizzed directly on this matter by an Adelaide radio station, in which Mr Blount—Government members interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—This is part of my personal explanation. Mr Blount denied any such conversation with me at any point in time, as indeed I have had Mr Blount deny that to me directly.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has made his point and will now resume his seat.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—That was part of that personal explanation which he is now ignoring.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The chair was listening closely to the answer given by the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation. The chair does not believe that it has an obligation to protect the reputations of those outside of the chamber. It was at that point that the Leader of the Opposition intervened. I will continue to listen to the response of the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, and I will stand by the obligation I have to protect the reputations of those who occupy seats in this chamber.XH4Mr McGAURAN—Let everyone in this chamber be the judge. The Leader of the Opposition was minister for communications in 1991 and was about to appoint the most senior executive of the largest agency or business enterprise within his control. The prime candidate came out to Australia to test the water because, he said, `I wasn't going to go to Australia just to be the CEO of a company owned 100 per cent by government. I was all about trying to explore this with the government, with the minister of the day, with the head of the department of communications.' He came out to test the water. He tells us that he had a confidential meeting before his appointment, before he made up his mind, but he declines to say who the politician was. The minister for communications at the time was the current Leader of the Opposition. We also know from the Business Review Weekly article of 21 December 1988 that you were present at a meeting with Paul Keating when he offered John Prescott, head of BHP, the opportunity to buy Telstra. You were there. I do not see any denial now. You were there when Paul Keating—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will address his remarks through the chair.XH4Mr McGAURAN—You were there when Paul Keating offered to privatise Telstra in September 1995. Look at him. He is not denying it. You were part and parcel of the Labor Party's—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister, the chair has never enjoyed as close a relationship with the former Prime Minister as you suggest. You will address your remarks through the chair. XH4Mr McGAURAN—Thank you, Mr Speaker. So the Leader of the Opposition was up to his neck in the previous Labor government's attempts to sell Telstra. We also know from the book by Mark Westfield that the Labor Party offered Telstra to the National Australia Bank. You were flogging it to whoever would possibly even consider the idea. You were part of it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will address his remarks through the chair.XH4Mr McGAURAN—The Leader of the Opposition never attempted to dissuade the Prime Minister or the cabinet of the day from exploring the options, any more than he is dissuading the shadow minister for finance now. The Leader of the Opposition does not have the courage of his convictions. He is completely without ticker.2127814:56:0021278Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Given Minister Reith's own admission that he improperly allowed the use of a Commonwealth entitlement in breach of the relevant guideline, which has led to a $50,000 loss to the taxpayer, I ask: why won't you require the minister to immediately repay the $50,000 which has been lost to the taxpayer?21278Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The circumstances of the incurring of that $50,000 are, I am advised, the subject of a police investigation. I have not seen the outcome of that and, until I have seen the outcome of that, I do not think it is appropriate to make any judgment of the type that the Leader of the Opposition has made. I think it is quite unreasonable and highly political. Let's get one thing plain: nothing the opposition has said to date is based on principle; it is based on politics—politics pure and simple. The only other thing I would add is that there have been no limitations placed on the police investi-gation. The police have the right to investi-gate the conduct of the minister, the conduct of the minister's son and the conduct of any other people who may have been involved in this matter. In those circum-stances, to try to pre-empt the outcome of that investigation is plain absolute politick-ing and nothing else and is not based on any principles.2127814:57:0021278Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Is the minister aware that the United States has decided to increase the annual intake for temporary residents in the high tech industries? Would the minister inform the House whether Australia's Temporary Residence Program remains competitive for Australian employers needing to fill similar jobs?21278Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the honourable member for Fadden for his question because he does invite attention to a very interesting development in the context of migration to the United States of America. It is a matter about which there could be some useful observations in relation to policy approaches that are taken here. In that context, I do acknowledge that on 3 October the United States agreed to increase the number of temporary visas granted to skilled workers to 195,000 in each of the next three years. The legislation, like a lot of these things, was the subject of some debate and discussion. It is, however, the case that, unlike the United States of America, Australia has had a competitive approach in relation to gaining IT workers, in particular, through flexible temporary entry arrangements. Unlike the United States of America, we do not impose a numerical cap on the number of people who meet the skills criteria, in other words, who have the capacity to provide the skills that we need here in Australia in the very important IT area.Of course, in doing this, the government is responding to the needs of Australian business, and IT workers now make up the largest occupational group under our temporary entry arrangements. Since those streamlined temporary residence arrangements were introduced four years ago, there has been a 38 per cent increase in the number of business long stay visas granted. Under these arrangements, it is important that people are aware that we have a streamlined approach which is accommodating to business needs; we have labour market agreements with employers to bring in an agreed number of workers over a three-year period; and, unlike the United States of America and a number of other countries, Australia provides work rights to spouses of temporary business entrants. One of the other new factors in the United States has been the streamlining of access to permanent residency. In this they are emulating the model that we have here in Australia. In the past 12 months we have made a number of further changes to encourage the migration of young people with skills in demand, particularly by easing the tests in relation to labour market assessment as well as work experience, and we have now enabled the awarding of additional points to those whose occupations are on the high demand list. Further—and I commend the member for La Trobe for this—we have also made it easier for those overseas students who have gained skills in these areas in Australia to be able to access both temporary and permanent entry categories here in Australia, and I will be making some further announcements in relation to that shortly.What fascinates me in relation to others who think about policy approaches in this area is that the Labor Party in particular, having played a prominent role in developing the temporary entry regime through the commissioning of the Roach report—that report was initiated by a Labor government—at its national conference in Hobart flagged that it intends to roll back the temporary entry arrangements. What ought to be of concern to businesses in Australia that want to enhance what we are told we ought to call the knowledge nation is that the Labor Party wants to deprive Australian businesses of the skills of people—6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—I've never said that.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The honourable member says that he has not said that. I have a copy of his quote in relation to this matter. When he talked about temporary entry at the ALP conference he said, `That is not what the Labor Party is about.' The fact is we do seek, under the arrangements we have here in Australia, to use both temporary and permanent entry for satisfying employer needs. Both systems are easily accessible and efficient and are meeting industry requirements. The fact is that the temporary entry arrangements have been the arrangements of choice by industry, by employers, in Australia, rather than the permanent entry arrangements. It is not that the capacity is not there to use it; it is. As I have said to the executive director of the Business Council on a number of occasions when we have talked about this issue and when I have reminded the council that business do not use the permanent entry arrangements, permanent entry employer nomination is primarily used for chefs and religious workers, and IT workers are the only other group that substantially use employer arrangements. So I certainly hope that the Labor Party, when it has an opportunity to sit down and think about substantial issues about where this country ought to be going, will sit down and assess again the approach that it intends to take on this aspect of migration policy.2127915:04:0021279Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall, when you were asked yesterday whether the misuse of Mr Reith's telecard was a fraud on the Commonwealth, you said: `I don't believe it is'? If you say now that it is inappropriate to make such judgments short of a completion of inquiries, on what basis did you make this pronouncement yesterday?21279Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—That was a response in relation to his conduct in providing certain details to his son. Nothing alters the fact that there is a police investigation. I have not seen the outcome of that, and I think it is appropriate to have it examined.2127915:04:0021279Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would the minister inform the House of recent reports that Australia's growing number of small shareholders are seeking greater involvement at company annual general meetings? 21280Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Boothby for his question and recognise his interest, as a member of the Hawker committee and from the work that he does there, in small shareholders. The government has helped to create a very large small-shareholding nation here in Australia, and we have done it through a number of initiatives. Obviously, the most significant initiative we have put in place is the effective halving of capital gains tax. That is an incentive for people to enter the share market for the first time. We have also abolished stamp duty on the transfer of shares, something that the Labor Party opposed root and branch. We have empowered individuals by giving them more of their money in their pocket. We have significantly decreased income tax in Australia so that individuals for the first time have a very significant incentive to invest in the Australian stock market. For the first time 300,000 everyday Australians will this year receive an invitation to attend an annual general meeting of a public company. This means that 5.7 million Australians—5.7 million Australians—who directly invest in shares will now have the opportunity to attend an annual general meeting, and at that AGM they will receive advice from company directors about the performance of their investment. Shareholders should take this opportunity to become more familiar with the workings of companies. They should ask questions about and vote on procedures that will affect the company's performance over the coming 12 months. The reporting season is also very important for all Australians who now indirectly invest in shares through their superannuation or through other managed funds, and their representatives have an obligation to vote at the AGMs as well. In fact, a Melbourne University study recently found that only 41 per cent of the shares in Australian companies were voted upon, and we would expect and hope that more Australian fund managers will be involved in voting at annual general meetings and in representing the interests of their members. This government is interested in empowering everyday Australians. We are interested in giving them an opportunity to have a say about how their money is invested and about how they are represented on the board. This is an important annual general meeting season that is coming up. The Labor Party wants to do everything it can to stop small shareholders from investing in companies, and the best evidence of that is its opposition to the further privatisation of Telstra.2128015:08:0021280Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. How is it that a major departmental investigation into fraud against the taxpayer involving a cabinet minister breaching an entitlement was not brought to your attention for nine months? When was your office first advised of this investigation and when was your department first advised of this investigation?21280Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Subject, of course with something like that, to checking again the record, my best recollection—without doing that checking—is that the first either I or my department knew about it was in May, as indicated by the minister.2128015:09:0021280Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Could the minister advise the House of the positive involvement of Centrelink in delivering the industry assistance package for cane growers? How have cane growers in my electorate benefited from this assistance?21280Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I would like to thank the member for Dawson. I know she has been a real champion when it comes to sugar growers in Queensland, along with the other members of the Sugar Task Force—the member for Kennedy, the member for Hinkler, the member for Page, the member for Leichhardt and the member for Fairfax. They have worked very hard to ensure that the coalition government has come up with a rescue package for the sugar industry, particularly in Queensland, which has had very difficult conditions—low commodity prices, certainly the ravages of cyclones, disease, and, indeed, even a rat plague. There are four key elements to the package: income support; interest rate subsidies, one up to $50,000 to help cane growers get their crop into the ground and another interest rate subsidy up to $100,000; further support for getting the crop into the ground, along with harvesting; and, of course, financial counselling services. That is $83 million that the coalition government has given to the sugar industry right across Australia. So far, $1.45 million has been paid out to eligible cane growers—over 401 cane growers—and there has been assistance, particularly with loans, of over $1.1 million. In the electorate of Dawson, 176 growers have received income support payments, 17 growers have received replanting assistance and 29 growers have received interest rate relief. It is interesting to note a letter I have here from the Canegrowers Association in which the chief executive officer referred to `sincere appreciation for the manner and effort with which Centrelink management and staff have implemented the sugar industry package'. I hope the opposition—particularly the member for Lilley—are listening closely because of all the time they spend running down Centrelink. I would also like to quote this: `It has been a pleasure dealing with Centrelink. Not only did they understand our problems; they cared.' It sounds very much like the Howard-Anderson government. Compare this to the Queensland government, who are of course the cousins of the federal ALP, and particularly of some of the frontbenchers here. How much industry assistance package did the Queensland Labor Party give to the Queensland industry? Was it $70 million, was it $60 million, was it $50 million, $30 million, $20 million? It was $1 million of new money that went from the Queensland ALP to the sugar industry in Queensland. How outrageous is that? Is it any wonder they spend so much time fighting amongst themselves—and we know that certainly the member for Lilley has a vested interest in some matters that are happening at the moment in Queensland.Honourable member interjecting—XJ6Mr ANTHONY—Exactly; there is one thing about a changing democracy. I would also like to note particularly two Centrelink staff members in Mackay, in the electorate of the member for Dawson: Ms Jill Richardson and Bridget Mather have been singled out, along with the rest of the staff there, for doing an excellent job. I would also like to acknowledge the enormous work that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and other cabinet ministers have put in to put this package together.2128115:13:0021281Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister recall making a ministerial statement on 24 September 1997 following the resignations of Ministers Sharp and Jull in which he said the following:I should also inform the House that I was not informed of these matters when the—travel allowance— adjustments were made in May of this year. Given the circumstances, that was also an oversight which should not have occurred.Given that statement to the House three years ago, doesn't it beggar belief that you or your office or your department were not told about the departmental investigation into Minister Reith's breach of his telecard entitlement for nine months? If it was good enough for you to sack Ministers Sharp and Jull for failing to advise you immediately of a serious breach of entitlements by Minister Sharp, why doesn't the same standard apply to Minister Reith and all other ministers who kept you in the dark about this serious fraud for nine months?21281Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I will have a look at that statement that I made. It was three years ago. The Leader of the Opposition is very complimentary in imagining that I carry those statements around, Mr Speaker. Can I just go back to the substance of this issue, and that is that the Leader of the Opposition makes allegations. Mr Speaker, I do not accept the basis of the allegations made by the Leader of the Opposition. The issue is the subject of a police investigation. I have not seen the outcome of that, and in those circumstances I would refer the Leader of the Opposition to the answer I gave to the first question he asked me when I returned to question time, and I have finished my answer. Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Documents2128221282Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:Private Health Insurance Administration Council Annual Report 1999-2000.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Questions Without Notice212822128215:16:0021282SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On 9 October the member for Werriwa asked me about the reliability of the proof Daily Hansard, citing an answer to a question on notice which was incorrectly attributed to the Treasurer instead of to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in the proof Hansard of Wednesday, 4 October. I am advised that the error was made preparing answers to questions on notice for publication. As members would be aware, Hansard staff work under considerable pressure to ensure that answers to questions on notice are published as soon as they are available from the Table Office and the relevant department which has supplied them. Regrettably, given the priority given to prompt publication, errors occasionally occur. The proof Daily Hansard is, as its name suggests, a proof. It is produced by staff who work to deadlines to make the report available as quickly and as accurately as possible.I would remind the House that the full proof Hansard is usually available online two or three hours after the House rises each night. There has been no decline in Hansard standards nor an increase in the number of errors reported. The error rate in draft transcripts for House—that is, the Greens—reported to Hansard by members has remained static over the last five years, at around eight errors per 100 hundred pages. As members would appreciate, the error rate in proof Hansard is very much lower because the overwhelming majority of the errors reported in the Greens are corrected before the proof Hansard is published. Hansard continues to monitor its key performance indicators of timeliness, accuracy and cost effectiveness and seeks to improve its overall performance against them. It would be impossible to achieve an error-free proof Hansard without compromising its timeliness or cost of production. Nevertheless, the Daily Hansard continues to maintain a very high level of accuracy.2128215:18:0021282Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—Mr Speaker, I also asked you about funding cuts and other changes to work practices which would place Hansard staff under even greater pressure, such as the introduction of part-time and contract staff. Could you reply on those matters, please?21282SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I apologise to the member for Werriwa. I will follow up his question and, if possible, come back to him tomorrow before the House rises for the two-week period.Matters of Public Importance212822128210000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Melbourne, proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:Double standards in government administration.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:19:0021282Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has many personalities. We are used to seeing Snarling Pete, with the flecks of foam flying, the red face, the leer and the bile being poured on people. We see Pious Pete, pontificating about the alleged sins of the Labor Party. We see Vicious Pete, unleashing the dogs and the goons with the batons and the balaclavas on ordinary waterside workers. We see Slippery Pete, who can turn black into white in one TV interview. And we see Oily Pete, oozing unction, grovelling to people he thinks may support him. Yesterday we saw a different Pete. We saw Humble Pete. We saw Contrite Pete. We saw Apologetic Pete. There was barely a dry eye in the House: this honest, this minor, error that he made! `We all have children; sometimes they do the wrong thing; I just had no idea what had happened.' I even thought I heard a muffled sob coming from the back bench in the opposition—so sincere, so unctuous were his denials of any wrongdoing!But, as you could perhaps expect from the real Pete, one or two bits of the picture were left out, and I would like to complete the picture today. We are dealing here with `dial a rort'; we are dealing here with something that is totally outrageous, something that should not be permitted to continue. This minister should not be allowed to stay in office while this investigation is occurring. What we are dealing with here is behaviour that is awash with double standards. Let us start with the minister himself. Remember all of the lectures we received here and outside about the alleged rorts of wharfies, the rort a day, every day, of wharfies? Yet, when he is caught breaching the Remuneration Tribunal guidelines at the cost of $50,000 to the government, no penalty is imposed upon him. Poor John Sharp, the previous pontificator about standards, the preacher about probity to ordinary workers in this place, cost the government only about $9,000. He paid the price for that; but it is okay for this minister to cost the government $50,000 and pay no price whatsoever.Then we turn to the double standards of the Prime Minister and his now infamous ministerial guidelines. We had yet another reinterpretation of those guidelines last night, and a very interesting one. We have seen those guidelines reinterpreted to suit him almost every time an issue of this nature comes up. When we discover that the Minister for Resources and Energy has $2 million of coal shares, suddenly there is no longer a conflict of interest involved in this situation. Now the Prime Minister says that, where a course of conduct is involved that is ongoing but commenced before the person concerned became a minister, that is okay. So the reason there is no breach of the guidelines in this situation is that it started before Mr Reith became a minister. The effect of this new interpretation, of course, is that, if you have an ongoing breach of the guidelines—for example, a failure to disclose ownership of shares—and that breach started before you became a minister, it is no longer a breach of the guidelines. So the logic we can take from that is: if you want to rort, get in early; get in before you become a minister and you will be okay.When Ministers Sharp and Jull resigned, the Prime Minister made a statement about the reasons for those resignations. His statement about why those resignations were appropriate was as follows:... given the magnitude of the adjustment that was made, it ought to have been disclosed at the time and ... there should have been a pursuit of a more detailed formal explanation for the reason for the discrepancy.Does that sound familiar? In this case we had $50,000 involved, not $9,000—and it was nine months before the Prime Minister was told, not six months. So we have a situation here where the sins that have been committed by this minister were clearly beyond those that were committed by Ministers Sharp and Jull. According to the description that was given by the Prime Minister at the time as to why the resignations of those two ministers were appropriate, this minister should go.The guidelines that are issued to all agencies by the government for the best practice for fraud control have some very interesting requirements in them—and obviously the Prime Minister does not appear to have looked at them recently, given his answer today. I quote:When fraud is discovered, the Commonwealth needs to be able to act quickly and effectively to investigate and deal with the offender. Does anybody think that `quickly and effectively' means nine months—nine months during which further fraud can occur, nine months during which the trail can go cold and nine months during which the opportunities for the Australian Federal Police to get to the bottom of the issue and use their full investigative powers and resources are not actually being utilised? The guidelines also state:Information on cases of fraud will be reported to the Australian Federal Police as soon as the agency has concluded a preliminary assessment—not a full investigation—and believes that a prima facie case of fraud has occurred.I do not quite understand why it would have taken the Department of Finance and Administration nine months to work out that fraud was happening here. It had an initial admission by the minister that his card had gone missing. It knew on day one that the minister's card had been given to an unauthorised person. It was obvious on the face of it, once they examined the records, that fraud was occurring. Yet nine months went by before the matter went to the Prime Minister, if we are to take his statements at face value today; and nine months went by before the Australian Federal Police became involved.We perhaps might ask ourselves: is this common practice in the Australian government? Where there is an apparent fraud, does it always take nine months for the Federal Police to become involved? If there is an overpayment or an apparent fraud in the case of Centrelink payments, do they wait nine months before they set the dogs on people? Do they wait nine months before they say, `Let's get moving on this issue'? Do they wait nine months before they decide to take some serious action? If we have government employees defrauding the Commonwealth and nicking the petty cash, if we have contractors ripping off the Commonwealth, do we see nine months go by before anything is done? Do we have departmental committees examining whether, indeed, there has been any problem? No, I do not think we do. What we have here is a blatant double standard. When this minister is involved, we have to try and delay any action for as long as possible; we have to try to sweep the matter under the carpet and, for as long as possible, try to ensure that nobody knows what has been happening. That is clearly what has occurred.The further double standard that arises in this situation from the behaviour of the Prime Minister is the statement by the Prime Minister last night that there is no fraud involved in this case by the minister. The Prime Minister has made this statement at the same time as saying that we should not draw any conclusions whatsoever about this matter, about the overall question of what has occurred, because a police investigation is occurring. So, apparently, on the one hand we should not draw any conclusions about anything, but on the other hand he can pronounce the minister innocent of any fraud.At this stage, pending that police investigation, we do not know, for example, whether or not the minister actually authorised his son to make a whole variety of calls with that card, or to give it to his mates, or whatever. The minister has said one or two things about it. He has not been questioned, to the best of my knowledge, in any public context about these things. He has not made any denial about how that card came to his—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. The surprising thing is that I thought the opposition would move a censure. Under a censure, you can make any such claims—Opposition members interjecting—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Just a moment, Minister. If the gentlemen on my left, and perhaps the ladies too, could be silent, I might be able to hear the minister's point of order.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Deputy Speaker, under the standing orders, if you want to make those sorts of allegations, there is a form in the House for doing so. The opposition had the option not only of asking me 10 questions but also of moving a censure motion. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me say that I do not mind how reasonably wide they travel—Opposition members interjecting—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Minister, resume your seat. WI4Reith, Peter, MPDT4Crean, Simon, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The minister and the deputy leader will not discourse across the table. I thank the minister for his point of order. I have been listening very carefully to the comments and statements by the member for Melbourne, and I have exercised a fair bit of latitude. He is, of course, well aware that some allegations should be on the basis of a substantive motion. I believe that, when I now give him the call, he will maintain his remarks within the standing orders.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was not making allegations—and he is very touchy about it—but simply making the point that the investigations have not concluded and there is no basis for the Prime Minister to state anything at all. On the one hand, he says we cannot draw any conclusions but it is okay for him to draw a conclusion that he is innocent. This is a new jurisprudential standard: instead of `innocent until proven guilty', it is just straight `innocent'—the Peter Reith standard.Then we have the double standard of the department of finance, which I have referred to before. A card has been with an unauthorised person or persons for five years—not five weeks, not five days, not five months, but five years—and $50,000 has been run up. There have been 11,000 calls from all sorts of places like Singapore and Malaysia. Even then Telstra had to let them know that something was going on. Was anybody checking? Was anybody taking any notice of what the minister's card was being used for? Typically, for this failure, this minister seeks to blame the former Labor government and the guidelines that were put in place then.That ignores a number of things. His attempt to blame the former Labor government for this situation ignores a number of things. Firstly, it ignores that the aggregation of these bills into electorate office bills was done in response to complaints by his own side at the time. Secondly, the cause of the problem is not that the minister did not get his bill; the cause of the problem is that he gave his card to an unauthorised person. That is the reason there was a problem. You cannot say, `Nobody told me I had these bills.' You should have known there could have been a problem, because you gave your card to an unauthorised person. Finally, even if the minister did not know, the department did. The department had all of that information, and five years went by and nothing was done.There is a broader double standard. When welfare beneficiaries make mistakes, there is zero tolerance, as we heard several times today. Overpayment of family payment, even if it is not your fault, gives you instant debt, even for just $1. Unemployed people who commit a minor breach of Centrelink guidelines such as not returning a phone call are liable to an $820 fine. Small businesses earning less than $50,000 a year who mistakenly register for the GST have to pay all of that GST entitlement, even though they would not be liable to pay it if they had not registered. Yet when this minister breaches the Remuneration Tribunal guidelines, lets his son and potentially other people misuse his telecard and loses $50,000 of federal government money, the Prime Minister is in a benevolent, caring, forgiving sort of mood. He says, `It is not a hanging offence. There is really not much of a problem.' There are a lot of ordinary workers out there today who will be asking themselves the question: what would happen to me if I broke the rules in my company and cost my employer $50,000? That is the double standard that hurts the most. That is the double standard that illustrates what this person is on about.I have been saving the best double standard for last, and that is the minister's own pronouncement about what standards should apply in these circumstances. Back in 1988, the then Minister for Community Services and Health was alleged to have given out confidential Health Insurance Commission information, and the minister who is now in the dock stated:... there is a clear prima facie case against the Minister that he has broken the law of the land. On that basis, and on the basis of most minimum ministerial standards, this Minister ought to stand aside. If he will not stand aside, the Prime Minister ought to exhibit some sort of leadership, step in and have him stand aside. Unless that action is taken there is no ministerial standard, there is no leadership from the Government whatsoever. The author of that statement is now facing exactly the same situation, but there is one key difference. In that case, all we had was a prima facie case, an accusation. In this case, we have an admission of guilt. He has admitted—WI4Reith, Peter, MPYU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—The Remuneration Tribunal guidelines, which they do apply to.WI4Reith, Peter, MPYU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—You do not think they are? So what are they? Just a suggestion? That is beautiful! That is magnificent! They are just a bit of a suggestion about how you might behave if you feel like it at the time. Righto, we will take that. That is absolutely fine—no problems. If you do not regard the guidelines about how you should behave with your entitlements as part of the law of the land, you are not fit to hold office. He admits breaching the law of the land. It is not just a prima facie case. The standards that he sought to apply to others should apply to him. The Australian people have had their fill of Snarling Pete, Pious Pete, Vicious Pete, Slippery Pete—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member will refer to the minister correctly.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—What they want is Responsible Pete, Honest Pete, Reasonable Pete.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne will refer to the minister correctly.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—This minister should immediately pay back the $50,000 that this has cost the taxpayer as a result of his misbehaviour, as a result of his giving his telecard and PIN to his son without even seeking to get it back at any stage. This minister should stand aside until the investigation is completed, and he should allow the legal process to take its course.15:34:0021286Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Let me attempt to answer some of the claims, allegations and questions which have been raised by the member for Melbourne. One of the general attacks from the Labor Party on this issue has been about the time when I was first advised of the extraordinary usage of my card on 30 August 1999 through to the advice to the Prime Minister and the referral of matters to the police. The assumption made by the opposition is that, as at 30 August, we knew that $50,000 worth of calls had been made. The fact is that we did not know that at all. What I knew on 30 August—Opposition member—Nobody is interested in this.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—That is because the Labor Party is not interested in the facts, and I understand that. But what I knew on 30 August was that there had been 2,301 calls in the previous nine months. That is what I knew, and I knew that because the bloke from Telstra rang up and said that there had been that usage in the previous nine months. I had a discussion with him about it, and I said to the department that there should be an investigation. Given the fact that Telstra could not tell me how this had occurred, my reaction was, `It certainly looks like a fraud against the Commonwealth.' It also went through my mind that maybe the wrong account had been sent. The point I make is that, as at 30 August, that was all I knew. Obviously, it was important that there be an investigation. Secondly, the investigation then proceeded. It proceeded, people should know, in accordance with the process which had been established well prior to this matter being raised. In fact, prior to this, the then responsible minister established a departmental committee and an audit process within his department.Not only did he establish those processes but he established them, I am told, in consultation with the Attorney-General. So, when this matter arose, they did not have to devise a means of handling it. They had a proper, established process within the department for dealing with it and that process had been ticked off by the Attorney-General and/or his department. Matters progressed accordingly in terms of the investigation. Obviously, I was not responsible for the investigation. I can understand that there was a lot of detail to be properly examined. YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPWI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You can imagine that, because this thing has gone on for years and years and years. I do agree with the member for Melbourne, who made the point that no-one had checked. He is absolutely right. That is a fact. No-one had checked my account; no-one has ever checked any account in this parliament.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The advice that I have had in my discussions with the department is that their policy was that, when you received an account, you simply paid it, no questions asked. That has gone on for years and years, and that is why there were no referrals to me. Whilst you deride my comment, the fact of the matter is that this system was established many years ago. It was established, according to the Leader of the Opposition, because the then opposition was concerned about privacy. Quite frankly, whether it was somebody on our side or somebody on the Labor Party side, I can understand people having concerns about privacy. But, as a result of that system being established, it is undeniable that at no stage was I given any information.5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—It's tough in merchant banking, isn't it?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The member for Kingsford-Smith wants to taunt me about my son. I simply say this about my son: my son is a good son, I am proud of my son and I believe what he says. You can make any snide allegations you want to make, as the member for Melbourne did. Not only do I deny them but, quite frankly, there would not be many people in this parliament who think it is a smart trick on your part to make that sort of interjection.Leaving that aside, as for the eight months in which this matter was investigated before it went to the Prime Minister and was referred to the police, I do know something of the timing in the last month or so. I did have a very long meeting with the DOFA people once they had largely completed their investigations. As a result of that meeting, I asked them a number of questions. I asked them lots of questions. I asked them, for example: had they ever given me in any form whatsoever any advice about the usage of my card? They have given me a written answer to that, and their written answer is as bald as this: `The advices provided to the minister were in his monthly statements.' I have since gone back over every monthly statement that I have had. They have pulled them all out, the ones that they have, and I have gone through those statements. For me, as for every other member, there is no way known you can tell what your telecard charge usage is, even though the senators' and members' handbook in 1996, and at other times, makes it clear:Costs for telephone charge card use will appear on electorate office telephone accounts as a single line showing the number of calls and total costs. Electorate office telephone accounts are paid by the relevant state office of the ministerial and parliamentary services division.I also then said: `Okay, you just gave me the total for the office with no setting out of the telecard separately. Was there anything in the total amount for my office?'—which was exceptional, in the sense that it had been bumped up by the telecard. The answer to that is that they have looked at my total telephone account against other people's accounts and they say that there is no way you could distinguish one from the other, because of the merging in of the telecard account. There is no way known I could have known about it and, furthermore, there was on the public record a statement to me—and to every other member of the House—that any usage would be advised. I think it is perfectly reasonable and commonsense for me to say in the House—5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—That is the weakest defence.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—You can make your interjections, but there is a public statement that we will be told if there is any usage. I look at my statement: there is no usage. I am entitled to think there is no usage, because I have stopped using it. If I had been one who had had a lot of overseas trips and had used the thing overseas, fair enough, but either as a minister or before—I suppose I have had the occasional trip—I have had basically no use for a telecard whatsoever. As most members know here, I am not on my own in that. Quite frankly, if other people had had their cards stolen and the things had been paid for years, they would not have known either, whether on this side or on that side. 5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—It wasn't stolen. You gave it away.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—They were not prepared to put the grubby claim in a censure motion, and the reason they were not prepared to put it in a censure motion is that this does not warrant a censure motion. The reason that they did not put this in a censure motion is that I did not know and you cannot expect people to know. One of the members of the press said this morning that I had been lax in checking my accounts. How can I check my accounts if nobody tells me?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—You were being lax in giving it away.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Melbourne has had his turn.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—As the member for Melbourne said, `for years and years he was not told'. That is exactly right: I was not told, and I believe that I should have been told.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—They do follow it up.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The department did not have details of telephone numbers and calls that I had made. But the department did know that there was a significant number of international calls on my account. They did know that because, when the account came in, it did list for DOFA—and it was never referred to me—the number of international calls. Anybody who had looked at those accounts would appreciate the fact that a minister, a backbencher or frontbencher in opposition would not have made such calls.In respect of allegations of fraud, all I can say is that I have had discussions with the police, and there has been no suggestion from the police of any allegation of fraud in regard to anything that I have done. I have said that I was in breach of the Remuneration Tribunal guidelines and entitlements—that is true—and I am sorry that it has happened. I am sorry that my card has fallen into the hands of people unknown to me.83UCox, David, MP10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Member for Kingston!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—The member for Kingston says that because I gave my son the card, and in particular the details and the PIN number, that is the basis upon which the number then became available to other people. I do not know that. The police are investigating how this matter came about. All I can tell you is that, as I understand it from my discussions, the card details may have come from me; they may have come from my son. As to what exactly happened I do not know, and it is a matter for the police to find out.The other fair question that the public are entitled to ask is: why not pay it back? The answer to that is that I did not know about it. If I had known about this at any time in 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998 or 1999, I simply would have said, `I'm not using my card, therefore I did not make those calls, and it should be cancelled,' which is exactly what I said the day that I was told in 1999. I do not mind telling you that it was a shock to me to be told that there was $50,000 on my card which I had not used for four or five years. I did give it to my son. He was a dependent at the time. He was going on a trip in the holiday period to Western Australia. As a federal member I am often away from home. I simply said to him, `Look, if you need to ring me, this is a means by which you can do so.' The irony is that quite a few of the calls he made were back to home. He could have reversed charges and those calls would not be in this. If you are a member of the federal parliament you do, unfortunately, have to be away from home a fair bit, and I thought that was not an unreasonable thing to do. I admit it was a mistake and I should not have done it, but that is exactly what happened. I cannot be more open about that than I have been. From my son's point of view, he thought he could use it from time to time—I have four sons: they have had access to a phone at home—and I must say that he basically thought that he could use it from time to time like the phone at home. We talked about it, and I said, `Well, did you appreciate over that time how it was and where the account would go?' I am sorry to say so, but his answer was that he did not think much about it. I suppose in the back of his mind was that, if there was any particular issue about it, his old man would let him know. I can tell you that, if I had known about it, I certainly would have had words with him about it, as would have any other parent. Other issues have arisen. The one that arose today in question time was the claims being made by the Labor Party about a double standard. The difference, I think, between most of the examples that they provided and the circumstances that arose in mine is that I did not directly benefit from this, except to the extent that my son had a benefit to the tune of about $950—and, as soon as I knew that, I paid it back.5T4Brereton, Laurie, MP83UCox, David, MPWI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—I am not the first person—and I would have to say I do not think I will be the last person—who finds themselves outside the entitlements.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I warn the member for Kingston!WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr REITH—If you are outside the entitlement, then, as soon as you know so, your obligation is to correct the situation—and that is exactly what I did, as soon as I knew. Furthermore, given the extent of it, not only did I write to the Prime Minister, I said, `Look, it is obvious that the sooner this matter goes to the police and they answer all those obvious questions the better. This is a system that has been in place for years—in fact, back to the early 1990s. It was put in place by the Labor Party. I believe I have acted appropriately at the appropriate times. (Time expired)15:49:0021289Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—This is a government which prides itself on standing for family values. And it sure does—if you are a member of the right family. Let us have a look at the list: a special bailout for John Howard's brother, a company director, and we are told that is okay; a free car park in the Sydney central business district for John Howard's daughter, and we are told that is okay.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—You will refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—And now $50,000 worth of calls on a card that the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business gives to his son, and we are told that is okay. If you are in the family—the government's family—and you are a struggling company director, an impoverished backpacking lawyer or a starving banker, then the largesse just flows and flows, doesn't it? Sometimes they do get a little bit generous to people outside the immediate family: sometimes the largesse flows to tax avoiders and to people going to category 1 schools. But, for everybody else, for ordinary Australians, there is no largesse flowing from this government: one standard for the government's family, one standard for everyone else. Let us look carefully at this minister, his standards and the ridiculous explanation we have just been treated to. We all know this minister, the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, prides himself on being a hard man. He is the bomb thrower, the one who comes in and sneers at us, at unionists and at workers; the man who ordered attack dogs and hooded thugs onto our waterfront.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—I will be back in five minutes.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—I have got a few questions for you, so you had better be back! Ring, ring! That is what he is doing—he has gone to make a phone call. But he had better be back, because we have got some questions for him and none of them have been answered as yet. This is the man who celebrated in this House the sacking of hundreds of waterside workers by chucking high fives with the Prime Minister. Where is the bullyboy now? Like all bullies, he can give it out but he just cannot take it. Where is the sneering political warrior now? He is shrivelling before our eyes; he has shrivelled so much he has disappeared. We used to call him Penthouse Pete. From this week on all Australians will call him Phone Call Pete. At the moment, he is being Pathetic Pete—he is hiding. Come back, Pete. Where are you?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. There is a requirement, oft raised by the opposition, that it is the responsibility of members to refer to other members by the name of their electorate or their ministerial responsibility. This member is not doing so. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have already asked the member for Lalor to refer to the Prime Minister correctly, and of course she will continue to do so.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—I would have been much more polite had the minister bothered to stay. We all know that the minister likes dogs. Well, the dogs are barking, Minister. The dogs are chasing through the corridors of Parliament House now. The dogs are on a hunt for prey, and the prey is you, for $50,000 of public moneys you are responsible for. Rather than get hunted down, Minister, why don't you come back into this House and sit in that chair and give us the answer to the following questions, because it is all really very simple, despite your endeavours to try to make it complicated in your last contribution. What you need to tell us, Minister, is whether or not you accept responsibility for having engaged in conduct in breach of the Remuneration Tribunal determination—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Lalor should address her remarks through the chair.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—I beg your pardon, Mr Deputy Speaker—and whether the minister accepts the consequences that have flowed from him breaching that determination. It does not matter what the—7T4Crosio, Janice, MP83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—Yes, I do note that there is no minister at the table. They are all running and cutting and hiding—every last one of them. They do not want to answer any of this, do they? What the minister is trying to tell us is that somehow his state of knowledge is the important thing—whether he got accounts, whether the accounts told him what was on the telecard, all of that sort of stuff. That is not the important thing. The important thing is that—in breach of a Remuneration Tribunal decision—he gets his telecard and hands it to his son with the PIN, and that is a breach of the obligations which he as a member of parliament has. He is responsible for every consequence, for every dollar, for every wasted cent that flows from the breach of that obligation as the member of parliament. In view of that he needs to stand down and when the investigation ultimately finds, as it will, that the original act that the minister engaged in—giving the telecard and the PIN to his son—led to that $50,000 worth of consequences, then he should repay the $50,000 and resign. That is what this minister should be doing. And he should be back in here now answering the following questions he did not bother to answer during his 15 minutes.Question No. 1: when did you give your son the telecard and the PIN, which resulted in the $50,000 being lost to taxpayers? What did you say to him when you gave it to him? Why didn't you simply do what every other Australian parent does—which is, put their hand in their pocket and hand over some cash—if you were worried about your travelling son not having enough money to ring home. Why didn't you do that? In fact, whilst you were out spending money, Minister, why didn't you buy him a $50 phonecard—or why didn't the minister buy him 1,000 $50 phonecards, so that he could go out and spend $50,000 on phone calls, if that is what the minister wanted to see happen? How many times did the minister's son use the card, and on what dates? Whom did the minister's son ring using the card, and what led him to believe that he was entitled to free calls—free calls within Australia, free calls from overseas? At any time in the last five years did the minister have a conversation with his son about the telecard and about the PIN? What were the contents of that conversation?How does the minister explain persons, known or unknown, coming to have the telecard number and the PIN? There are only three possibilities. This is not a complex murder mystery. Let us just chase this down. Possibility No. 1: the minister told all of these people who were making the calls the PIN and the telecard number. Possibility No. 2: his son did. Possibility No. 3: his staff did. You cannot walk down the street and find PINs littered around, can you? You have got to be told. These people who are making 11,000 phone calls from overseas, from all of these exotic locations, got the telecard number from somewhere. SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Who issued the PIN? Do you make up your own?83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—I can see it is too complex for Minister Tuckey. Try listening, Minister Tuckey, and you might keep up for once. What has happened here is that people making phone calls all around the world—more than 11,000 of them—have got Minister Reith's telecard number and his PIN. How did they get it? The people in custody of that information were, firstly, the minister; secondly, and because he breached a Remuneration Tribunal determination, his son; and, on the minister's admission on TV last night, thirdly, his staff. Who gave it out? It is a simple question. It should be capable of an answer. The minister should be here now, instead of there being no government minister at the table—because, once again, they do not want to listen to this and they do not want to answer any of this. Minister Reith should be here now answering these questions.What is going on in a situation where the minister is told last August that there is this problem? On his own admission, he was told last August that more than 2,000 calls had been made on his telecard. What would you do if you were told that? You would think to yourself: `Did I make 2,000 calls? No, I did not. Someone else must have made 2,000 calls. Who would that be? It would have to be someone who had the number and the PIN to the telecard. Who's got the number and PIN of the telecard? I know; my son has.' You would think you would go through that reasoning process, and you would think you would say to yourself, `There's a big problem here.' You would think you would at that stage put in place steps, like telling the Prime Minister. But, no. What did this minister do? We know what he was doing. He was hoping against hope that this would never come to public light. He reached into his bottom drawer, where all the government secrets are kept, got out the balaclava, pulled it over his head backwards and obviously thought to himself: `I can't see, so no-one can see me.'SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. Allegations that have now been made quite clearly need to be made under a substantive motion. I would argue too on that point—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—There will be no argument on the point. I note your point of order. The member for Lalor is in order.83LGillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD—I would have thought that that was not a substantive allegation—that the minister cannot put a balaclava on right—but maybe I am wrong. Ultimately the buck stops with the minister. He is the one who has wandered around saying things like:We the government make this point: where you are subject to an award or agreement then you have obligations that you should meet and if you are beyond the law then there should be pretty clear remedies for dealing with people who were not prepared to abide by the laws established by parliament.Minister, you are beyond the law. Pay back the $50,000. Ring, ring, Pete. This time, ring the Prime Minister and stand down, which is what you should do. (Time expired)NaN:59:003Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—I think there are two very interesting aspects about this MPI today. The first one is that the Labor Party have been trudging up and down the press gallery for the last 36 hours being quoted from one end of this country to the other about the significance of this matter. When they had the one opportunity, which was today after 2.00 p.m., to do what they could quite easily have done—which was to move a censure motion—what did they do? They took the soft option, which is the option taken by those who do not honestly believe in what they have been peddling for the last 36 hours. I think the other interesting point is that, if you listened to the substance of both opposition speakers, the one thing that was quite clear was that it was personal rhetoric. But I tell you: they did not even pull the rope out of the cupboard to get the noose made. All they did was to direct every single second of the 25 minutes that was available to them to personal attacks on the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business or on the weakest of all targets, his family. Everyone in this House knows this place is robust, but I think there are some lines that should be drawn, as they have been in the past. If the Labor Party had come in here and argued their case based on the facts that we are aware of to date, they might have commanded a bit more respect than they will have gained for their performance today. The simple fact is that not one single matter raised by the ALP in this MPI today advanced the case from yesterday. Let us go through this very carefully as to what was done.The first thing that was done yesterday was that we had the minister saying quite clearly that he had made a mistake. He said to this House and to the rest of Australia, `I have made a mistake.' He was honest and up front; he was not attempting to hide behind anything. Did we get any acknowledgment today from the Labor Party about that? Not one single word. We had lots of very cheap talk about balaclavas and about sons, and that little imputation that this has all been a bit of a family show to have a crack at it: that the family have got their heads together to pull the rug out from under the taxpayer. What an insidious accusation to make—not backed up with any evidence at all but a nice cheap little shot.And you make sure this gets just a few more legs through the press by saying whatever turns you on to make sure that you satisfy your own side but in no way satisfy the requirements of an MPI, and that is to state your case and back it up with facts. Not one single word of fact was delivered by either the shadow minister for finance or the backbencher the honourable member for Lalor—just lots of nice cheap rhetoric to make sure that they destroy people's reputations. But woe betide anyone who tries to argue the case! The simple fact is that when this minister was made aware of the situation he acted straightaway. It is the minister who asked for a police inquiry, not the parliament and not the Prime Minister. The minister himself demanded a police inquiry.The alphabet starts with A, and point A is that $49,000 of taxpayers' funds have been illegally used—that is accepted by everyone. That is point A: $49,000. But the Labor Party have gone from A to Z, because point B is the police inquiry to try to find out who accessed that information and where they got it from. But you do not go straight from A to Z, as the Labor Party have attempted to do today. You have to get to B first, and point B is the police inquiry called for by the minister himself because he does not know what happened. The Labor Party have used this MPI to try to convince the gallery—no-one else is involved in this except the Labor Party trying to convince the gallery—that you can go directly from A to Z. I do not for one minute accept that the gallery is going to accept that you can go from A to Z when B is quite clearly in place to make sure that we ascertain who made these phone calls and how they were able to access the information to do it.To just walk around saying out of the side of your mouth, `It must have been the minister; it must have been his son. They are involved in this,' is a disgraceful allegation to make in this House. This is the worst case of coward's corner that I have seen in my 10½ years in this place. If the Labor Party had argued A and waited for C or D tomorrow, they might have commanded a bit of respect on this. But they have gone to Z. They did not have any evidence to get to Z, but the easy way out for coward's corner is to start attacking people personally. That is how you try to get to Z when you do not have a B, C and D already. Coward's corner is the way you get to that stage.Double standards are held by those opposite. They are the kings of double standards. The very easiest thing for me today would be to come in here and start rattling off names of members opposite who have exhibited the most extraordinary double standards. That would be the easiest response to the MPI that I could have made, but I am not going to do it in relation to personalities, as tempting as it is after what we had this afternoon. As tempting as it is—and I can tell you that they are dangling out there waiting for it—I am not going to do that. I want to talk about double standards in other respects.I refer to the double standards in the policy position of the Australian Labor Party in relation to a variety of matters. Whether it is education, the 30 per cent rebate or aged care—I can see the minister at the table—it is double standards. I refer to the political speak and the reality. We had the shadow minister for health running around this country for 12 months damning the 30 per cent rebate. We had the Leader of the Opposition calling it `bad policy' and `not for the Labor Party'. But, of course, when the Olympics were on they snuck down to the greatest regional centre in Australia—with the hype for Cathy Freeman, who was just about to go in the 400 metres, at its greatest—and got together in the back room of a hotel and said, `Look, this is bit of a silly move; I think we might let the rebate go though'. They were hoping upon hope that no-one was going to be remotely interested—as they weren't, certainly not in Ballarat, in a shadow ministerial visit—in printing that and putting their double standards on the front page. There are double standards in relation to education and the present debate on funding for the non-government sector. What an extraordinary case of double standards! Here is a political party that goes out and beats the drum and its members beat their chests about having an inclusive Australia and about giving all Australians the opportunity for inclusiveness, but when they get the one test in relation to government support for the non-government sector to enable that to happen, they fail the standards test once again. (Time expired)Committees21293212932129316:10:0021293Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works I present the 7th, 8th, 9th and 10th reports for 2000 of the committee: CSIRO Energy Centre at Steel River, Newcastle; RAAF Base Edinburgh, Redevelopment Stage 1, Adelaide; Fitout of new leased premises for the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Belconnen, ACT; and Development of 90 apartments in Darwin.Ordered that the reports be printed.4V5Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN—by leave—I will make some brief comments on the first three reports and then comment in more detail on the report on the development of 90 apartments in Darwin, which is a Defence Housing Authority proposal. The first report is on the CSIRO Energy Centre in Newcastle, New South Wales, and concerns a proposal to construct a new research laboratory complex known as the CSIRO Energy Centre. The centre is to be located at the Steel River Eco-Industrial Park in Newcastle, New South Wales. The proposed development is estimated to cost $28 million and will accommodate 110 research staff from CSIRO's Energy Technology Division.The committee inspected the division's existing facilities in Sydney and found them to be poorly configured, inflexible, outmoded and, in some instances, substandard and potentially dangerous. The committee supports the proposed development but has found a number of issues that need to be addressed. Two particular concerns are, firstly, that the land title for the proposed site has not passed from BHP to CSIRO and, secondly, that the proposed site is subject to ongoing contractual and statutory legal requirements. In relation to these concerns, the committee has recommended, firstly, that construction not commence until land title has passed from BHP to CSIRO and, secondly, that CSIRO implement regular contractual and statutory compliance studies as part of its management strategy for the proposed site. The committee believes the proposed energy centre will overcome shortcomings in existing facilities. Moreover, it has the potential to provide long-term benefits to current and potential CSIRO customers, the Newcastle region and CSIRO. I would like to place on the record the committee's thanks to the Lord Mayor of Newcastle, Councillor Tate, and the people of Newcastle for their assistance to the committee on our visit to inspect this facility.The second report I have tabled relates to the first stage redevelopment of the RAAF Base Edinburgh in Adelaide. The estimated cost of this proposal is $39.9 million. When the committee inspected the RAAF base, it found the existing facilities to be in need of redevelopment. The facilities comprise various small buildings dispersed over a large area. The age of buildings and their location on the base contribute to them being uneconomical. Despite a readily identified need, the committee has given the proposal qualified support. However, Defence must address a number of issues of concern to the committee, including: the extent of staff consultation; Defence's design philosophy, which uses the term `austere'; waste water from the base running into nearby land and waterways; and the financing of the project. The committee is of the view that, when Defence personnel are not deployed in combat conditions, their working conditions should, as far as practicable, reflect the modern working environment of the wider Australian work force. In relation to environmental issues, Defence must address the question of trade wastes and storm water run-off from RAAF Base Edinburgh. Contaminated water finding its way into local waterways could have a negative impact on the environment and result in significant costs to the local community. In relation to the financing of the project, market testing of logistics services as part of the Commercial Support Program could affect the scope and cost of the redevelopment proposal. The committee believes that Defence must address this issue.The third report I have tabled addresses the fit-out of new offices for the Australian Bureau of Statistics, more commonly known as the ABS, in Belconnen, ACT. The fit-out is estimated to cost $22.8 million. The ABS has been located at the Cameron Offices in Belconnen here in Canberra since the mid-1970s. The Commonwealth has sold the Cameron Offices to a private consortium, which will demolish some of the building and construct a new building for the ABS. The ABS will lease accommodation from the developers. An inspection of the Cameron Offices provided ample evidence of the need for new accommodation. Bovis Lend Lease, which is one of the consortium partners, has been selected by the ABS to provide the fit-out of the new building. The committee found that the ABS sought independent advice regarding project costs before agreeing to accept the Bovis Lend Lease offer. The committee has nevertheless formed the view that, in the interests of contestability and transparency, the ABS should conduct an independent audit. Apart from this, the committee fully supports this proposal.In relation to Carey Street—the more difficult proposal outlined in the reports tabled today—the Defence Housing Authority proposed a development of apartment towers in Darwin. At the outset, I must say that this proposal has been one of the most difficult that the Joint Committee on Public Works has had to deal with. The original proposal for the development was referred to the committee in the context of an urgent need for defence personnel and their families in Darwin. As with similar proposals, the committee commenced its inquiry with a view to completing its examination expeditiously. A number of facts militated against this. First, the process was complicated by a major revision of, and change to, the proposal by the Defence Housing Authority midway through the inquiry. The revision involved a number of very significant variations to the original proposal, including changes to the number and configuration of apartments and their costs. In fact, the proposal was to build a third tower along with two others that were part of the original referral. In effect, the committee was required to examine two very significantly different proposals.Secondly, the difficulties associated with DHA's earlier proposed development at Parap Grove in Darwin led the committee to examine the proposal with a greater degree of caution than it might otherwise have done. The DHA withdrew the Parap Grove proposal following the voluntary administration of the developer. This was before the committee had concluded its investigation. Thirdly, it was regrettable that DHA's initial submission on the development lacked detail and was unconvincing in its justification of the proposal. Fourthly, a significant issue for the committee was the quality of evidence provided during the inquiry in relation to the Defence Force housing requirement. The committee found inconsistencies in the evidence that it received and that was presented to a Senate estimates committee. Inevitably, the poor quality of evidence led the committee to seek more detailed evidence and to seek to corroborate the evidence. It is a matter of regret that Defence, DHA's primary client, experienced difficulty in stating its accommodation needs to the committee. The committee is firmly of the view that the provision of clear, soundly based evidence would have enabled it to consider the merits of the development and conclude its inquiry in a much shorter time frame. The duration of the inquiry presented the committee with certain difficulties, not least of which was an assessment of the business cases for the initial and revised proposed developments. However, the committee recognises that the development has the potential to be one of Darwin's prime residential locations.After months of investigation, the committee still has serious concerns about aspects of the proposal and the need for the apartments. These concerns are reflected in our recommendations. Put simply, the committee believes that DHA must do more work before the parliament can endorse the proposal. The inquiry should serve as a reminder to all agencies with proposals before the committee of two things: firstly, the need to fully appreciate the committee's legislative basis; and, secondly, the need for the committee's proper scrutiny of major projects, no matter how urgent they may be perceived or represented to be.In concluding my remarks on the reports that I have tabled, I wish to reiterate comments about the quality of the evidence. I have indicated that the quality of evidence was an issue with the inquiry into the development of apartments in Carey Street, Darwin. It was also an issue with the inquiry into RAAF Base Edinburgh. In this case, some of the evidence provided to the committee was ambiguous, with the result that Defence's intentions were not always apparent, and in some instances the evidence was contradictory. Of importance to the Joint Committee on Public Works, and other committees of the parliament, is the involvement of the general community, and submissions need to be written with a wide audience in mind. The committee expects all Commonwealth agencies presenting information to a parliamentary committee to write in clear, concise and plain English. Such language will not only assist the committee but also encourage the participation of members of the community in the work of the parliament.Finally, I would like to give special thanks to the committee, because this has been a particularly tough referral, and we have had the pressure of a number of other referrals at the same time. The committee has worked in a bipartisan way to scrutinise these particular referrals, and in particular the Carey Street referral. I would also like to thank the secretariat, who have been under considerable pressure as this work has been in progress. I thank inquiry secretaries Ian Ireland and Marie Kawaja, the secretariat's administrative officer, Angela Nagy, and of course the committee secretary, Trevor Rowe. They have worked very hard to ensure that these referrals have been scrutinised in a timely manner, so that these reports are able to be lodged as quickly as possible with the parliament. I commend the reports to the House.16:21:0021295Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—by leave—I certainly support what the member for Pearce has told the parliament this afternoon in relation to the reports of the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works. The committee has had a very difficult time in relation to the Carey Street development, and I think the outcome of that report will be a much better process now with the Defence Housing Authority. Certainly, it is the intention of the committee to make sure that there is a much better process and a much more informed process, not resulting in the conflicting evidence that was received over such a long time. So I am confident that we will see a much better relationship now between DHA and the public works committee. In relation to the redevelopment of RAAF Base Edinburgh, one of the things the committee saw was what is called ARDU, the Aircraft Research and Development Unit. All Australians can be very proud of the science of that unit, the way it is structured, what the Defence Force is doing, how it is doing it and the technology that is there. This report will allow much better physical facilities for that unit to get on with the good work that it does. I also back the member for Pearce in relation to thanking the secretariat, who are with us in the House this afternoon. Thank you everybody on a job well done. I commend the reports to the House.Bills21296Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills:Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000Protection of the Sea (Civil Liability) Amendment Bill 2000Trade Practices Amendment (International Liner Cargo Shipping) Bill 2000Bills21296R97021296Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendments presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 4), omit “, 41A”.(2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 8 (lines 15 and 16), omit the item.(3) Schedule 1, item 16, page 8 (line 30) to page 9 (line 6), omit subsection (2), substitute: (2) Subsection (1) does not require an application for a reclassification of a publication, film or computer game under section 39 or a reclassification of a publication or film under section 97A.(4) Schedule 1, item 33, page 13 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item.(5) Schedule 1, item 47, page 18 (lines 24 and 25), omit the item.(6) Schedule 1, item 50, page 19 (line 14) to page 20 (line 13), omit the item.(7) Schedule 1, item 51, page 21 (line 5), omit “NVE”, substitute “X”.(8) Schedule 1, page 22 (after line 7), after item 53, insert:53A Paragraph 53(a)Omit “24 or 30”, substitute “23A, 24, 30 or 44A”.(9) Schedule 1, item 57, page 22 (line 26), omit “14, 16, 33, 42, 47, 49, 50”, substitute “16, 42, 49”.(10) Schedule 1, item 58, page 23 (lines 4 to 8), omit the item.(11) Schedule 1, item 59, page 23 (lines 9 to 20), omit the item.(12) Schedule 2, item 2, page 24 (line 13), omit “, X or NVE”, substitute “or X”.(13) Schedule 2, item 3, page 24 (line 17), omit “, X or NVE”, substitute “or X”.(14) Schedule 2, item 4, page 24 (line 21), omit “, X or NVE”, substitute “or X”.(15) Schedule 2, item 6, page 24 (line 28), omit “, X or NVE”, substitute “or X”.(16) Schedule 2, item 7, page 25 (line 4), omit “, X or NVE”, substitute “or X”.(17) Schedule 2, item 8, page 25 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item.(18) Schedule 2, item 9, page 25 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item.(19) Schedule 2, item 10, page 25 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item.(20) Schedule 2, item 11, page 25 (lines 11 and 12), omit the item. (21) Schedule 2, item 12, page 26 (line 7), omit “NVE”, substitute “X”.(22) Schedule 2, item 15, page 26 (lines 14 and 15), omit the item.Amendments agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to.21297Bill (on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop)—by leave—read a third time.Bills21297R115721297Debate resumed. 16:25:0021297Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—Before question time, I was dealing with some of the comments that had been made by opposition members relating to the Aged Care Amendment Bill 2000. I had dealt with, in particular, the remarks made by the member for Lilley when he said that fewer than two per cent of aged care services had received visits during the period of accreditation. I refuted that, saying that 88 per cent of all facilities have now received their site visits for accreditation, which is the most important aspect of the accreditation process. But I would point out that, in addition to that, five other types of visits have been going on at the same time. Four of them are conducted by the agency and/or the department, and they comprise support visits, spot checks and review audits. Then there are the residential classification scale monitoring visits, which are carried out by departmental nurses, to ensure that the care that is delineated in the care plan is in fact being given. There are also visits by the complaints resolution scheme to follow up complaints that are made to them. So, during the accreditation, many other visits have been going on as well. I might say that, since the reforms were put in place, with regard to the RCS alone there have been over 6,000 visits and 35,000 inspections of plans.I will now mention one or two other things that were mentioned in the debate. Firstly, the member for Dunkley gave a splendid speech and pointed out that, once you took away the vitriol by the member for Lilley in particular, the opposition in fact is supporting the amendments to this bill and does recognise the importance of protecting the rights of individuals, which these amendments are designed to do. I would point out too that Senator Evans, the shadow spokesman, has on a number of occasions put on the public record that he believes the accreditation system is a good system, and indeed he wants to give it bipartisan support. It is unfortunate that we see politics get in the way of that bipartisan support from time to time. The member for Blaxland mentioned three assessors who were qualified but not yet registered who had carried out nine accreditations. I mentioned this in answer to a question in the House yesterday and said that these were the only assessors in that category and that the chief executive officer of the agency was personally visiting each of the nine concerned in Queensland to apologise for the inconvenience and to reschedule fresh accreditation visits. I will read the last paragraph of the letter from Mr Tim Burns, where he said:The agency apologises for this incident and I wish to reassure you that this type of incident has not occurred before and arrangements are in place to ensure that it will not occur again.So I do hope that Senator Evans will desist from saying that there are six such people in Victoria in a similar circumstance. In fact, I will table that letter so it is available for people who might like to see it.These amendments were brought forward for two very specific reasons. In relation to the first amendment, I found that there was no provision in the act to take action against key personnel who were convicted of an indictable offence, who were of unsound mind or who had become bankrupt other than to take away approved provider status. This could be to the detriment of residents, and always my focus is on residents. In delivering aged care, we have a partnership between the government, the provider, doctors, allied health professionals, residents themselves and their families, because people who live in residential aged care facilities are still members of our community. Aged care facilities are not storehouses; they are homes where people are still entitled to have their views considered and where they are part of our community. The more interaction they have with the community the better; hence that partnership concept. But clearly, when you have key personnel, as defined in the act, who meet one of those three criteria, it is putting those residents at risk. This amendment will give us power to require the removal of those people without taking away approved provider status. I think the member for Petrie mentioned in her speech that this would assist something that occurred in her electorate. The other amendment is the important one that allows the giving of notice. Under the current legislation where it is deemed necessary by the department to put in place sanctions which in fact require the withdrawal of approved provider status and the withdrawal of places—that is, beds—and the subsequent evacuation that may result from that, there is no provision in the act, as it presently stands, to give notice to those residents or their families, which of course causes distress for them. This amendment will allow that notice to be given and will also allow for progressive withdrawal of places in residential aged care facilities which are under sanctions when those beds become vacant. These are important tools for the department to use for bringing about the best outcomes for those seven per cent of older Australians over the age of 70—and it is only seven per cent—who need either high or low level care. When they do need that care we want it to be the best care. I repeat: the whole aim of the reforms is to ensure that those people who either cannot or will not deliver that care as an approved provider are removed from the industry. We want them out of the industry.In concluding, I would like to say this: in commending the bill and in commending particularly the members for Dunkley, Herbert and Petrie for the contributions they made, I would remind those members of the opposition who spoke that there did seem to be a lack of understanding of the way the entire system works. In the interests of pursuing the aim of bipartisan support for the accreditation system, which Senator Evans has said he would like to give, then I would offer those members of the opposition who are interested a briefing to bring them up to date so they can indeed understand the way the new reforms work and not do something which is very distressing to the people who work in the industry: that is, try to pull it all down to the lowest common denominator, to try to pull down the morale of the people who work in the industry who are in fact giving very good care, and they are most of the providers. What I want to see is 100 per cent of people who work in the industry qualified so they can hold their heads high and say, `We are delivering the best care and we are proud of the work we do.' Aged care providers in fact form one of the top 10 employers in the country. It is important in an economic sense, but it is certainly important in a compassionate sense. I want the people who work and work well in delivering that care to have the respect they are entitled to. I would encourage those people who are in the opposition and do not understand the system to take advantage of the offer I am making, to have that briefing, so we can deliver what Senator Evans has offered: that is, bipartisan support for the accreditation system. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.21299Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop) read a third time.Bills21299R109221299Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 3 to 19), omit subclauses (4) to (7).(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 11), omit paragraph (e).(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 14 and 15), omit “(other than a temporary protection visa)”.(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (after line 15), after subparagraph (i), insert: (ia) is not covered by regulations made under subsection 6A(1); and(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 17), after “been”, insert “withdrawn or otherwise”.(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 18 to 22), omit subparagraph (iii), substitute: (iii) has not, both: (A) on or after the commencement of this paragraph, made an application for a protection visa under that Act (whether or not the person has applied for any other visa), other than an application that has been withdrawn or otherwise finally determined; and (B) whether before or after the commencement of this paragraph, made an application for a parent visa under that Act (whether or not the person has applied for any other visa and whether or not the application for the parent visa has been withdrawn or otherwise finally determined); and(7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 27), after “been”, insert “withdrawn or otherwise”.(8) Schedule 1, item 7, page 4 (lines 27 to 31), omit the item, substitute:7 After section 6Insert:6A Certain prescribed persons in Australia to be treated as eligible persons etc. (1) The regulations may provide that a person who: (a) holds a prescribed kind of temporary visa; or (b) holds a prescribed kind of temporary visa and is a member of a class of persons prescribed for the purposes of this section;is, subject to the regulations, to be treated as an eligible person for the purposes of this Act while he or she is in Australia. (2) Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the regulations may provide for all or any of the following: (a) the periods within which a person is to be treated as an eligible person; (b) the circumstances in which a person is to be treated as an eligible person; (c) the professional services in relation to which the person is to be treated as an eligible person; (d) the professional services in relation to which the person is not to be treated as an eligible person.(9) Schedule 2, page 5 (lines 2 to 6), omit the Schedule.(10) Schedule 3, page 6 (line 2) to page 19 (line 22), omit the Schedule.16:35:0021300Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I move: That the amendments be agreed to. In doing so, I express my profound disappointment at the refusal of the opposition and the Democrats in the Senate to support the proposed new visa arrangements for parents. The Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 has been returned from the Senate with schedules 2 and 3 removed. It is these schedules which, along with the rejected Migration (Visa Application) Charge Amendment Bill 2000, would have allowed a substantial increase in parent migration to Australia. My disappointment will be nothing in comparison to that which people who would have liked to have sponsored their parents under these arrangements will feel. Full passage of the bills would have enabled 4,000 parents to be reunited with their families. It would have dramatically reduced the queue of some 20,000 for parent places under the existing parent category. The bill, as originally proposed, would have achieved a fairer contribution by the parents and by their sponsors to cover substantial health and welfare costs, thus reducing the burden on the taxpayer. The queue would have been reduced for the 500 places that exist now, and the reduction in that queue would have meant that others who are waiting would have been eligible earlier.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—How can you say that?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Very easily, because it is true.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—You know it is not.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I do know it is, because I know there are people in the pipeline who would have been perfectly happy to transfer to the new category. Look at what happened before. What happened before was that a very substantial number of people proposed to move, and did move, from the existing pipeline, and that meant of course that those who were further down in the queue were considered earlier. In my view it would have been a win-win situation: a win situation for sponsors and a win situation for Australian taxpayers. That is really the key issue. Let me say to my colleague in the few minutes that I have left in relation to this matter that the real test is not in relation to the government. The government came up with a proposal that I think was reasonable and fair, that enabled a contribution but still would have left taxpayers with a very significant cost for lifetime health cover for people who entered Australia and, with the bond, only a modest proportion of the total cost of benefits if they were claimed under existing arrangements if parents accessed Australia. The real test is for the Labor Party to tell us what they propose. I am always interested in the extent to which those in the Labor Party are prepared to require Australian taxpayers to subsidise the entry of a substantial number of parents. If that is what they have in mind, it is incumbent upon the opposition to spell out the numbers of people that they would accommodate, and in what time frame. It needs to be spelled out clearly, because it does have a very significant impact upon the forward estimates. If you are prepared to accommodate all 20,000 under the existing arrangements the cost will run into billions of dollars on the forward estimates. That is something that you have to have in mind. Nevertheless I do not intend to send the matter back to the Senate at this time. We will reluctantly accept the amendments, which means that schedule 1 of the bill remains in place. That is beneficial, and I thank the opposition for that. It means that for people who come as temporary entrants and lodge applications onshore in Australia, while those applications may be able to be considered, there will be no eligibility for Medicare in the meantime. That is an important factor because it will enable us, I think, to be more relaxed than we are at the present time in allowing entry to Australia by parents as visitors. To that extent it will be an improvement but, as I say, I am profoundly disappointed that a measure that would have protected the interests of taxpayers, that would have accommodated many people who want to sponsor their parents, has been rejected, particularly when I found over a period of time people saying to me, `We don't want to bring our parents to Australia to be a charge on taxpayers; we are perfectly happy to accept the obligation to look after them ourselves.' This bill as it was proposed would have enabled them to do just that. 16:41:0021301Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—I am pleased that the Australian Democrats have in fact agreed with Labor that the Migration Legislation Amendment (Parents and Other Measures) Bill 2000 has provided an unnecessary and unreasonable burden on Australian families. We are talking of Australian families wishing to sponsor their aged relatives under the aged category visa. The government deserve what they got. The Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs always talks about the dollar bottom line, regardless of the benefits that a reasonable intake of aged parents would provide to these Australian families. While I agree with the minister that a reasonable contribution must be made by these aged relatives—and my office is always open, as you know, Minister, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to discuss it—the fact is that the minister knows full well that there was very little support out there in the community for this. He says he is profoundly disappointed but, of course, if I were the minister I would be disappointed when the Senate knocked back one of my bills and cut out something like $100 million of forward estimates, which he was able to show to the Treasurer that he would be able to get—presuming that there were these fictitious 4,000 people who would end up coming in under this $64,000 a couple category. The reality is that the minister himself went around the countryside trying to drum up support but did not get too much. I can tell you this: of all the people who contacted me, I think we had one call that supported it. The rest were against it. Certainly the Chinese community in Sydney is very much against it, and I can tell you that a lot of other people are against it as well.The minister said that the pipeline of 20,000 would have been reduced substantially, or at least reduced, as a result of this measure. The reality is that some time last year there was a similar position brought in by way of regulation whereby I think the cost would have been approximately $17,500, but something like only 2,200 people on that queue applied under that category. The minister and I were prepared to agree and we let them in because the goalposts had changed from the date of the disallowance. There was a maximum of only about 2,500 people who applied within five months. It was for five months that the door was open. To suggest that there will be an enormous reduction in this list of 20,000 when you will be charging them $64,000 is wishful thinking on the part of the minister. The reason the minister is accepting this is that he knows there is very little support out there. He knows that he can use `the cost of billions of dollars to the Australian taxpaying public'—that beautiful line—for the tabloid newspapers so that he can play wedge politics. I am glad that the member for Kooyong is in here, because he is a great supporter of multiculturalism. I do not think that he supports the tactics of this minister in trying to paint immigration as costing this country a fortune. That is the subtle message that he is trying to get across. We have agreed to the passing of schedule 1 because we agree that it is beneficial. The minister knows that we have been prepared to support it. Here on this side of the House we are always prepared to support any reasonable measures that will help our migration program and the way in which we administer it.All I can say is that the minister knows full well that this was a measure that had very little support out there in the community. It was a measure, I say again, which I am fairly confident he brought up as a way of being able to show how he could get some revenue at a time when they were trying to find some money. The reality is that he knew full well that, if the Senate knocked back a proposal by way of a regulation as introduced for $17½ thousand, he was never going to get one that provided for a $64,000 payment, which was four times as much. Of course, in a fit of pique, after the Senate knocked back his last attempt at this, he reduced the quota to 500. That is 250 couples out of 20,000 who are in the queue—500. That is when you did it. The position is— YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott—How many would you let in?6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—We are not about to tell you how many we would let in when we are in government. When we are in government you can wait and see what it is that we will do. But we will be a sight more compassionate than you have been, Mr Minister, to these 20,000 people—relatives of Australian families—who are trying to get into the country. It is a disgrace that you have left it at 500. You could at least do it—0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—How many?6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—I am not going to tell you anything. You will not tell us anything; we will tell you nothing. You are in government. You are the people who are responsible. You do what you have got to do. (Time expired)16:46:0021302Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I will just pick up one or two comments. The fact is that when the previous regulations went through, by the time people became aware of them, to get applications affecting 2½ thousand people, I think it was in that time—6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—Five months.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Yes, an extraordinarily short period of time to get something up.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—Not in the migration area.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I beg to differ. I would further say that the reason I have not pushed this matter to a vote today is that I take it your opposition is sincerely taken. I take it that it is and that you would not change your mind. So any imputation that I was unwilling to press this matter is, I think, inappropriate.I would just say that the parent cap has been in place over a long period of time. I think the figure before the 500 figure was only marginally higher, at 1,000 or maybe 1,200. It was always clear that Labor, when in office, was of the view that people ought not to be able to apply for and take an Australian pension, having not contributed by way of tax. It seems to me that, as that situation has unwound, as people were able over time to get eligibility for other forms of benefit—be they unemployment benefits if they were of working age or special benefits if they were not—to suggest leaving that open in the way in which it was, without some appropriate arrangement for contribution, would have been quite inappropriate, unfair to taxpayers generally, while being, I am sure, to those who were getting that level of subsidy, a very beneficial outcome.I have no doubt that people who are able to sponsor their parents—particularly if they are going to help with children and particularly if it enables two members of a family to be in the work force and the family to, in addition, claim a benefit for which they have not contributed by taxes by working in the Australian community—would regard it as being very unsatisfactory that that opportunity has been removed from them. I am sure they would. I have no doubt they feel very strongly about it. But the real test will be to what extent you are prepared to campaign amongst taxpayers generally for a subsidised arrangement of that character. That is the real test. It will not be a matter where you can walk down one side of the street and have taxpayers unaware—6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—In other words, politics.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—No. I am saying that the community knows that there is a cost associated with these matters. There was a very interesting poll this week by a fellow called Goote about the extent to which people today are much more comfortable about the migration levels that we have and the programs that we have. One of the reasons that they are more comfortable about them today than they were when you were in office is that the program is managed with integrity, where the national interest plays a part. It has nothing to do with wedge politics. It has a lot to do with a view that migration is there for only one part of our community and not for the whole of the Australian community. I will not be put off by that sort of cheap jibe about wedge politics in relation to matters that are clearly in the national interest. I will continue to advocate policies that will maintain the integrity of our immigration program and maintain public support for it. I will defend it and I can assure you that it will be a program which I will be proud to talk about to all Australians—because they will understand that it is there for the benefit of all Australians. 16:50:0021303Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—I will answer some of the things that have been said by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs: first of all, we talked about the number of people who applied under the previous regulation, which allowed people to sponsor their aged relatives over here at a cost of some $17,500. There were approximately 2,300—I do not know exactly how many—who had five months to make that application. In fact, one would have thought that, out of those 20,000, those who had that sort of money would have taken up the option fairly quickly. For the minister to suggest that people in five months would not have all known—those that at least were within that queue—is a little bit fanciful. The reality is that about 2½ thousand or something like that applied. To suggest that the queue, as he said again, would have been reduced by a proposition which is something like four to five times as much as he was originally saying is fanciful, and he knows that. He knows that in reality it was quite easy to put 4,000 aside at $64,000 a couple, because he knew there was not going to be much of a take-up rate. The reality is that a lot of people cannot afford that, Minister.There was no imputation on your credibility as to why you are not taking this back. I did not mean it that way. But I am aware that the minister did go around certain places and talk to people about this in an attempt to sell it—and he was not able to; he did not get much support. If he thought for one moment that he had support for this, do you think that he would not be putting it forward? Of course, you would. You would be putting it back, for sure. You know that there is not a lot of support and so, for the time being, you probably do not want to do anything about it.In saying that we were suggesting that we would allow the whole 20,000 in, you know that that is not something that we would do.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—We don't know that.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—I'm telling you that we wouldn't do it. I will tell you that, all right?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—How many?6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—I am not going to tell you how many. You have told us 500. We will decide about that later on. The fact is that, at least if it is 1,500 or 2,000, over 10 years you might be able to get rid of that queue of 20,000. Under your proposition of 500, that queue will last for 40 years. Most of them will be dead, Minister, and you know that. By virtue of the fact that they are aged, they will not last 40 years—some of them are in their 60s and 70s. So the reality is that you have given them no hope whatsoever. You have only to take that back to what you were doing before you knocked it down to 500. If I remember correctly, some were borrowed from the spouses category which were unused. I think it was 2,700 or something like that that you allowed in the year before. Dividing 20,000 by 2,700 I think works out at about nine years. That is a reasonable thing. That is not going to cost billions. Of course, if you or our minister say that Labor will bring in the whole 20,000 queue in one year, it will cost billions. The reality is that you know that that is just a trick.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—That included the reinstated categories.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA—Yes, but the point is that you know full well that this is just good politics—you think it is. We believe that what we have done here is the right thing. We are not going to tell you what it is that we will do. Immigration, Minister, as you know, is the purview of the government in power. You are the ones who make the rules. We can only attempt to stop you when you bring in things that we think are wrong. We believe that this is wrong. We believe that the community will not cop it. Fair-minded Australians do not believe this rhetoric of yours about how it costs us billions and billions of dollars. I know you would like to peddle that, because it is a good political point. You say that you do not play politics with this. Of course you do. You yourself have said that you are looking at opinion polls and everything else. You are also saying, `You go out there and sell that to the Australian public.' We are about good policy. We are not about going out there and selling these sorts of things. This is just good policy. I do not want to say anything else and I hope that you do not either so that we can get on with the business of the House. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills21304R95721304Debate resumed from 9 October, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.16:56:0021304Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—The Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Bill 1999 essentially is intended to make the law simpler, more accessible and more efficacious. I think it is a tribute to the complexity of simplifying things that the bill's explanatory memorandum is only 213 pages long. Debate on this bill marks the most recent chapter in a process initiated over a decade ago to develop an Australian national criminal code. In 1990, the then Standing Committee of Attorneys-General appointed a committee which eventually became the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee. Its object was to develop a model criminal code which it hoped would ultimately be enacted by all Australian jurisdictions. The composition of the committee was designed to reflect a balance between the interests of the Commonwealth, the states and the territories by bringing together criminal law experts from each jurisdiction. The committee has produced discussion papers and final reports on a number of criminal law issues and developed draft code provisions. The discussion papers relevant to this bill were issued in 1993, 1994 and 1995. The recommendations these put forward provide the basis for the offences in this bill—the bill that we are currently discussing.The Commonwealth's first step in implementing the model criminal code was the enactment of the Criminal Code Act 1995. The current bill represents a further step in this process, amending the Criminal Code Act through inserting a scheme of property offences within it. Having been first introduced in November 1999, the bill was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which made a series of important recommendations. These recommendations essentially have been agreed to by the government and will be introduced as amendments. For instance, the standing committee recommended that the offence of organised fraud be deleted from the bill on the basis that it unnecessarily duplicated alternative public fraud offences contained in the bill.I think it is fair to say that the process of codification has attracted little opposition. Thus in his report—the chairperson's report—the member for Menzies stated:There has been little response to the inquiry by way of submissions or correspondence. While this may be partly a result of the short time provided for submissions to be lodged, some individuals and organisations have commented that the Bill is the product of many years' consultation and consideration by criminal law experts, and there is little to be added.This bill may be described as having three primary elements. Firstly, it implements a scheme that simplifies property offences under Commonwealth law. As the short title indicates, these are primarily the crimes of theft, fraud and bribery. However, a number of ancillary offences are also covered by the bill, and there are a number of offences relating to technical aspects of government infrastructure such as telecommunications and postage. Secondly, the bill clarifies the jurisdictional issues that relate to property crime by proposing a list of four categories of extended geographical jurisdiction. Thirdly, to protect those who perform the duties of the Commonwealth, it proposes a number of offences under the broad heading of `Causing harm to, impersonating and obstructing Commonwealth public officials'. The bill simplifies the law by repealing more than 250 offences located in 121 acts and replacing them with a range of updated, consistent and more general offences located in the one act. In reducing and consolidating these offences, the bill seeks to define concepts fundamental to the criminal law and then apply them throughout its parts. It attempts to reach conclusive definitions of concepts such as knowledge, intention, receipt, appropriation and dishonesty. The concept of dishonesty, for instance, is central to property offences in Australia and forms an element of the majority of offences within the bill. To commit theft, one must dishonestly appropriate property. To commit forgery or bribery, it is stated that one must act dishonestly.Examining what the bill does with the concept of dishonesty has given me, as a non-lawyer, some insight into the process of codification and what is involved in it. There is a very recent Australian High Court authority on the concept of dishonesty. In 1998, the High Court handed down its decision in Peters. The majority of the High Court adopted an approach that measures dishonesty in an entirely objective way—that is to say, irrespective of what was going through the mind of the accused, the law will consider someone to have acted `dishonestly' where `ordinary, decent people would consider that conduct to be dishonest'. In my understanding, this decision superseded the 1982 English authority of Ghosh, in which the UK Court of Appeal developed a dual subjective and objective test of dishonesty which set out:A jury must first of all decide whether according to the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people what was done was dishonest. If it was not dishonest by those standards, that is the end of the matter and the prosecution fails. If it was dishonest by those standards, the jury must consider whether the defendant himself must have realised that what he was doing by those standards was dishonest.Despite the fact that the majority of the High Court had in 1998 decided that an objective test was appropriate, the code committee chose to adopt the English Ghosh test and not the Peters principle. This bill implements this recommendation. The reasons for this seem to me to have comparatively little to do with simplicity. The explanatory memorandum states:57. An important concept in the Model Criminal Code offences is the fault element of `dishonesty'. Subsection 14.2(1) contains a straight-forward definition which was developed by the courts and is known as the Ghosh test. The Ghosh test is a familiar concept in Australia because until February 1998, it had been used in all jurisdictions, both common law and Code, in relation to conspiracy to defraud and in most jurisdictions, including the Commonwealth, in relation to the main fraud offences ... In Peters v R ... the High Court held that the Ghosh test was no longer appropriate and developed a new test which does not include a subjective component.58. The approach in Peters is not favoured because it is necessary for offences like theft to retain a broad concept of dishonesty to reflect the characteristic of moral wrongdoing.It seems to me that in the case of dishonesty the bill's definition is inexorably dictated not by the demands of removing uncertainty, which is ostensibly a core objective of codification, but rather by a preference for a definition of dishonesty other than that laid down by the High Court. It might appear to the layperson, probably wrongly, that there are many undercurrents beneath the surface of the commitment to codification.The bill proposes to insert a new set of general principles into the Criminal Code Act which stipulate the geographical application of Commonwealth offences. The majority of offences contained in this bill are accompanied by a provision entitled `Geographical Jurisdiction'. These provisions lay down in a clear way the geographical reach of each offence. Simply put, the stated categories are: an Australian committing an offence within Australia, a foreigner committing an offence within Australia, an Australian committing an offence outside of Australia and a foreigner committing an offence outside of Australia. The insertion of the categories enables the scope of each offence to be specifically stated with comparative ease. Ordinarily, while the Commonwealth has the power to legislate extraterritorially, one would expect legislation not to apply to overseas criminal conduct, especially to those crimes committed by foreigners. This is because foreigners are the responsibility of foreign countries and are governed by foreign laws and there is a long tradition that one state does not interfere with the jurisdiction of another. However, now more than ever, state and national borders are no barrier to property crimes. This development has created situations where crimes fall between the jurisdictional cracks, either because not all elements of a crime occur in a single jurisdiction or because one or the other jurisdiction is unwilling to cooperate in a prosecution. In response, there has been adaptation by the common law and by international law. The approach arising from these cases focuses on cooperation amongst different jurisdictions. The ideal is that, where there is a `real and substantial link' with that state and where there is a dual jurisdiction, states should cooperate to ensure that a defendant is not tried twice. The bill puts forward very broad categories of geographical jurisdiction to the offences within it, relying on the newly emerging legal argument that every offence involving Australian citizens, Commonwealth officers or Commonwealth property possesses a `real and substantial link' with Australia. The bill puts forward newly worded offences of causing harm to and impersonation and obstruction of Commonwealth officers. It is important that those who perform the duties of the Commonwealth are adequately protected. The basic provisions of these clauses come from sections 75 and 76 of the Crimes Act 1914. The net is now cast more widely due to the inclusion of the additional general offences of causing harm to a Commonwealth public official and threatening to cause harm to a Commonwealth public official.The offences under the bill are of more general application because of the insertion of a broad definition of a Commonwealth public official. The bill defines public officials as covering a broad range of officers and contractors and now includes members of the judiciary and members of the parliament. However, it needs to be said that the provisions of the bill do not only operate to protect public officials—and there are a number which cover the criminal liability of Commonwealth public officials for corruption related offences. In this regard, I am advised that the bill merely expresses the existing law in a clearer way. Although members of parliament and the judiciary were not explicitly contemplated by the Crimes Act 1914, they have always been subject to criminal liability in the same manner as all Australian citizens.While clarity in the law is important, it is also important that some caution is exercised in defining members of this House and members of the Senate alongside public servants, for instance. I have been assured that the inclusion of members of parliament within this definition does not imply that members of parliament are officers of profit under the Crown, which places them in breach of section 44 of the Constitution, which—as we recollect—would disqualify members from sitting. But sometimes there is a tendency to extend different definitions from one area to another as the process of codification continues, and it is important that the distinctive functions of members of parliament are recognised as new law is enacted through the process of codification. I have been assured that there will be careful consideration of, and particular attention given to, whether it is appropriate for members of parliament to be classified as public officials as the process of codification continues into other areas.In conclusion, I would like to say a little about the broader concept of codification. The bill represents the latest development in a longstanding program of developing a national criminal code. It is intended that such legislation will codify Commonwealth criminal law whilst also providing the states with model draft legislation. In writing a code, a balance must be struck between the objectives of simplicity, accessibility and the sophistication necessary to ensure that the law is operative. It is too hopeful to expect that the law can be simplified to the point where the skills of the legal profession become redundant. One only has to take in the size of this bill or its explanatory memorandum to realise that it does not represent the law in a form which non-lawyers can easily read. In early debates, the ministerial criminal code officers committee felt that a code which could be interpreted only by lawyers would fail a basic test of acceptability. It was felt that the content of such a fundamental area as the criminal law should be accessible to all citizens. I do agree with this notion and it is indeed important that those who are governed by the criminal law have an understanding of what amounts to criminal conduct. However, I believe this commitment is distinct from phrasing the law in such a way that guarantees that every citizen may be his or her own lawyer. This would be to oversimplify the law with the attendant risks of arbitrariness and, ultimately, unfairness. Simplifying the law is about stating the law in plain English and removing the inconsistencies which exist within. It is about presenting the law in a clearly structured fashion and, where appropriate, grouping offences that are alike in the same bill. I commend the bill to the House.17:11:0021307Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Bill 1999 is yet another example of the legal split personality that has plagued our common law legal system since earliest times. On the one hand, we are a common law country. We are collectively bound by common law precedent, at least by courts with sufficient standing. This bill is of interest to me for two reasons: firstly, I am a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs; secondly, I am particularly interested in the operation of criminal law as it relates to section 29D of the Crimes Act—that is, the offence of defrauding the Commonwealth. I say this at a time of questions I am pursuing with the Attorney-General and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in relation to former Senator Malcolm Arthur Colston, and I still have questions Nos 1817, 1925, 1958 and 1957 on the Notice Paper, unanswered.This bill makes substantial changes to criminal fraud and, for reasons that I will outline later, demonstrates the torn loyalties of a legal system struggling to come to grips with its identity. I am speaking about the defence of public morality and the restoration of public confidence in the criminal code. The Colston affair stands as a classic example of how public confidence is shattered by the application of a lethal cocktail of amending a criminal code whilst not accommodating the impacts of these changes on pre-existing procedural law, such as the Commonwealth government's prosecution policy. Here, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions actually commenced criminal proceedings on a pre-existing law—namely, section 29D of the Crimes Act—for an alleged breach of defrauding the Commonwealth. Behind this charge is a long line of common law precedents. Further, there is a complex and delicately balanced range of criminal practice policies, which is an admixture of statute, common law and policy of which the prosecution policy is one part.The more questions on notice I have asked in relation to former Senator Malcolm Arthur Colston, the more it has become apparent to me how critical the role of common law and policy is in the overall efficacy of maintaining the honest goods of public confidence and the structural integrity of the criminal justice system. To put it bluntly, the amendments today are only as good as the practice and procedures that surround them. In the last 10 years, we have seen many examples of all but convicted criminals escaping their day in court simply because, at the appropriate time, they become too frail or too crook—no pun intended—to stand trial. We see the situation in Indonesia at present, with former President Suharto now ducking for cover on medical grounds as he attempts to evade the Indonesian Attorney-General's best efforts to bring him to trial. Former President Suharto was simply too ill to stand trial for many alleged crimes. We see former business tycoon Christopher Skase in Majorca jumping into his wheelchair and hooking himself up to his life giving ventilator, unable to return home. What a joke! We see former Chilean dictator Pinochet escaping proceedings for so long because he too is too crook. Whilst it is not for me to adjudicate whether these cases are legitimate or not, what is important is the impact on the legal process itself. The reason why these matters become media events is that there is a higher sense of cynicism that accompanies these actions and, with it, understandably, a complete loss of public confidence. That higher sense is the competing interests that must be weighed against each other. What are those competing interests? On the one hand, we have the interests of the individual whose individual justice must be upheld, including their dignity. It is not relevant how scurrilous or notorious the allegations are; policy requires that if a person is too ill to stand trial then so be it. On the other hand, it is in the public interest to see that justice is done and manifestly seen to be done. Public confidence must be established so that, whether in Indonesia, Chile, Australia, Majorca or elsewhere, when wrongs are committed the wrongdoer should stand trial. This is particularly the case against the United Nations, now under considerable pressure with Slobodan Milosevic, who stands accused of crimes against humanity but who cannot be brought to the court in The Hague. I would be prepared to lay a wager that Slobodan Milosevic's low profile at the moment is related to a sudden incurable illness and his desire to find a doctor who is prepared to make an appropriate diagnosis of alleged war crimes.The point is that this legislation must reflect the true aspirations of the people. It is insufficient that a person is allowed to walk free when the public interest is so grossly mauled. It is my submission that, when the offences are grave enough and the repercussions of repeat offences are sufficiently high, the public interest must prevail over an individual's interest where that public interest strikes at the very heart of confidence in the criminal justice system. The public view politicians cynically because we are seen as rorters of the system; we profit from our so-called scandalous behaviour whilst the battling Australian must face the music. We witnessed it today in question time with Minister Reith and also during the matter of public importance debate. It is this public confidence that we must restore. It is for this reason that a comprehensive review of the legislation is so important—in its totality and not just a few clever redefinitions of criminal law that embed true justice into the criminal code.So what is today's bill all about? This is a bill that is considered so complex that it was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. The committee made five recommendations, and the government has accepted four of those recommendations. The bill is also the product of over 10 years of work by the Attorney-General's committee, the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, MCCOC. The `split personality' to which I referred at the start of this speech is the torn loyalties of the legal fraternity to recognise the forgotten fact that we are an English tradition common law country. This point is explicitly recognised in the Bills Digest when citing Sir Samuel Griffith in his codification of the Queensland Criminal Code in 1897. However, the common law means that our criminal and civil codes are not static. Unlike civil law jurisdictions of mainland Europe or Sharia law jurisdictions in certain Muslim countries, the laws being passed today will certainly drift with the passing of time. This bill is a general attempt to spring-clean the law. This is a periodic ritual of Australian and other common law countries; that is, the law drifts along as the courts continue to interpret the law and make judgments therefrom. The result is that, over time, the law becomes so unwieldy that the question of house cleaning must be contemplated and implemented. The presentation of this bill as a codification is therefore misplaced. True, the bill clarifies existing criminal offences and invents some new offences, notably the offence of `general dishonesty' and the new offence of `obtaining financial advantage'.The bill is interesting for a number of reasons. First, the general new category of offences under proposed division 135 establishes four new offences under the `general dishonesty' provision. Second, the new offence of `obtaining financial advantage' was not contemplated by the MCCOC but is included here. Third, clarification of existing section 83 of the Crimes Act—`organised fraud'—was opposed by the MCCOC but accepted by the government. The point being made here today is that this government has clearly demonstrated in the inclusion, exclusion and modification of the existing criminal code that it is making its own mind up in the ratification of the type of criminal code that will govern Australia. I say `Australia', because the purpose of the model criminal code is to ratify a uniform criminal code that will apply throughout all the jurisdictions of Australia. This is problematic, of course, for the common law jurisdictional reasons I have mentioned; that is, in time each jurisdiction will deviate according to the particular cases brought before the courts. Also, cultural and other factors will play their part in ensuring that in the future the so-called uniform laws promulgated today will bear little resemblance to the uniformity attempted today. I will briefly refer to other jurisdiction provisions in the bill. This government, by this bill, is rightly asserting its input to the existing legal system. I may say that the recommendations of the MCCOC reflect the aspirations of the judicature, represented by the highest legal officers in the land. They have made their five recommendations after an exhaustive review of the current legal system. This, of course, reflects the embodiment of the law as they know it. Their recommendations reflect the pre-existing common and statutory laws and policies, notably the Commonwealth's prosecution policy and other relevant instruments. I bring this to the House's attention because the government is clearly within its powers to develop a criminal code that reflects the public morality as understood by the collective will of its members. The point is that we have undertaken to express our will to codify a law that cannot be truly codified. The reason for this is simple: we are not a civil law country. As sure as I am standing here today, in the near future this bill, once absorbed into the criminal laws of our land, will be tested in the courts. In short, the law will change and, with it, the implied morality of that law will also reflect society. This is a good thing. This is a major reason our common law heritage has served us so well in assisting in the maintenance of separation and independence of the judiciary as well as ensuring a high level of stability in judicial decision making. This brings me back to the split personality of what is being attempted here. The Bills Digest apologises for this by stating:... the intention is not to displace or re-engineer the common law, but to bring together similar offences that appear in different statutes.In all forms of communication in our everyday lives we hear people say `it appears'. It seems that nothing ever is—it appears. I like the word `appear'. The law is replete with laws that `appear' the same but are in fact different. I cite just one example by analogy: the right of silence and the privilege against self-incrimination are in fact different evidentiary rules. They appear the same to the untrained ear. They may even look the same, depending on how and when they are used in a court. But the fact is that they remain utterly distinct procedural and evidentiary rules in the courts. The reason for this distinction is that they are founded on utterly different policy rationales. This is important because the judicial officer presiding must adjudicate the competing policies that very often conflict in his or her court and weigh the policy consequences of one policy defeating or having priority over another policy. This is one major reason we spend an enormous amount of money on our criminal and civil justice system. Decisions adjudicating which policy is to prevail are delicate, and only a judge or other judicial officer with considerable experience can weigh the consequences of such decisions. I mention this because the Bills Digest alerts us to the gist of this bill when it says that the bill:... attempts to bring together similar offences that appear in different statutes.Let us examine this statement in more detail. The Bills Digest does certainly achieve the very objects of this bill that I fear the most. The Bills Digest explicitly states that the objectives in consideration of this bill are (1) reduction and (2) standardisation. These two words are the war cries of the day in our contemporary morality. The reductionist tendencies of this government are seen to achieve a list mentality; that is, there is a tendency to reduce law by simplification. Simplifying the law sounds like a good idea. It may appeal to Australians who may form an opinion that the law is too complex and therefore in need of so-called simplification. In fact, bills such as this fall foul of gaps, from which the term `gap analysis' is coined. Gap analysis looks at the before and after of legislation. The purpose of such analysis is to identify what has been retained and what has been lost in legislation. In this case the law has been reduced by joining existing offences that appear to be similar. Let each member of this House ask themselves this question: `If these pre-existing statutory laws are so similar, why are they different?' I put to this House that these laws are different because they are founded on different policy rationales. In turn, these policy rationales are founded on different moralities—that is, different rules of social conduct.What is criminal law anyway? In the English common law tradition a criminal law serves two purposes: one, it is a public expression of minimum code of conduct by a person subject to its jurisdiction; and, two, it prescribes punitive punishment for those who violate the law. Therefore, when a criminal law changes it is really altering the social contract that exists between the person and the state. I am tempted to refer to `the person' as `the citizen', but even this word `citizen' is no longer appropriate to this bill, because the law has made substantial amendments to the operational jurisdiction of this bill that extend beyond Australian citizens. There are now four categories of geographic jurisdiction, which include extraterritorial geographic jurisdiction and operational jurisdiction.The government is therefore presenting a bill that continues a liberal tradition that plagued English common law jurisdictions even before the time of Sir Samuel Griffith. Liberalism has plagued even the drafting of statutory law by relying on its own tradition whilst criticising other traditions in the name of `efficiency' and `comprehensibility', `consistency' and `certainty'. I have taken these words from Hawkland's `Uniform Commercial Code', University of Illinios Law Forum 1962. I cite this quote because it typifies the jurisprudential thinking that has plagued bills like this one we are debating here tonight.The legislature is obsessed with simplicity. What it ignores—or intentionally strives to erase—is the pre-existing policies and ethics that underpin the good governance of our criminal justice system. I am particularly concerned about the use of terminology which recommends—as Sir Samuel Griffith states in his `Explanatory Letter to the Attorney-General Queensland with Draft Code', written in 1897—`criminal law ... should be reduced to writing in such a form that any intelligent person able to read can ascertain what it is.'I am not concerned with the laudable aspirations of one of our great legal forefathers in seeking that the law be intellectually accessible. However, Sir Samuel Griffith's noble aspiration has been interpreted over time as so-called plain English legal drafting and plain English contracts. This is, of course, not what Sir Samuel intended. He notes the prerequisite of intelligence—that is, possessing an actual knowledge capable of understanding. Our legal system is more complex today than it was in Sir Samuel Griffith's time. This is due to a number of factors, including technology and changing pluralistic cultural effects and globalisation of international law. In 100 years time the law will be even more complex. There is no avoiding it. It is both foolish and dangerous to write legislation in a way that appears to be written in clear and plain English. Legal practitioners will admit that there is no such thing as plain English legislation or contracts. Every instrument requires careful interpretation, extensive background knowledge of fact and law and a trained intellect to interpret this information.The bill we are debating tonight is part of a liberal ideology that believes that codification is the answer. Codification is appealing in the liberalist ideology because it is empirical in its nature. The bill attempts to codify laws in black-and-white, good, bottom-line law that anyone can understand. Who can admit that criminal law will be easier or more consistent or more certain than the existing law? I do not believe this to be the case. The law is necessary to do justice. Justice can be both tedious and complicated, especially in criminal law. I am not advocating complexity in law for its own sake. I would wish a law to be simple, so that all persons could understand. But not even a lifelong professional like John Laws could understand a law relating to the confidentiality of jurors under oath. Not even a knowledgable man like John Laws, who has a long career in the media, seemed to know a basic rule such as `thou shalt not talk to jurors about a trial'. He pleaded ignorance of the law. If John Laws cannot know a law that he had previously come across at least once in his lifetime, and ought to have known backwards as a professional radio broadcaster, then what hope does the average Australian have to understand laws that they may encounter only once in their lifetime?The purpose of this bill is to simplify, reduce and clarify. Reductionism is at play in this bill. Its explicit purpose is manifold. First, the bill will erase certain offences. I am confident upon review of the Bills Digest and other supporting documents on the bill that no gap analysis has been performed. This absence of gap analysis may be intentional or unintentional. The legislative draftspeople may even believe that they are acting in a morally responsible way by faithfully following the penultimate philosophy of reductionism and empiricism by simplifying legislation.However, the truth is that the law is being reduced. The law is being erased. The law is being substituted with new laws. This is not a case of simply combining laws; this is a case of creating entirely new heads of laws. Even those pre-existing laws, such as section 83 of the act, are being turned into something similar but not the same. This raises the issue of legal surrogacy. Legal surrogacy means the substitution of one law for another. It means the actual replacement of an existing law with an entirely new law. It is the difference between a diamond and a zirconium. The zirconium looks like a diamond, but it is not a diamond and never will be a diamond.The bill before us tonight raises serious concerns for the future of Australian jurisprudence. Clause by clause the enactment of each new provision may or may not be valid. The philosophy that `new means better' is heavily present in this bill. I cannot see any policy rationale behind the purpose of this bill other than the driven objectives of simplification and codification. On the simplification front the bill fails because it has deliberately sought to erase those traditions that are the policy foundations of the pre-existing statutory rules. On the codification criteria the bill fails because the English common law system means that Australian jurisdictions can never be truly codified. Attempts such as this bill are mere points in time to be overrun by the continuum of the common law.There are the new provisions of the act where so much concern has been raised—that is, the jurisdiction of this bill is extended way beyond the geographic and operational jurisdictions of Australia. This bill now extends beyond territorial and individual jurisdictions. The lex loci, or law of the land, now literally means `law beyond the land'—a contradiction. The lex nuptii, or law of birth, now may be in conflict with other foreign nations' laws, thus raising the possibility of private and public international law jurisdictions being invoked.I say all this in the context of a bill which has sought to systematically eliminate our traditions and substitute them with new values that are essentially liberal in perspective. The liberalism is found in the view of law itself. What was meant by `fraud' 100 years ago is not the same as that meant by `fraud' today. The Bills Digest makes great play of the complexity of the law and the need to simplify it. This is also the position of the government today. However, the law is necessarily complex for the reasons I have already mentioned.There is a further tendency to reduce the complexity of law simply by eliminating it. There is one management technique to reduce crime—redefine it. If too many offences are being committed, that is easy: eliminate the act or the thing done as a crime. What was a crime 20 or 50 years ago is not a crime today. Examples include the operation of a disorderly house as a brothel, which is now decriminalised in New South Wales, and the permissible amount of narcotics one may have in one's possession before a charge is mandatory. In concluding, it would be interesting to question whether former Senator Malcolm Arthur Colston would be guilty of an offence under the new law. It would be even more interesting to see how the procedural rules, such as the prosecution principles, would interact with the substantive law. I wonder whether there would even be a charge laid, let alone whether proceedings would be dropped on the grounds of the medical health of the defendant. The proposed new division 134 is supposed to be the same as the old law. But will it be the same?Law is like a computer—that is, when it works well, do not tamper with it. There are many amendments to the law here which reflect the philosophy of change for its own sake. These changes are justified on grounds of simplification. In fact new offences are created in a vastly expanded jurisdiction which I can only surmise will have a deleterious effect on the understanding and judicial interpretation of law, governed by the whims of the public morality of the day, while severing the traditional links of pre-existing common law precedent. (Time expired)17:31:0021312Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—Let me commend my colleague the member for Lowe for his very erudite contribution on the complex matters under debate in this context.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—You are a hypocrite!QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBE—Could I ask for a withdrawal of that comment please, Mr Deputy Speaker. I find that quite offensive coming from someone like that particular gentleman.10000Hawker, David (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—If the member finds it offensive, maybe the parliamentary secretary might withdraw it.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—I withdraw it.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBE—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to commend the member for Lowe for his most erudite contribution, because the issues are rather complex. They deal with the relationship between a number of very important considerations in ensuring that the law is responsive to emerging and changing community trends, particularly in relation to the sorts of offences that are dealt with in the Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Bill 1999. I think that is very much the case. The law ought to change in the context of emerging social trends in ways, however, that continue to provide significant protection to the liberty of Australians and at the same time seek not to exacerbate social inequities that can give rise to problems of law in the first place or in the way in which the law operates. I will try to illustrate some of those points as I go through.The Australian Institute of Criminology have put out quite a useful little guide entitled Facts and Figures. They define `other theft'—stealing—as:... the taking of another person's property with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of the property illegally and without permission, but without force, threat of force, use of coercive measures ...And so on. The Institute of Criminology found that in 1998 a total of 565,000 incidents of other theft were recorded by the police, with 2,856 victims per 100,000 population in Australia. This represents a 6.5 per cent increase in the number recorded in 1997. The same publication indicates that this category of `other theft' was in fact the most commonly recorded crime, accounting for 43 per cent of the total. This category does not directly correlate with the subject matter of this bill but it is close enough in many respects and I think indicates one of those trends that I was referring to.The same Institute of Criminology makes a number of very interesting points in a publication—also from last year—called Identity-related Economic Crime: Risks and Countermeasures, as follows:In February 1999, KPMG carried out a survey of over 1800 of Australia's largest businesses. Of the 367 replies received, some 7280 incidents of fraud were reported in the two years preceding the survey, with 57 per cent of respondents reporting at least one incident during that period. Of the incidents committed by managers, 9.6 per cent involved the use of false documentation. Of the incidents committed by persons outside organisations, 11.9 per cent involved the use of false documentation and 13.7 per cent related to forgery of cheques. In surveys of computer crime and security incidents conducted by the Victoria Police and others in 1997 and 1998, 15 per cent and 19 per cent, respectively, of the organisations surveyed, thought that identity-related fraud would have an impact on their organisation over the next five years.The report by the Institute of Criminology goes on to say that:In the United States in 1997, the Secret Service made nearly 9500 arrests in which so-called identity theft was an issue.It also talks about Victoria, where between August 1995 and March 1996:... an offender used desktop publishing equipment to create 41 birth certificates and 41 student identification cards.These were used to open 42 separate bank accounts throughout Melbourne, and so on. The point that arises from that last observation about events in Melbourne illustrates that technological change—the ease with which documents can now be produced because of technological change—may be one of the significant contributing factors to an apparent expansion, according to the statistics, of this type of crime. But the technology also produces problems of equity of the type that I referred to briefly in my opening remarks, because it is possible, technologically, to provide some degree of protection from this sort of fraud. For example, we may, according to the Institute of Criminology, need to obtain a cryptographic key pair for use in public computer systems.That is all very well for a business or for individuals who have a reasonable income, but it imposes incredible hardships on people at the extreme lower levels of income—who may be homeless, for example—if they want to participate in the normal course of social life. They will not be able to get adequate access to the technology that has been introduced to minimise risk of fraud. In terms of these types of trends that I am talking about, there is a range of challenges from a public policy point of view. On the one hand, society, businesses and individuals need to protect themselves from fraud, but that can well generate significant social inequities in access to a range of basic services because of the nature of those protective mechanisms.They are issues that this parliament will need to look at, because we are all very aware that the laws are the same for everyone whether you live in a mansion or under a bridge. We do not want to get into the classic situation where the incarceration of someone for pinching a loaf of bread becomes an issue for law enforcement and the way law reform proceeds. There is a raft of issues here that we very much need to take into account.A good example of the way in which the committees of this parliament work is the way in which the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has approached this particular bill. One of the other speakers in this debate has talked about the very lengthy period of time involved in getting this legislation, along with other reforms to the criminal law, through our system. One could say that the committee served, in some respects, to even further delay the process, but the consequence of their work has been that the government has accepted, I understand, most of their recommendations for change in the bill, and that is to the good. One area to which the committee paid particular attention was the offence of organised fraud. I understand that the government has amended the bill to remove the aspects of the bill that the committee was concerned about, for good social reasons. The committee in its report pointed out a problem with one aspect of that raft of competing issues that I referred to a little while ago. On the issue of organised fraud, the committee says:... the proposed offence could potentially provide inappropriate coverage, catching persons such as social security recipients who commit multiple frauds due to financial desperation, rather than people with serious criminal intent.We welcome the fact that the government has accepted the committee's recommendations in relation to organised fraud.In relation to the issue of false or misleading information, the committee made recommendations that the provisions of the bill be amended so that a defence could be provided along the lines of a proposal I understand the department submitted. The proposal requires the drawing of an individual's attention, in a formal warning sense, to the potential offence before that particular provision can take effect. That is a very welcome step in a culturally pluralistic society like ours. I represent an electorate that has something like 120 different cultural groups in it, and many of the people come from legal settings where their experience of dealing with officialdom, law enforcement agencies and government in general has not been as productive or positive as we would hope would be the situation in the Australian context. Frankly, the basis for dealing with government officials is often regarded quite differently by people in a culturally diverse community. To, without warning, impose potentially extremely harsh penalties on people for giving false or misleading information without any attempt to provide a warning would have been an inequity of the sort I also referred to in my general introduction. That particular change is welcome. An area of change the committee dealt with which, I understand, the government is not concurring with is the offence of general dishonesty. Whilst I am not a member of the committee, my reading of this issue suggests that the concern the committee had was that there was not sufficient clarity in terms of guidelines to guide the Director of Public Prosecutions in relation to this particular proposed offence of general dishonesty. I understand that, as a consequence of discussions that have occurred since—I am referring to the contribution to this debate that my colleague the member for Denison, the shadow Attorney-General, made the other day—there has been a substantial resolution of this matter. There has been general acceptance that the guidelines that have now been developed for the application of the DPP in relation to this matter of general dishonesty are now adequate protection against the sorts of concerns that the committee and others foresaw in the application of that particular offence. That is a welcome development, too, and it is good to see that the bill will proceed and update the law in this important area.As I started off by saying, there is a range of competing public policy considerations that need to be got right in this area. The community is certainly entitled to beefed up and more adequate protection from the sorts of offences the bill deals with. The legislation in itself is not sufficient. Crime does not occur in a vacuum; it occurs in a social context, and social hardship, social inequality and issues of access to legal aid and the like all bear, in many respects, upon the environment in which crime may occur. As a general principle, there would appear to be some increase in the sorts of activity that this bill deals with, and there needs to be a more adequate legislative response. But the legislative response by itself is not sufficient. As a parliament, we need to give considerable attention to ensuring that we do not impose additional social hardships, particularly on the more vulnerable members of the community, and particularly on people who may typically be receiving social security payments.We also need to be very mindful of the need for society generally to take steps to protect itself more adequately from identity and fraud related activities, so that they do not impose even greater hardships on perhaps some of the more fragile and vulnerable elements of our community who will not have access to those sorts of protections, and who in fact may find that their way of life is even more imposed upon because of measures taken to protect business and others in society. So there is a whole raft of issues that this bill brings forward for this legislature to continue to have under consideration. The bill in itself I think is a good, small step forward.17:46:0021314Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate on the Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Bill 1999 this afternoon. Like other members, I am indebted to the work that has been done by the Parliamentary Library in the production of the Bills Digest, which is, as usual, of a very high professional standard and very informative, and it is something which I will refer to during my contribution. The other document that I want to refer to, at least at the outset, is the Advisory report on the Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Bill 1999, which, of course, was produced through the deliberation of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I think it is worth while for us to just refer to the introduction of this document to remind ourselves of the origins of this piece of legislation and its background. It goes back about a decade when the matter was placed on the agenda of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, or SCAG, in June 1990. SCAG established the Criminal Law Officers Committee, later to become the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, or MCCOC—I am not sure how you would say that acronym—to develop a model criminal code for all Australian jurisdictions. This committee comprised expert officers from the states, the territories and the Commonwealth and, over the years, has produced a series of discussion papers and reports on a number of subject areas. Each of these papers and reports contained chapters to be included in the model criminal code. It issued discussion papers relevant to the Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) bills 1993 and 1994, and its 1995 final report, chapter 3, `Theft, fraud, bribery and related offences', contains the foundations for the offences proposed in the bill.It is not my intention to read through the summary of the bill, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure you are thankful for that, and I am sure those who are listing are thankful for that as well. What I do want to do is to raise a couple of issues about criminal justice which bear thinking about in the context of this legislation: how this parliament is dealing with these issues of the criminal code, and how other jurisdictions have dealt with issues to do with, for example, theft, bribery or related offences. I want to bring your minds to the way this bill defines very strong penalties for breaches of the law for theft, fraud or deception—it codifies the law but it also, obviously, allows the courts to make certain determinations. That, of course, is not the case in all jurisdictions in Australia. In contrast, in the Northern Territory we have a system of mandatory sentencing. When you juxtapose the deliberations of this committee's report, the thought processes that are no doubt behind the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, and where we as a nation want ourselves to be, you can understand why many of us believe that the criminal code of the Northern Territory is an anathema—at least insofar as it deals with the issue of mandatory sentencing. I am reminded that, in that context, it is coming up to six months since the death of a young man sparked off nationwide soul-searching about the place of mandatory sentencing in a modern justice system. Attempts by people in this parliament to hold the Northern Territory accountable over their regime were frustrated by the intervention of prominent government backbenchers in relation to that issue. They were involved—and, from their point of view, I can understand why—in negotiating a deal with the Northern Territory government, which the Prime Minister then committed funding to. This took away from us, in a sense, the capacity to examine in a detailed sense, from this parliament's point of view, the merits or otherwise of the issue of mandatory sentencing. I say that that is a shame, but it highlights a few contradictions in the way in which we deal with things and in the attitudes of some people in this parliament. I come to that very obvious juxtaposition of attitudes on mandatory sentencing—I give the example of a person who got jailed for 12 months for thieving a towel—and of the position of the member for Flinders, who is involved in a process where someone has fraudulently used or inappropriately used a government credit card to the extent of hitting the government's coffers, taxpayers' coffers, for $50,000.No doubt the member for Flinders and those who advise him, the Prime Minister and those who advise him, and the Attorney-General and those who advise him will be flicking through this criminal code and wondering what elements of it might be relevant in the prosecution of any case to deal with the misappropriation of this $50,000. I am reminded also of the words of the Hon. Daryl Williams AM, QC, MP, who, in his second reading speech, said: In 1825, British clergyman and writer Charles Caleb Cottons observed:There are some frauds so well conducted that it would be stupidity not to be deceived by them.I wonder whether nagging at the back of the mind of the Attorney-General is not the thought that one of these deceptions falls at the hands of the member for Flinders. The Attorney-General went on to say:I am sure many would consider this to be as true today as it ever was. Fraudsters, thieves, blackmailers and corrupt officials are rapidly developing the means to deprive the Commonwealth government and its public officials of vast sums of money.That is clearly true. That is something which this bill seeks to address, and for that it is to be applauded. But in relation to the way in which people who seek to defraud the Commonwealth are dealt with fairly under this criminal code and the way in which the Northern Territory government is dealing with theft amongst offenders—particularly juvenile offenders—despite the negotiations that took place in the first instance in April, as of today the Northern Territory government still has not introduced legislation to effect the changes that needed to be made as a result of the deal struck with the Commonwealth government. I am very concerned about that, because this place ought to be about sorting out issues where people's rights are concerned and acknowledging—as at least the Labor Party have done—that there are international standards in relation to criminal justice in the Northern Territory which need to be met. I understand that the Attorney and members of the government hold the view that these laws in the Northern Territory do not meet that test. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, that was the subject of much discussion in Geneva which led us to the absurd proposition where, in a moment of cant, the government through the Attorney and the Prime Minister chose to admonish the United Nations committee system for having the temerity to contemplate these issues. This criminal code asks the Australian community to accept transparency in the way in which we deal with theft, fraud, bribery and related offences across jurisdictions, at least insofar as they relate to the Commonwealth. When we read the advice from the Parliamentary Library and other informed experts, we are clearly cognisant of our international obligations in relation to these laws. But, somehow or other, a different test applies to the Northern Territory, and you would have to wonder why that is the case. You would also have to wonder how the Commonwealth could allow themselves to be put in the position where, instead of looking at ways to effect changes to social behaviour in the Northern Territory so that the need for mandatory sentencing was obviated, they are endorsing a policy of mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory. To my way of thinking, that clearly is absurd. We know that mandatory sentencing of itself does not reduce crime, and we need to acknowledge that the community wants a reduction in crime. I have been told that property crimes have increased in Darwin and Alice Springs since the introduction of mandatory sentencing. In the financial year ending June 1999, unlawful entry offences in Darwin rose by 48 per cent and reports of property damage increased by 35 per cent. It is clear from the figures coming out of the Northern Territory that not even the victims of crime are assisted by mandatory sentencing. Property crime has increased, and 88 per cent of perpetrators of home burglaries in Darwin are not caught. That information is from the Northern Territory government's own report. As I said earlier, you wonder how people can evaluate that somehow or other mandatory sentencing is good for the community. I mentioned earlier that the theft of a beach towel caused one unfortunate individual to be sentenced to 12 months jail. The cost of sending that person to jail was just above the amount that the member for Flinders is perhaps liable for because of his credit card.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I have listened very carefully to the comments of the honourable member for the Northern Territory and he has skated very close to the mark. But on this occasion he has indeed cast a personal reflection on the member for Flinders and I draw to your attention the provisions of standing order 76. 10000Quick, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Quick)—Order! Having just assumed the seat as Deputy Speaker, for several seconds I was not aware of what had happened, so I ask the honourable member for the Northern Territory to resume his speech being mindful of standing order 76.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—In any event, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will recall that it is very clearly on the public record that a bill of some $50,000 has been run up on a telephone card that was given to the Attorney-General for use in his official capacity.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—The Attorney-General?IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—I withdraw `Attorney-General', if that is what I said. I obviously meant the member for Flinders. I thank the honourable member opposite for reminding me that the member for Flinders is indeed the person I should be talking about. Nevertheless, that $50,000 is important to us, but remember that I am talking about the theft of a beach towel. What would a beach towel be worth? About $20 or $30 at most, you would think. The cost of imprisonment of a person for a year in the Northern Territory is $56,669.90. So you have to ask yourself whether or not there is equitable treatment of people for what is a relatively minor offence. As I said earlier, if you juxtapose the situation in the Northern Territory with the approach adopted by the government in the context of this legislation in the way in which it wants to seek to deal properly with breaches of the common law by people involved in theft, fraud, bribery and related offences, then you would say that those people the Federal Police are investigating in relation to the theft or misuse of a telephone card will be fairly treated by the law. But I wonder what would happen if the persons responsible were in the Northern Territory jurisdiction—$50,000 is a lot of money. Whoever is responsible would not stand much of a hope, especially as mandatory sentencing laws prevail.We have heard in this place on a number of occasions how individuals have been abused by members of the government for doing particular things in relation to their work. But there must be internal conflict going on here. The government party room must be a very interesting place when government members are contemplating issues of justice, because they have to balance their own interest in safeguarding the political life of a person such as the member for Flinders against a desire to do the right thing.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it is not appropriate for me to comment on the particular matter being referred to by the member opposite, but he is suggesting that the government is not doing the right thing. The government is clearly doing the right thing. That has been outlined by both the minister and the Prime Minister during question time.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! There is no point of order.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—In any event, the internal conflict is clear, as evidenced by the intervention of the member opposite. That internal conflict goes well beyond the issue of the member for Flinders. It also goes to the conscience of the Liberal Party in terms of those people in the Liberal Party who perhaps believe that the member for Flinders should do the right thing and resign or at least stand aside. There are also those in the Liberal Party who would no doubt believe that, whilst supporting, as they should, this piece of legislation before the House, mandatory sentencing is unfair, unreasonable and unjust.18:05:0021317Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I thank honourable members for participating in this debate. When the Attorney-General introduced the Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Bill 1999 to the parliament in November last year, he said:The bill achieves many longstanding goals of this government:. it replaces existing Crimes Act 1914 offences with a modern and transparent scheme for preventing and punishing theft, fraud, bribery, forgery and related offences;. it provides a modern and transparent scheme for the geographical jurisdiction of the Commonwealth criminal law by replacing the existing situation where the scope of offences is often uncertain; . it provides additional protection for Commonwealth public officials from violence and harassment; and. it simplifies and reduces the size of the Commonwealth statute book by repealing over 250 offences which cover conduct dealt with by the new offences.The bill toughens up corruption offences, increasing the maximum penalty for bribery from two to 10 years imprisonment. Theft and fraud offences are improved by replacing complex provisions dependent on common law terminology with codified offences that have been developed in cooperation with the states and territories. The opportunity has been taken to update fraud and forgery offences to take into account new technology, and there are new offences previously not included in Commonwealth law such as the proposed unwarranted demands offence, which is similar to state and territory blackmail offences. I am pleased to see that the advisory report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which was tabled in this place on 26 June this year, suggests that the Attorney's enthusiasm for this bill was not unfounded. The standing committee concluded:This bill represents one of the most significant changes to Commonwealth criminal law in recent years. It arises out of the Commonwealth's long-term aim of consolidating all of its criminal laws into one easily accessible, clear and consistent act of parliament. The committee endorses the rationale for this legislative reform, hoping that it will lead to efficiency in the application of the criminal law.The committee's report is short and focused, reflecting the limits of the committee's reporting timetable, the absence of evidence opposing this bill and the fact that the committee has only a few areas of specific concern with this bill. Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be interested to know that, at the request of the Minister for Justice and Customs, the standing committee was gracious in expediting consideration of the bill. It is appropriate to commend the chairman of the committee, the honourable member for Menzies, and other members of the standing committee who gave this bill priority so that the passage of these important reforms will be possible this year. I shall now respond to some of the matters raised in the debate. The shadow minister sitting opposite, the honourable member for Denison, has mentioned his disappointment that state and territory governments have not been quick to implement the model criminal code. Obviously, while the government would like to see more progress, realistically it was always going to take some time for those governments to progress from being involved in the preparation of the code to making changes to their local offences. The criminal law is a core responsibility of state and territory governments. Therefore, it is not surprising that they have approached national consistency gradually and with caution. It is far more productive to look at the positive things that have been achieved and to build on them. For the benefit of honourable members, I would like to outline some of them. The states and territories have continued to develop the model criminal code to finality. The code will be finished this year. States and territories are implementing individual offences from the code: most have implemented the model contamination of goods offence; most have implemented the model female genital mutilation offence; and most have implemented the recommendation that there be serious drug offences for trafficking and manufacture of steroids. South Australia has implemented, and most are committed to implementing, the model slavery and sexual servitude offences. New South Wales has implemented the model for persistent sexual abuse of a child offence, which previously existed elsewhere but not in that state, and has just recently implemented the model sabotage offences and geographic jurisdictional provisions. Victoria has implemented the approach to drug scheduling recommended for the model criminal code's serious drug offences chapter.These examples are the beginning of a process where the cooperative development of model offences has become more deeply accepted and acted upon by state and territory legislatures. This has been achieved, and only will continue to be achieved, by gentle persuasion and cooperation. It is no good trying to push the pace too quickly; it will only result in resistance. An important part of persuading people to support implementation of the code is to lead by example which, thanks to the cooperation of the members of this parliament, is happening here today with this bill. The honourable member for Lalor raised concerns about legal aid and community legal service funding in Victoria. Without detracting from the spirit of cooperation we have had with this bill, it is necessary for me to clear up some of the points raised by the honourable member so that there is no misunderstanding on the record about these issues. The honourable member asserted that the Howard government had cut Victoria's legal aid funding by $5 million. This is not correct. The Commonwealth has maintained its commitment to legal aid for Commonwealth law matters both nationally and in the state of Victoria. In turn, the states have contributed more funding for legal aid for state law matters than ever before. However, the states have not totally made up their share of the legal aid funding pool. The Commonwealth's commitment of an additional $63.1 million over the next four years should help more Australians in need to get legal aid for Commonwealth legal matters. This additional funding is being distributed according to a planning model based on the findings of a national needs study. This study identified that a disproportionate amount of available funding has been going to Victoria. The study's findings are supported by the fact that Victoria had accumulated substantial reserves, in excess of $5 million last year. The Commonwealth has redistributed $5 million of this surplus to the new Commonwealth expensive criminal cases fund. Victoria will continue to have a relative funding advantage until the year 2004, when the funding increases in other jurisdictions will bring national equity to legal aid funding.Let us turn to criminal law in particular. In response to the High Court's decision in the Dietrich case, this government established a fund for expensive Commonwealth criminal cases that have the potential to drain vital legal aid resources. This fund will receive $9 million over the next four years and is designed to deal with the potential for stays of Commonwealth criminal prosecutions. Expensive Commonwealth criminal cases for which legal aid is sought are typically complex, white-collar fraud matters or drug importation cases. The honourable member for Lalor also referred to Commonwealth funding for community legal services in Victoria and commended the work of the Werribee Legal Service. This service receives approximately $96,000 each year of which $86,500 is provided by the Commonwealth for the provision of community legal services to the people of Werribee and the immediate surrounding areas. I would like to join the honourable member for Lalor in drawing attention to the excellent work done by the Werribee Legal Service. It is, you would be interested to know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the smallest stand-alone community legal service in Victoria. It employs three part-time staff—a solicitor, coordinator and administrative officer—totalling 1.8 effective full-time hours. Despite this small number of staff hours, the service opens its doors Monday to Friday from 10 a.m. until 3 p.m., and on Monday evening, from 6 p.m. to 9 p.m. The organisation also coordinates around 20 regular volunteers, who undertake casework, administrative work, community development and legal education projects. The Werribee Legal Service maintains good statistics, with an average of around 4,200 client contacts per year, and offers legal information and referral services to an additional 1,200 people. What it lacks, however—and this is absolutely disgraceful—is adequate financial support from the government of Victoria. Claims that the Commonwealth government is intent on cutting community legal centre funding in Victoria are wrong. I have repeatedly stated, and the Attorney-General has also stated, that the Commonwealth does not intend, and has never proposed, to cut existing funding to community legal services in Victoria—and I place those words on the record once again. What the Commonwealth does intend to do is finalise the review of community legal services funding, which the Victorian government has been stalling for the last 12 months. This review is aimed at ensuring that existing government resources are distributed equitably to meet the demand for community legal services, examining current patterns of need and emerging trends, and identifying where there may be gaps in service delivery. These issues are particularly important for outer metropolitan and rural and regional areas of Victoria. It is about ensuring that resources are used effectively and that services are located where they are most needed. The value we place on these services as an integral part of the government's social coalition policy is easily demonstrated through the Commonwealth resources made available to the sector. The Commonwealth provides more than $4 million a year to Victorian community legal centres. This is almost double the $2.1 million allocated by the government of Victoria. In regional areas, the Commonwealth provides 91.5 per cent of the funding, while the Victorian government merely funds 8.5 per cent. So it is about time that the honourable member for Lalor gave credit where credit is due—and the credit in this matter is clearly due to the Commonwealth government and to the Attorney-General.The honourable member for Lalor has also highlighted in her speech the fact that the bill addresses developments in electronic technology and the need to be diligent in continuing the process of reviewing the offences to ensure that they remain effective. The government could not agree more. I am also pleased to inform the House that the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee is currently developing new computer offences. A model criminal code discussion paper, prepared by Commonwealth, state and territory criminal law advisers, was released by the Minister for Justice and Customs on 12 February this year. Care has been taken to match the terminology of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 and to address contemporary and emerging technological developments, but it is expected that the consultation process will result in improvements. The paper, which was publicised by press articles distributed nationwide, was discussed at seminars and is available on the web, suggests existing legislation is inconsistent and significantly out of date. The model criminal code report is expected to be completed by the end of this month.At its July meeting the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General gave priority to finalising the offences. There certainly was a strong resolve on the part of Attorneys-General to improve these offences. Indeed, the New South Wales Attorney General has already publicly announced that his state will be implementing the model criminal code offences. The model criminal code report will also take into account the Council of Europe draft cybercrime convention, which was released in April this year and is being developed with the involvement of other countries, including the United States of America. It is critical that the new offences work towards making the law consistent within Australia but also internationally.The honourable member for Lowe came into the parliament and referred to the importance of Commonwealth prosecution policy. He also referred to the case of Dr Colston and suggested that this indicated the frailty of the criminal law. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you would appreciate and as the shadow minister would appreciate, it is not appropriate for me to respond on the merits or otherwise of the Colston case. It really is not the right place to canvass that particular matter. The honourable member of course is welcome to pursue the matter at a more appropriate time. All honourable members should, however, accept that the independence of the Director of Public Prosecutions is an important protection of individual civil liberties. It ensures that prosecution decisions are made independently of any political influence, and I believe that most honourable members would—certainly, on this side, all honourable members would—support that particular proposition.I was somewhat saddened when the honourable member for the Northern Territory sought to criticise the Prime Minister's stance on United Nations human rights committees. The government certainly does not apologise for this very important reform which we have enacted. The government's comments on the conduct of some UN committees are necessary and beneficial criticism. The criticisms made of the committee system by the Prime Minister will redirect the committees to more effective defence of human rights. The Howard government has a very strong record, of which we are proud, in defending human rights in a very practical manner. This bill, by improving the clarity and transparency of the law, is an example of the practical measures that this government pursues in defending human rights. The honourable member for the Northern Territory also returned to one of his hobbyhorses, the subject of mandatory sentencing in his jurisdiction. He referred to the harsh treatment for stealing a towel. He also referred to certain matters which have been raised by the opposition during question time. As I said before, it is not appropriate to discuss that particular issue here, but the matter of mandatory sentencing in the Northern Territory has been dealt with equitably by this government in a way that respects the role of the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory people. This of course may be a method that differs from that of the opposition, but it is nonetheless effective and appropriate, and it is one which has very strong public support.Opposition member interjecting—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The honourable member opposite who interjects should take notice of that. In conclusion, I would particularly like to thank the honourable member for Menzies—and of course to congratulate him on his re-endorsement—for his chairmanship of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs that inquired into this bill. I also commend the constructive role of the honourable member for Denison, the shadow minister for justice and customs, who is also a member of that committee. This bill and the way in which we are dealing with it in an expeditious manner is an obvious example of the way in which the parliament is able to cooperate on these sorts of matters, which are of very great importance and moment. The development of the criminal law has been—and, with this bill, continues to be—an exercise that has enjoyed the goodwill of all political groupings, both federally and at a state and territory level. The government looks forward to our continuing that approach in the future. In this way, Australians will have reason to be confident that they can have modern, fair and more consistent criminal offences which appropriately penalise those who choose to harm the rest of the community. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.21321Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.18:24:0021321Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) and (2):(1) Schedule 1, item 15, page 68 (after line 3), at the end of section 148.1, add: (5) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of this section:(a) impersonation does not include conduct engaged in solely for satirical purposes; and(b) false representation does not include conduct engaged in solely for satirical purposes.(2) Schedule 1, item 15, page 69 (after line 2), at the end of section 148.2, add: (5) To avoid doubt, for the purposes of this section:(a) impersonation does not include conduct engaged in solely for satirical purposes; and(b) false representation does not include conduct engaged in solely for satirical purposes.These amendments go towards the provisions that cover the impersonation of Commonwealth officials. In a matter which was not addressed by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs but which was drawn to our attention at a later point, we became aware that the provisions, as drafted, were likely to catch people whose conduct no-one in the community would normally anticipate to be regarded as criminal. Section 148.1(2), for example, provides that a person, other than a Commonwealth public official, is guilty of an offence if the person falsely represents himself or herself to be another person in that person's capacity as a Commonwealth public official, and the first person does so in the course of doing an act or attending a place in the assumed character of that official. The penalty for that is two years imprisonment. There are quite a number of people who earn quite a decent living in the community by doing precisely that. Campbell McComas, a man who was previously a lawyer, or may still be a lawyer in practice—a barrister, I think—makes his principal living now, I understand, by appearing in public places in the assumed character of somebody who is frequently a public official. Perhaps on some occasions, it is as a private citizen. But on many occasions he appears to an audience unsuspecting of the fact that he is anything other than the person he is pretending to be. Were this act to come into effect in the terms in which it has been drafted, poor old Mr McComas would go off to jail, would not pass go and there he would be for two years for his temerity.Of course, there are others who represent people. Of course, we know the TV program The Games. Perhaps that is not so directly caught up, because John Clarke might not be thought to be actually impersonating directly the characters he is sending up in a satirical way, and `John Howard', who gave the most moving address in relation to reconciliation, might not be caught by this provision, as others might believe that he was not doing so in the assumed character of the Prime Minister—although that point could be argued because certainly, for the purposes of the way that show is presented, he was put forward in the assumed character of the Prime Minister of Australia. But whatever the case, there is no place in this legislation to catch up people who are engaging in the representation of themselves as Commonwealth public officials for satirical purposes.I suspect that we have given rich meat to those who wish to present themselves for satirical purposes. I note the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration, at the table, has taken some exception to references to the member for Flinders by the member for the Northern Territory. I suspect that the member for Flinders is going to give very rich meat to a number of comedians who will present him in a very satirical manner. I suspect that that is the only use now that the member for Flinders really has—as a butt for ridicule and, of course, as somebody who will be the subject of considerable ridicule. There are provisions in this act which deal with fraud against the Commonwealth and obtaining financial advantages, which on their face do appear to fit hand and glove some of the characteristics of the conduct of the member for Flinders. Whether or not that apparent fit is later found to be more than that in the course of investigations is yet to be seen.But we pass from those matters, which are going to occupy the attention of this House and the community for a very long time, to making certain that in the course of developing tough laws in relation to fraud—and, of course, the enforcement of those laws is the executive responsibility, but we in the parliament pass those laws—we do not incidentally, by an accidental sideswipe, catch up those who are engaged in satirical purposes.18:29:0021322Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—The government accepts these amendments. The opposition considers that the impersonation offences at proposed sections 148.1 and 148.2 might be wide enough to cover impersonations solely for satirical purposes. While the government does not consider that it would be likely that a person would be prosecuted for those offences in those circumstances, in the spirit of the cooperation which has been largely exhibited in the consideration of the Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Bill 1999, the government agrees to those amendments, as they remove any doubt anyone might have about the application of the offence of impersonation or false representation for satirical purposes. It is certainly not the government's intention that the bill should apply in those circumstances.Amendments agreed to. 18:30:0021323Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 127:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 8) to page 2 (line 13), omit subclauses (1), (2), (3) and (4), substitute: (1) The following provisions of this Act commence on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent: (a) sections 1, 2 and 3; (b) items 1, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11 and 32 of Schedule 1. (2) Subject to this section, the provisions of this Act that are not covered by subsection (1) commence on a day to be fixed by Proclamation. (3) If item 15 of Schedule 1 to this Act does not commence under subsection (2) within the period of 6 months beginning on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, the provisions of this Act that are not covered by subsection (1) commence on the first day after the end of that period. This subsection has effect subject to the following subsections of this section. (2) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 14 and 15), omit “Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act (No. 2) 1999”, substitute “Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act 2000”. (3) Clause 2, page 2 (line 16), omit “section 1 of”, substitute “item 15 of Schedule 1 to”. (4) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 21 to 35), omit subclauses (6), (7) and (8). (5) Clause 2, page 3 (line 2), omit “section 1 of”, substitute “item 15 of Schedule 1 to”. (6) Clause 2, page 3 (lines 6 and 7), omit “Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Act 1999”, substitute “Superannuation Legislation (Commonwealth Employment—Saving and Transitional Provisions) Act 2000”. (7) Schedule 1, page 4 (before line 5), before item 1, insert:1A Section 3BOmit “An installation”, substitute “Unless the contrary intention appears, an installation”. (8) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (line 3), after “by”, insert “or under”. (9) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 3), after item 7, insert:7A After subsection 11.1(3)Insert: (3A) Subsection (3) has effect subject to subsection (6A).7B After subsection 11.1(6)Insert: (6A) Any special liability provisions that apply to an offence apply also to the offence of attempting to commit that offence. (10) Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 7), after item 8, insert:8A After subsection 11.2(3)Insert: (3A) Subsection (3) has effect subject to subsection (6).8B At the end of section 11.2Add: (6) Any special liability provisions that apply to an offence apply also to the offence of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the commission of that offence. (11) Schedule 1, page 5, after item 8B, insert:8C After subsection 11.4(2)Insert: (2A) Subsection (2) has effect subject to subsection (4A).8D After subsection 11.4(4)Insert: (4A) Any special liability provisions that apply to an offence apply also to the offence of incitement in respect of that offence. (12) Schedule 1, page 5, after item 8D, insert:8E After subsection 11.5(2)Insert: (2A) Subsection (2) has effect subject to subsection (7A).8F After subsection 11.5(7)Insert: (7A) Any special liability provisions that apply to an offence apply also to the offence of conspiracy to commit that offence. (13) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (line 4), at the end of the heading to subsection (3), add “—primary offence”. (14) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (after line 6), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the alleged offence is a primary offence; and (15) Schedule 1, item 12, page 7 (after line 22), at the end of section 14.1, add:Defence—ancillary offence (5) If this section applies to a particular offence, a person is not guilty of the offence if: (a) the alleged offence is an ancillary offence; and (b) the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs wholly in a foreign country, but not on board an Australian aircraft or an Australian ship; and (c) the conduct constituting the primary offence to which the ancillary offence relates, or a result of that conduct, occurs, or is intended by the person to occur, wholly in a foreign country, but not on board an Australian aircraft or an Australian ship; and (d) there is not in force in: (i) the foreign country where the conduct constituting the primary offence to which the ancillary offence relates, or a result of that conduct, occurs, or is intended by the person to occur; or (ii) the part of the foreign country where the conduct constituting the primary offence to which the ancillary offence relates, or a result of that conduct, occurs, or is intended by the person to occur; a law of that foreign country, or a law of that part of that foreign country, that creates an offence that corresponds to the primary offence.Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (5). See subsection 13.3(3). (6) For the purposes of the application of subsection 13.3(3) to an offence, subsection (5) of this section is taken to be an exception provided by the law creating the offence. (16) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (line 21), at the end of the heading to subsection (2), add “—primary offence”. (17) Schedule 1, item 12, page 8 (after line 23), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the alleged offence is a primary offence; and (18) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (after line 8), at the end of section 15.1, add:Defence—ancillary offence (4) If a law of the Commonwealth provides that this section applies to a particular offence, a person is not guilty of the offence if: (a) the alleged offence is an ancillary offence; and (b) the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs wholly in a foreign country, but not on board an Australian aircraft or an Australian ship; and (c) the conduct constituting the primary offence to which the ancillary offence relates, or a result of that conduct, occurs, or is intended by the person to occur, wholly in a foreign country, but not on board an Australian aircraft or an Australian ship; and (d) the person is neither: (i) an Australian citizen; nor (ii) a body corporate incorporated by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; and (e) there is not in force in: (i) the foreign country where the conduct constituting the primary offence to which the ancillary offence relates, or a result of that conduct, occurs, or is intended by the person to occur; or (ii) the part of the foreign country where the conduct constituting the primary offence to which the ancillary offence relates, or a result of that conduct, occurs, or is intended by the person to occur; a law of that foreign country, or a law of that part of that foreign country, that creates an offence that corresponds to the primary offence.Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (4). See subsection 13.3(3). (5) For the purposes of the application of subsection 13.3(3) to an offence, subsection (4) of this section is taken to be an exception provided by the law creating the offence. (19) Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (line 5), at the end of the heading to subsection (2), add “—primary offence”. (20) Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (after line 7), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the alleged offence is a primary offence; and (21) Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (after line 27), at the end of section 15.2, add:Defence—ancillary offence (4) If a law of the Commonwealth provides that this section applies to a particular offence, a person is not guilty of the offence if: (a) the alleged offence is an ancillary offence; and (b) the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs wholly in a foreign country, but not on board an Australian aircraft or an Australian ship; and (c) the conduct constituting the primary offence to which the ancillary offence relates, or a result of that conduct, occurs, or is intended by the person to occur, wholly in a foreign country, but not on board an Australian aircraft or an Australian ship; and (d) the person is neither: (i) an Australian citizen; nor (ii) a body corporate incorporated by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; and (e) there is not in force in: (i) the foreign country where the conduct constituting the primary offence to which the ancillary offence relates, or a result of that conduct, occurs, or is intended by the person to occur; or (ii) the part of the foreign country where the conduct constituting the primary offence to which the ancillary offence relates, or a result of that conduct, occurs, or is intended by the person to occur; a law of that foreign country, or a law of that part of that foreign country, that creates an offence that corresponds to the primary offence.Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (4). See subsection 13.3(3). (5) For the purposes of the application of subsection 13.3(3) to an offence, subsection (4) of this section is taken to be an exception provided by the law creating the offence. (22) Schedule 1, item 12, page 11 (line 3), at the end of the heading to subsection (2), add “—primary offence”. (23) Schedule 1, item 12, page 11 (after line 5), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the alleged offence is a primary offence; and (24) Schedule 1, item 12, page 11 (after line 25), at the end of section 15.3, add:Defence—ancillary offence (4) If a law of the Commonwealth provides that this section applies to a particular offence, a person is not guilty of the offence if: (a) the alleged offence is an ancillary offence; and (b) the conduct constituting the alleged offence occurs wholly in a foreign country, but not on board an Australian aircraft or an Australian ship; and (c) the conduct constituting the primary offence to which the ancillary offence relates, or a result of that conduct, occurs, or is intended by the person to occur, wholly in a foreign country, but not on board an Australian aircraft or an Australian ship; and (d) the person is neither: (i) an Australian citizen; nor (ii) a body corporate incorporated by or under a law of the Commonwealth or of a State or Territory; and (e) there is not in force in: (i) the foreign country where the conduct constituting the primary offence to which the ancillary offence relates, or a result of that conduct, occurs, or is intended by the person to occur; or (ii) the part of the foreign country where the conduct constituting the primary offence to which the ancillary offence relates, or a result of that conduct, occurs, or is intended by the person to occur; a law of that foreign country, or a law of that part of that foreign country, that creates an offence that corresponds to the primary offence.Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (4). See subsection 13.3(3). (5) For the purposes of the application of subsection 13.3(3) to an offence, subsection (4) of this section is taken to be an exception provided by the law creating the offence. (25) Schedule 1, item 15, page 20 (after line 29), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1), it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew or believed that the property belonged to a Commonwealth entity. (26) Schedule 1, item 15, page 21 (after line 4), after paragraph (3)(a), insert: (aa) it is previously received property (as defined by subsection (5A)); or (27) Schedule 1, item 15, page 21 (after line 24), after subsection (5), insert:Previously received property (5A) For the purposes of this section, previously received property is property that: (a) was received in the course of an offence against subsection (1); and (b) is in the possession or custody of the person who received the property in the course of that offence. (28) Schedule 1, item 15, page 21 (line 26), after “property”, insert “or previously received property”. (29) Schedule 1, item 15, page 22 (lines 6 and 7), omit paragraph (7)(a), substitute: (a) is (in whole or in part) the proceeds of sale of, or property exchanged for: (i) original stolen property; or (ii) previously received property; and (30) Schedule 1, item 15, page 22 (line 8), before “is”, insert “if subparagraph (a)(i) applies—”. (31) Schedule 1, item 15, page 22 (line 15), omit “obtained.”, substitute “obtained; and”. (32) Schedule 1, item 15, page 22 (after line 15), at the end of subsection (7), add: (c) if subparagraph (a)(ii) applies—is in the possession or custody of the person who received the previously received property in the course of an offence against subsection (1). (33) Schedule 1, item 15, page 24 (after line 13), at the end of section 132.2, add: (3) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1), it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the property belonged to a Commonwealth entity. (34) Schedule 1, item 15, page 24 (after line 27), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1), it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the property belonged to a Commonwealth entity. (35) Schedule 1, item 15, page 25 (lines 2 to 10), omit subsections (1) and (2), substitute: (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person enters, or remains in, a building, as a trespasser, with intent to commit theft of a particular item of property in the building; and (b) the property belongs to a Commonwealth entity.Penalty: Imprisonment for 13 years. (2) For the purposes of this Code, an offence against subsection (1) is to be known as the offence of burglary. (2A) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1), it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the property belonged to a Commonwealth entity. (36) Schedule 1, item 15, page 25 (lines 12 to 16), omit paragraph (3)(a), substitute: (a) the person enters, or remains in, a building, as a trespasser, with intent to commit an offence in the building that involves causing harm to another person or damage to property; and (aa) the offence referred to in paragraph (a) is an offence against a law of the Commonwealth; and (37) Schedule 1, item 15, page 25 (after line 19), after subsection (3), insert: (3A) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (3), it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the offence referred to in paragraph (3)(a) is an offence against a law of the Commonwealth. (38) Schedule 1, item 15, page 25 (lines 27 to 32), omit paragraph (6)(a), substitute: (a) the person enters, or remains in, a building, as a trespasser, with intent to commit an offence in the building that involves causing harm to another person or damage to property; and (aa) the offence referred to in paragraph (a) is an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; and (39) Schedule 1, item 15, page 26 (after line 3), after subsection (6), insert: (6A) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (6), it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the offence referred to in paragraph (6)(a) is an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory. (40) Schedule 1, item 15, page 26 (lines 20 and 21), omit subsection (11). (41) Schedule 1, item 15, page 27 (after line 5), after subsection (2), insert: (3) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in relation to the offence of burglary created by subsection 132.4(1), it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the property concerned belonged to a Commonwealth entity. (4) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in relation to the offence of burglary created by subsection 132.4(3), it is not necessary to prove that: (a) the defendant knew that the offence referred to in paragraph 132.4(3)(a) is an offence against a law of the Commonwealth; or (b) the defendant knew that the offence referred to in paragraph 132.4(3)(a) is punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of 5 years or more. (5) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in relation to the offence of burglary created by subsection 132.4(6), it is not necessary to prove that: (a) the defendant knew that the offence referred to in paragraph 132.4(6)(a) is an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or (b) the defendant knew that the offence referred to in paragraph 132.4(6)(a) is punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of 5 years or more; or (c) the defendant knew that the building was owned or occupied by a Commonwealth entity. (42) Schedule 1, item 15, page 27 (line 6), subsection (3), renumber as subsection (6). (43) Schedule 1, item 15, page 28 (lines 1 and 2), omit subsection (2), substitute: (2) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in relation to: (a) theft; or (b) robbery; or (c) aggravated robbery; or (d) the offence of burglary created by subsection 132.4(1); or (e) the offence of aggravated burglary that relates to the offence of burglary created by subsection 132.4(1); or (f) an offence against section 134.1;it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the property concerned belonged to a Commonwealth entity. (3) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in relation to: (a) the offence of burglary created by subsection 132.4(3); or (b) the offence of aggravated burglary that relates to the offence of burglary created by subsection 132.4(3); it is not necessary to prove that: (c) the defendant knew that the offence referred to in paragraph 132.4(3)(a) is an offence against a law of the Commonwealth; or (d) the defendant knew that the offence referred to in paragraph 132.4(3)(a) is punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of 5 years or more. (4) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) in relation to: (a) the offence of burglary created by subsection 132.4(6); or (b) the offence of aggravated burglary that relates to the offence of burglary created by subsection 132.4(6);it is not necessary to prove that: (c) the defendant knew that the offence referred to in paragraph 132.4(6)(a) is an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, a State or a Territory; or (d) the defendant knew that the offence referred to in paragraph 132.4(6)(a) is punishable by imprisonment for life or for a term of 5 years or more; or (e) the defendant knew that the building was owned or occupied by a Commonwealth entity. (44) Schedule 1, item 15, page 28 (line 3), subsection (3), renumber as subsection (5). (45) Schedule 1, item 15, page 35 (line 27) to page 36 (line 32), omit section 135.3. (46) Schedule 1, item 15, page 37 (lines 29 and 30), omit subsection (6), substitute: (6) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (5), it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the third person was a Commonwealth entity. (47) Schedule 1, item 15, page 42 (after line 27), at the end of section 137.1, add: (4) Subsection (1) does not apply as a result of subparagraph (1)(c)(i) if, before the information was given by a person to the Commonwealth entity, the Commonwealth entity did not take reasonable steps to inform the person of the existence of the offence against subsection (1).Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (4). See subsection 13.3(3). (5) Subsection (1) does not apply as a result of subparagraph (1)(c)(ii) if, before the information was given by a person (the first person) to the person mentioned in that subparagraph (the second person), the second person did not take reasonable steps to inform the first person of the existence of the offence against subsection (1).Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (5). See subsection 13.3(3). (6) For the purposes of subsections (4) and (5), it is sufficient if the following form of words is used:“Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence”. (48) Schedule 1, item 15, page 47 (lines 24 to 26), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) the official does so with the intention: (i) that the exercise of the official's duties as a Commonwealth public official will be influenced; or (ii) of inducing, fostering or sustaining a belief that the exercise of the official's duties as a Commonwealth public official will be influenced. (49) Schedule 1, item 15, page 60 (line 1), omit “lawful excuse”, substitute “reasonable excuse”. (50) Schedule 1, item 15, page 60 (after line 3), at the end of subsection (3), add:Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in paragraph (3)(c). See subsection 13.3(3). (51) Schedule 1, item 15, page 60 (line 10), omit “purpose); and”, substitute “purpose).”. (52) Schedule 1, item 15, page 60 (lines 11 and 12), omit paragraph (c). (53) Schedule 1, item 15, page 60 (after line 13), at the end of subsection (4), add:Note: See also section 10.5 (lawful authority). (54) Schedule 1, item 15, page 60 (after line 28), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) Absolute liability applies to the paragraph (1)(b) element of the offence. (55) Schedule 1, item 15, page 60 (line 33), omit “a Commonwealth entity”, substitute “another person”. (56) Schedule 1, item 15, page 61 (line 1), omit “a Commonwealth entity.”, substitute “another person; and”. (57) Schedule 1, item 15, page 61 (after line 1), after paragraph (b), insert: (c) the other person is a Commonwealth entity. (58) Schedule 1, item 15, page 61 (after line 2), at the end of section 145.4, add: (3) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (2), it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the other person was a Commonwealth entity. (59) Schedule 1, item 15, page 61 (line 6), after “the person”, insert “dishonestly”. (60) Schedule 1, item 15, page 61 (after line 20), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) Absolute liability applies to the paragraph (1)(c) element of the offence. (61) Schedule 1, item 15, page 61 (line 22), after “the person”, insert “dishonestly”. (62) Schedule 1, item 15, page 61 (line 27), omit “a Commonwealth entity”, substitute “another person”. (63) Schedule 1, item 15, page 61 (line 28), omit “a Commonwealth entity.”, substitute “another person; and”. (64) Schedule 1, item 15, page 61 (after line 28), after paragraph (c), insert: (d) the other person is a Commonwealth entity. (65) Schedule 1, item 15, page 61 (after line 29), at the end of section 145.5, add: (3) In a prosecution for an offence against subsection (2), it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew that the other person was a Commonwealth entity. (66) Schedule 1, item 15, page 62 (lines 14 and 15), omit the definition of deception. (67) Schedule 1, item 15, page 63 (line 20), omit “Commonwealth”. (68) Schedule 1, item 15, page 63 (line 26), omit “Commonwealth”. (69) Schedule 1, item 15, page 63 (line 29), omit “Commonwealth public official.”, substitute “public official; and”. (70) Schedule 1, item 15, page 63 (after line 29), after paragraph (e), insert: (ea) the public official is a Commonwealth public official; and (eb) if subparagraph (e)(i) applies—the status mentioned in that subparagraph was status as a Commonwealth public official; and (ec) if subparagraph (e)(ii) applies—the conduct mentioned in that subparagraph was engaged in by the official in the official's capacity as a Commonwealth public official. (71) Schedule 1, item 15, page 64 (after line 4), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) Absolute liability applies to the paragraphs (1)(ea), (eb) and (ec) elements of the offence. (72) Schedule 1, item 15, page 64 (line 30), omit “Commonwealth”. (73) Schedule 1, item 15, page 65 (line 4), omit “Commonwealth”. (74) Schedule 1, item 15, page 65 (line 7), omit “Commonwealth public official.”, substitute “public official; and”. (75) Schedule 1, item 15, page 65 (after line 7), after paragraph (d), insert: (da) the official is a Commonwealth public official; and (db) if subparagraph (d)(i) applies—the status mentioned in that subparagraph was status as a Commonwealth public official; and (dc) if subparagraph (d)(ii) applies—the conduct mentioned in that subparagraph was engaged in by the official in the official's capacity as a Commonwealth public official. (76) Schedule 1, item 15, page 65 (after line 12), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) Absolute liability applies to the paragraphs (1)(da), (db) and (dc) elements of the offence. (77) Schedule 1, item 15, page 65 (line 18), omit “Commonwealth”. (78) Schedule 1, item 15, page 65 (line 26), omit “Commonwealth”. (79) Schedule 1, item 15, page 65 (line 29), omit “Commonwealth public official.”, substitute “public official; and”. (80) Schedule 1, item 15, page 65 (after line 29), after paragraph (d), insert: (e) the official is a Commonwealth public official; and (f) if subparagraph (d)(i) applies—the status mentioned in that subparagraph was status as a Commonwealth public official; and (g) if subparagraph (d)(ii) applies—the conduct mentioned in that subparagraph was engaged in by the official in the official's capacity as a Commonwealth public official. (81) Schedule 1, item 15, page 65 (after line 30), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) Absolute liability applies to the paragraphs (2)(e), (f) and (g) elements of the offence. (82) Schedule 1, item 15, page 67 (line 6), omit “, by a deception,”. (83) Schedule 1, item 15, page 67 (line 10), omit “duty.”, substitute “duty; and”. (84) Schedule 1, item 15, page 67 (after line 10), after paragraph (b), insert: (c) the first-mentioned person does so with intent to deceive. (85) Schedule 1, item 15, page 67 (after line 20), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), it is immaterial: (a) whether the other person exists or is fictitious; and (b) whether the other person's capacity as a Commonwealth public official exists or is fictitious. (86) Schedule 1, item 15, page 67 (line 24), omit “by a deception,”. (87) Schedule 1, item 15, page 67 (line 33), omit “function.”, substitute “function; and”. (88) Schedule 1, item 15, page 67 (after line 33), after paragraph (b), insert: (c) if subparagraph (a)(i) applies—the first-mentioned person also does so with intent to deceive. (89) Schedule 1, item 15, page 68 (after line 1), after subsection (3), insert: (3A) For the purposes of subparagraph (3)(a)(ii), it is immaterial: (a) whether the other person exists or is fictitious; and (b) whether the other person's capacity as a Commonwealth public official exists or is fictitious. (90) Schedule 1, item 15, page 68 (line 6), omit “, by a deception,”. (91) Schedule 1, item 15, page 68 (line 10), omit “duty.”, substitute “duty; and”. (92) Schedule 1, item 15, page 68 (after line 10), after paragraph (b), insert: (c) the first-mentioned official does so with intent to deceive. (93) Schedule 1, item 15, page 68 (after line 19), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), it is immaterial: (a) whether the other person exists or is fictitious; and (b) whether the other person's capacity as a Commonwealth public official exists or is fictitious. (94) Schedule 1, item 15, page 68 (line 22), omit “by a deception,”. (95) Schedule 1, item 15, page 68 (line 30), omit “function.”, substitute “function; and”. (96) Schedule 1, item 15, page 68 (after line 30), after paragraph (b), insert: (c) if subparagraph (a)(i) applies—the first-mentioned official also does so with intent to deceive. (97) Schedule 1, item 15, page 68 (after line 31), after subsection (3), insert: (3A) For the purposes of subparagraph (3)(a)(ii), it is immaterial: (a) whether the other person exists or is fictitious; and (b) whether the other person's capacity as a Commonwealth public official exists or is fictitious. (98) Schedule 1, item 16, page 80 (lines 6 to 13), omit Chapter 11. (99) Schedule 1, page 87 (after line 12), after item 39, insert:39A The Dictionary in the Criminal CodeInsert:special liability provision means: (a) a provision that provides that absolute liability applies to one or more (but not all) of the physical elements of an offence; or (b) a provision that provides that, in a prosecution for an offence, it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew a particular thing; or (c) a provision that provides that, in a prosecution for an offence, it is not necessary to prove that the defendant knew or believed a particular thing. (100) Schedule 2, item 1, page 88 (line 11), omit “135.3,”. (101) Schedule 2, item 2, page 88 (line 20), omit “135.3,”. (102) Schedule 2, item 5, page 88 (line 29), omit “135.3,”. (103) Schedule 2, item 33, page 92 (line 8), omit “135.3,”. (104) Schedule 2, item 45, page 93 (line 22), omit “135.3,”. (105) Schedule 2, heading referring to the Australian Security Intelligence Organization Act 1979, page 94 (line 18), omit “Organization”, substitute “Organisation”. (106) Schedule 2, heading referring to the Child Care Payments Act 1997, page 104 (line 8), omit the heading. (107) Schedule 2, item 128, page 104 (lines 9 to 12), omit the item. (108) Schedule 2, item 194, page 111 (line 19), omit “135.3,”. (109) Schedule 2, item 197, page 111 (line 28), omit “135.3,”. (110) Schedule 2, item 199, page 112 (line 6), omit “135.3,”. (111) Schedule 2, item 215, page 114 (line 10), omit “19(1)”, substitute “49(1)”. (112) Schedule 2, item 216, page 114 (line 12), omit “19(2)(b)”, substitute “49(2)(b)”. (113) Schedule 2, page 114 (after line 14), after item 216, insert:216A Subregulation 49(3)Repeal the subregulation, substitute: (3) Subregulation (2) applies to an application for an authorisation as if references in that subregulation to a permission were references to an authorisation. (114) Schedule 2, item 219, page 114 (line 25), omit “135.3,”. (115) Schedule 2, item 220, page 115 (line 4), omit “135.3,”. (116) Schedule 2, item 221, page 115 (line 10), omit “135.3,”. (117) Schedule 2, item 242, page 119 (line 5), omit “, 135.3”. (118) Schedule 2, page 130 (before line 17), before item 325, insert:324A After subsection 4(3)Insert: (3A) For the purposes of this Act, in determining whether a person has derived substantial benefit from the commission of 2 or more public fraud offences, have regard to the aggregate of the benefits derived by the person from the commission of those offences. (119) Schedule 2, page 130, after item 324A, insert:324B Subsection 7(1)Insert:public fraud offence means any of the following: (a) an offence against section 134.1, 134.2, 135.1 or 135.4 of the Criminal Code; (b) an offence against repealed section 29D or 86A of the Crimes Act committed after the commencement of this Act; (c) an offence against section 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the Crimes (Taxation Offences) Act 1980 committed after the commencement of this Act; (d) an ancillary offence in relation to an offence covered by paragraph (b) or (c).Note: The heading to section 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 is altered by inserting “public fraud offence and” after “Meaning of”.324C Subsection 7(1) (definition of serious offence)Repeal the definition, substitute:serious offence means: (a) a serious narcotics offence; or (b) a money laundering offence in relation to the proceeds of a serious narcotics offence; or (c) an ancillary offence in relation to an offence covered by paragraph (a) or (b); or (d) an offence that is the subject of a declaration under section 96A.324D After subsection 7(1)Insert: (1A) Paragraph (d) of the definition of serious offence in subsection (1) has effect subject to subsections 96A(2), (4) and (6). (120) Schedule 2, item 325, page 130 (lines 18 to 20), omit all the words from and including “, substitute” to the end of the item. (121) Schedule 2, page 130 (after line 20), after item 325, insert:325A At the end of section 7Add: (3) To avoid doubt, express references in this section to ancillary offences do not imply that section 11.6 of the Criminal Code has no application to a particular provision of this Act. (122) Schedule 2, item 326, page 130 (line 24), omit “135.3,”. (123) Schedule 2, page 130 (after line 25), after item 326, insert:326A At the end of subsection 73(4)Add: ; or (d) both: (i) has committed, or is about to commit, 3 or more public fraud offences; and (ii) has derived, or is about to derive, substantial benefit from the commission of any or all of those offences. (124) Schedule 2, page 131 (after line 1), after item 328, insert:328A Before section 97Insert:96A Organised fraud ordersConvictions of public fraud offences (1) If: (a) a person has, at the same sitting, been convicted by a court of 3 or more public fraud offences; and (b) the DPP applies to the court for an order under this subsection in relation to each of those offences; and (c) the court is satisfied that the person has derived substantial benefit from the commission of any or all of those offences;the court must, by order, declare each of those offences to be a serious offence. (2) A declaration under subsection (1) only has effect in relation to the convictions concerned.Charges and proposed charges of public fraud offences (3) If: (a) a person has been charged with 3 or more public fraud offences; and (b) the DPP applies to the relevant Supreme Court for an order under this subsection in relation to each of those offences; and (c) the application for the order is supported by an affidavit of a police officer stating that the officer believes that the person has derived substantial benefit from the commission of any or all of those offences; and (d) the court is satisfied, having regard to the matters contained in the affidavit, that there are reasonable grounds for holding that belief;the court must, by order, declare each of those offences to be a serious offence. (4) A declaration under subsection (3) only has effect in relation to the charges concerned. (5) If: (a) a person is about to be charged with 3 or more public fraud offences; and (b) the DPP applies to the relevant Supreme Court for an order under this subsection in relation to each of those offences; and (c) the application for the order is supported by an affidavit of a police officer stating that the officer believes that the person has derived substantial benefit from the commission of any or all of those offences; and (d) the court is satisfied, having regard to the matters contained in the affidavit, that there are reasonable grounds for holding that belief;the court must, by order, declare each of those offences to be a serious offence. (6) A declaration under subsection (5) only has effect in relation to the proposed charges concerned. (7) If: (a) a restraining order is granted in reliance on the charging, or proposed charging, of a person with an ordinary indictable offence; and (b) the person is subsequently convicted of the offence; and (c) a court makes an order under subsection (1) in relation to the offence;this Act has effect as if the restraining order had been granted in reliance on the charging, or proposed charging, of the person with a serious offence. (125) Schedule 2, item 395, page 139 (line 26), omit “, 135.3”. (126) Schedule 2, item 396, page 140 (line 2), omit “, 135.3”. (127) Schedule 2, item 398, page 140 (line 7), omit “, 135.3”.In my summing up, I referred to the excellent work carried out by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, ably chaired by the honourable member for Menzies. I am particularly pleased to advise of a positive response to the five recommendations in the advisory report which, together with some other issues, are addressed through government amendments (1) to (127), which I moved together a moment ago. The government's response to the recommendations of the advisory report is as follows. The first recommendation was that the offence of general dishonesty at proposed section 135.1 not be proclaimed until the Attorney-General and the standing committee are satisfied by the Director of Public Prosecutions that prosecution guidelines will ensure the proposed offence is applied appropriately. The proposed amendment will not be necessary, because the Director of Public Prosecutions has prepared draft guidelines, which were provided to the chairman of the standing committee, the member for Menzies, and the honourable member for Denison before the commencement of this debate. The guidelines will be put in place before the bill commences.It should be noted that recommendation 2 proposes the deletion of the offence of organised fraud at proposed section 135.3. The government accepts this recommendation and proposes that this be done by government amendment (45). The standing committee concluded that the offence was unnecessary, given that there are other fraud offences, such as proposed sections 134.1 and 134.2, which can be used to provide for appropriate sentences and that the trigger for the operation of automatic forfeiture and special restraining order provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 can be achieved by other means.Where there are three or more public fraud offences, such as in proposed sections 134.1 and 134.2, the prosecution can always ask the court to impose cumulative sentences. If this occurs, the court will be able to impose a maximum penalty of more than the 25 years imprisonment which is available with the organised fraud offence. This is because each of the public fraud offences has a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment. There is no need for a separate offence. Government amendments (118) to (124) provide a suitable mechanism for triggering the automatic forfeiture and special restraining order provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 1987. These amendments show that the organised fraud offence is not required to achieve the policy objectives of that act.Recommendation 3 proposes that there be a defence to the false or misleading information offences in proposed section 137.1 which is available to those who have not been given notice of the existence of the offence. The standing committee concluded that there may be cases where people do not consider that by providing false information they may be committing a criminal offence. The government accepts this recommendation in relation to the offences referred to in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) of proposed section 137.1(1)(c) and proposes that this be done by government amendment (47). The proposed defence does not apply to subparagraph (iii) of proposed section 137.1(1)(c) because it deals with the situation where the defendant gives the false or misleading information in circumstances where he or she is aware it is being provided in compliance or purported compliance with the law. Recommendation 4 is another good suggestion from the standing committee. The committee noted that the element of `dishonesty' had been omitted from the offence of giving information derived from false documents under proposed section 145.5 and recommended that it should be included. `Dishonesty' is an element in the equivalent model criminal code offence and is used in offences of similar seriousness elsewhere in this bill. Accordingly, government amendment (59) implements the recommendation. (Extension of time granted)Government amendment (35) addresses recommendation 5 by making it clear that in the burglary offence at proposed section 132.4, where someone breaks in to steal a particular item of property, it is not necessary to prove the person knew that the property concerned belonged to a Commonwealth entity. This recognises that proof of awareness about jurisdictional elements, which would not need to be established under existing offences, should not be required under the criminal code offences because community knowledge of such matters is very limited and, regardless of whether the defendant knew of those matters, he or she would still have similar culpability. This issue arises elsewhere in the bill, so there are a number of other government amendments which deal with the same issue in other offences.There are other government amendments which have been developed in recent months to improve the bill. Many of these address the requirements of proof of awareness in relation to jurisdictional elements of offences such as those in government amendments (36) to (44) and elsewhere detailed in the supplementary explanatory memorandum. Related to these are amendments (9) to (12) and (99), which ensure that those elements are not required to be proved where ancillary liability, such as attempt, complicity, incitement or conspiracy to commit those offences, is involved.Other improvements are the clarification of the scope of lawfulness defences. The general defence of lawful authority is addressed by government amendment (8) and the defence, which concerns the law of other countries and operates where there is international geographical jurisdiction, is addressed by government amendments (13) to (24), by ensuring it applies where there is ancillary liability. Steps have been taken in government amendments (26) to (33) to ensure the offence of receiving covers those who have received property originally obtained by fraud in the same way it is dealt with where it is originally taken by theft. Clarification has also been provided by government amendment (48) that the offence of bribery covers those who take a bribe with no intention of acting upon it, and government amendments (82) to (97) are to ensure that the impersonation offence at proposed section 148.1 covers the situation where the official being falsely represented does not exist. The offences in this bill have significant practical implications for the Commonwealth and the proposed government amendments have been developed to ensure we have the best possible outcome. I commend the amendments to the chamber.18:38:0021334Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I wish I had the wit to be as lively in my remarks as was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration. I will restrain myself and indicate that we support the amendments.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.21334Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper)—by leave—read a third time.Miscellaneous21334Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following order of the day, committee and delegation reports, be referred to the Main Committee for debate:Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts—Report—Beyond the midnight oil: an inquiry into managing fatigue in transport—Motion to take note of paper: Resumption of debate.Miscellaneous2133518:40:0021335Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Bill 1999.Bills21335R113621335Debate resumed from 30 August, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.18:40:0021335Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Before I come to the detail of the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, I would like to express my willingness and my party's willingness to examine and deal with the difficult issues that surround the Child Support Scheme. Like every other member in this place, I am acutely aware of the frustration and anger that comes from many involved in the Child Support Scheme. There can be little doubt that the scheme requires constant review and attention to ensure that it is fair to both parties and, above all, to the children involved. I note that the Minister for Community Services has called for a bipartisan approach to the measures we are debating today. If there is any area that requires bipartisanship, this is certainly it. In this regard, we on this side of the House are disappointed there was no consultation with us before the measures were announced in the budget this year, although I do acknowledge the willingness of the minister to assist with briefings since that time. If there had been that consultation at an earlier stage, we may well have a more comprehensive and better thought out range of measures before us today.Before I come to these shortcomings, I am pleased to indicate that the opposition will be supporting the majority of the measures put forward by the government. We see that they go some way towards addressing some of the existing problems with the scheme. Broadly, most measures aim to alleviate the pressures on nonresident parents and, in particular, those who have repartnered and have second families. This is a laudable objective—certainly from my own experience of dealing with those who are trying to move on in their lives but are struggling to do so under financial pressures and the emotions that characterise relationship breakdown. In this regard, we particularly welcome the changes that aim to assist second families. One in particular, the full 100 per cent discount of child support for family tax benefit, is long overdue.There are two measures, however, where we believe the government has missed the mark. The first relates to the so-called `share care' adjustments to the child support formula. We support the aim of the government to provide some relief to those parents who currently have access to their children under the existing 30 per cent threshold but are not convinced that the government's proposal works well at all. It does not help those most in need, it takes from one to give to the other and it will almost certainly lead to an increase in disputes between the parties. While I will discuss the problems in detail shortly, I wish to signal to the government that we are prepared to look at alternatives to the proposal as it is currently framed. We hope that the government will negotiate with us in good faith in relation to this measure.The second broad issue of contention relates to the income cap. We are disappointed that the government has sought to make this change—a change which will benefit very few, just one per cent of CSA payers. It will be of no benefit to 99 per cent of child support payers and, as such, is out of reach for those who really need help. It is a measure that is targeted to the government's favourite minority—the very wealthy—coming on top of the generous tax cuts that were tilted to high income earners as part of the GST package. Instead of this narrow proposal, the government should have devoted resources to helping those on low and middle incomes, who really need someone who is prepared to go in to bat for them.I want to make some general remarks about the Child Support Scheme. The Child Support Scheme was established in 1988 to ensure that children in separated families receive financial support from their parents. The scheme has been successful both in promoting this responsibility and in protecting children against poverty. Despite the scheme's shortcomings, recent research published by NATSEM found that, in the absence of the Child Support Scheme, an additional 58,000 children would have been in poverty in 1997-98. In this regard, the scheme has been of great benefit to the children of broken marriages and relationships. The scheme, however, does have its problems. It is the subject of valid criticisms from both resident and nonresident parents. This leaves policy makers with the difficult task of balancing interests in a way which is fair to both parties and which, above all else, protects the interests of children. While the scheme has responded to legitimate concerns about its operation and has improved considerably in recent years, there is an ongoing need for review and reform. There are calls for significant changes to the scheme and the operation of the child support formula. There may be a need for this but, in the interests of all parties, it is paramount that any changes are based on substantial, quality, independent research. Today I urge the government to make this investment and to allow full and free input from all parties concerned. Once again, it is disappointing that the government has announced the changes we are debating today without input from all sides of politics or all peak bodies. If the coalition is not willing to do this, certainly in the future this will be the approach of a Labor government. In this difficult area it is important that we do not have winners simply by creating losers. This is the test of successful reform. To achieve this may well require a more substantial commitment from the government. While there may be some cost associated with this, it should be seen against the substantial savings achieved by the government through the scheme.This brings me to the specific elements of the bill. As I said before, we will be supporting the majority of the measures. As I noted earlier in broad terms, the proposed legislation has the aim of alleviating the financial pressures faced by non-resident parents, particularly those who have second families. While the objectives have a great deal of merit, we are concerned that elements of the package will only provide limited benefits to those most in need and, in particular, some benefits come at the direct expense of the other parent. As such, these measures serve to promote rather than diminish conflict. I move first of all to schedule 1 of the bill, which provides for non-resident parents to be subject to lower child support percentages of their income for children with whom they have contact between 10 and 30 per cent of the time. This measure will provide for a discount on the usual child support formula for parents exercising contact between 10 and 29 per cent of the year. Currently, a discount applies only to parents who have contact for 30 per cent of the time or more. The discount is provided to recognise the increasing costs borne by the non-resident parent when they have care. The current 30 per cent threshold is equivalent to 110 nights or more a year or, on average, two nights every week, usually at weekends. In this instance, the child support liability for one child falls from the standard 18 per cent to 14 per cent of a non-resident parent's child support income. The new measure proposed by the government will lower the contact threshold from the existing 30 per cent to 10 per cent before a departure from the standard formula can be made. For those exercising at least 10 per cent contact, 37 nights a year or one weekend a month, the standard formula for one child—that is, 18 per cent of child support income—will fall to 16 per cent of child support income. For those exercising at least 20 per cent contact—that is, 73 nights a year or one weekend every fortnight—the standard formula for one child will fall from 18 per cent of child support income to 15 per cent of child support income. The effect of the lower contact threshold is to lower the child support liability for the non-resident parent. This will provide for more disposable income, and I am sure in many cases it will be used to the benefit of the children when they have made contact. So this is a worthy outcome, particularly for those non-resident parents who currently struggle to have enough money to engage in some worthwhile activities with their children. Many see merit in this, and it does make some sense when the child support liability for someone exercising some contact—let us say 20 per cent—is currently the same as a parent who exercises no contact at all. So, on the face of it, the measure rewards those parents who participate in the care of their children, and that is a worthy objective. But there are still some serious problems. The first point is that the reduction in child support liability results in less maintenance paid to the resident parent. It is here that the problems with the measure begin. The loss in child support to the resident parent is only partially compensated by increases in family tax benefit part A under the maintenance income test, but if, and only if, the resident parent is receiving more than the minimum rate of family tax benefit A. Those on the minimum rate of family tax benefit A will receive no compensation at all. For those who are on more than the minimum rate of family tax benefit, each dollar of child support lost will be met with a 50 per cent increase in family tax benefit. It is here that the government comes to the party; the problem is the government leaves early. I doubt many people would be happy with having $20 taken from their wallet only to have the perpetrator offer to give half back.The government estimates around 205,000 non-custodial parents share care at levels between 10 per cent and 30 per cent. Approximately two-thirds will have their liabilities reduced by an average of $5 per week. But thousands of resident parents will lose considerably more than this. For instance, a non-resident parent on $75,000 per year will have to pay around $37 a week less in child support, and this is a direct loss to the other parent. The government's measure therefore creates substantial numbers of losers. Many groups who gave evidence to the Senate inquiry in relation to this legislation criticised the measure because of this. In particular, by providing a direct link between contact and liability, disputes over access will intensify, with many resident parents likely to try to limit access to the other parent so that they do not lose financially. This is the glaring problem with the government proposition. As worthy as it may be to assist struggling non-resident parents, to put forward a measure that comes at the expense of the other will only increase animosity between parents.There are also other problems. For instance, the benefit of this measure is diminished as the number of children in question increases. With four or more children the benefit to the non-resident parent is minimal. Surely they deserve more financial relief, not less. This leads to another problem: the measure does not help those who need help. One-third of the 205,000 potentially affected receive no relief because they are paying the minimum $5 per week liability. In another example, a person earning $25,000 per annum with one child and providing between 10 and 20 per cent care will get around $5 relief to support that contact, whereas a person in the same circumstance but earning three times the income will get five times as much CSA relief; that is, $24.82. In short, the measure is not targeted to deliver assistance to non-custodial parents on the lowest incomes—arguably those in the greatest need.I repeat: we support the objective of shared care. We support the objective of encouraging parents to participate in the upbringing of their children. But what the government is doing is putting forward policies which financially disadvantage one parent to the benefit of the other. That is the cycle that we must break. There can be little dispute that non-resident parents bear some cost when they care for their kids, and they deserve assistance with it. But arbitrarily taking from the other parent has its problems. At low levels of care, the resident parent will have to meet the majority of the day-to-day costs of the children. These may even extend to additional clothing, food, pocket money, et cetera when a child is in the care of the non-resident parent. But, on the other hand, it is not unusual for the non-residential parent to maintain a separate supply of clothing, et cetera and meet other costs when they have care. This 30 per cent threshold was determined when the Child Support Scheme was established. At this time it was considered that the relative costs borne by custodial and non-custodial parents were not substantially affected until a 30 per cent/70 per cent sharecare threshold was reached. The government has produced some research in an attempt to substantiate this policy change. The government's research indicates that non-custodial parents bear costs when they care for children at levels of care less than the 30 per cent threshold. Costs include food, clothing, entertainment, the provision of an extra room, et cetera. However, the research does not quantify what these costs are or how they increase as the level of care increases. The authors of the research also noted that the sample used may not have been representative. Without the benefit of more thorough research it is difficult to determine whether a threshold as low as 10 per cent is warranted. It is easier, however, to understand the circumstances of a non-custodial parent with a higher level of care—for example, 20 per cent, 73 nights per year or one weekend per fortnight.There is another element that needs to be considered. The advent of the GST saw a new range of family payments, and the government introduced a new lower threshold to split family payments. Like the current child support threshold, family payments were previously not split until a 30 per cent care threshold was reached. The new family payments have changed that. The new family payments provide for payments to be split at a 10 per cent threshold of care. The FTB measure allows for a portion of family payments to be apportioned to a nonresident parent in accordance with the level of care for children they provide. Care of between 10 per cent and 30 per cent results in the transfer of family payments of an equivalent crude percentage from the custodial parent to the non-custodial parent.For thousands of low income resident parents this has already seen a substantial reduction in the financial resources available to them to care for their children. The government's changes in this area have already heightened tensions between parents. The government is aware of this, as it will also be aware that the combination of this family tax benefit change, along with the measures put forward today, will seriously erode the GST compensation provided to single parents.The government will be aware that across some income ranges single parents will be worse off compared to June 30 if the measures in this bill go ahead as presented. We acknowledge what the government is seeking to do but in its so doing it is not appropriate to effectively take from one to give to the other. As I noted earlier, one of the founding principles of the Child Support Scheme was to reduce the risk of poverty for single parents and their children. Up to this point, the system has been successful in reducing poverty amongst single parent families, even though it is still unacceptably high. As the measure currently stands it will lead to an increased risk of poverty amongst single custodial parents. On the other hand, the measure is likely to reduce the risk of poverty amongst low income non-custodial parents.In summary, aside from any appropriateness of providing some extra financial relief to nonresident parents who share the care of their children, the mechanism chosen by the government will disadvantage the resident parent. Any deterioration in the financial position of custodial parents is a great cause of concern, as the children are predominantly in the care of the resident parent. This has clear implications for the welfare of the children. Whilst there may be some merit in providing financial relief to non-custodial parents with fairly substantial caring responsibilities it should not come at the expense of the custodial parent. This is the opposition's bottom line.The only thing standing in the way of some relief for struggling nonresident parents is the willingness of the coalition to ensure there are no losers and no further fuelling of animosity between parents. The opposition is prepared to find a way though this and seeks the government's support. We have two options. The first path is the concept of a contact payment, instead of an adjustment to the formula. The second path is to accept the formula change but provide some additional compensation to the losers. We urge the government to look seriously at both of these proposals. The contact payment could take the form of an add-on to the current family tax benefit entitlement for non-custodial parents with shared care of between 10 and 30 per cent. This would be a more targeted approach to assisting nonresident parents to have contact with their children whilst avoiding further erosion of resident parents' income. The merit of a contact payment is that it better addresses the issue of poverty of both resident and nonresident families. The contact payment could be a tax free, two-tiered payment per week that would be conditional on the signing of a parenting plan that sets out agreed levels of care and also subject to a satisfactory paying history. Likewise, child support liability in shared care cases could be conditional on the custodial parent providing access consistent with a parenting plan. The establishment of this principle could also be extended to the current arrangements for shared family tax benefit so that the non-custodial parent could not obtain their portion of FTB until any existing CSA debt was addressed.The two-tiered payment could provide to non-custodial parents $5 per week for 10 per cent to 20 per cent care and $10 per week for 20 per cent to 30 per cent care. These payments would include the first two children, with an additional $5 per week for each subsequent child. This measure could extend to parents making a minimum contribution of $260. The government's proposal currently excludes these parents. It would also put greater funds than the government proposal would in the pockets of nonresident parents earning less than $24,000 and providing between 10 to 20 per cent care of a single child. It would also provide more for payers earning $28,000 or less and caring for one child between 20 and 30 per cent of the time. It would also be of greater benefit to those who care for more than two children. While a two-tiered contact payment would cost more than the government's proposal, it would ensure there was no loss to the resident parent.The contact payment would also reduce the likelihood of disagreements over access, since there would be no financial disincentive to the resident parent if the nonresident parent wished to increase care. The contact payment would have its problems too, but the government should examine the merits of this approach. It is simply beyond the resources of the opposition to move amendments to give effect to a contact payment, so we request that the government formally consider this proposition. If the government puts it forward we will certainly look at it.The other option for the government to consider is to proceed with the formula adjustment but provide additional compensation to the residential parent. A simple way to do this would be to bring the treatment of maintenance income into line with that of ordinary income for the calculation of family tax benefit A. This would benefit the vast majority of low income resident parents, but there may be some instances where it would not be of benefit—but only when nonresident income is less than around $17,000 per annum and hence they are paying enough child support to affect the resident parent's family tax benefit payments.The introduction of the ANTS range of family payments saw a relaxation of the ordinary income test from 50 cents to 30 cents in the dollar. However, the maintenance income test remained at 50c reduction in family payments for each dollar of maintenance received. This current arrangement is inconsistent and sees single parent families in broadly equivalent net financial positions receive greatly different family payments depending on the proportion of overall income that is attributable to maintenance rather than other income. This is a very simple way to take away most of the losses that custodial parents would suffer under this measure.This move would also help reduce work disincentives for single parents by reducing effective marginal tax rates. Since it will assist only those on more than the minimum rate of family tax benefit A, assistance would be targeted to those on lower incomes. It will have no effect on higher income resident parents who already receive the minimum family tax benefit A payment. The measure is quite costly but not excessive. The government should give this serious consideration. To recap: the opposition are supportive of providing relief to the struggling nonresident parent, but we should not be in a situation where it is afforded by penalising the other parent. This is simply counterproductive. We are prepared to work with the government on this issue and have put forward two positive alternatives. The ball is in the government's court. In the spirit of bipartisanship I urge the government to rethink its current approach and to work with us to find a solution.This brings me to the other elements of the bill. Schedule 2 seeks to lower the cap on income subject to the child support formula assessment from $101,153 to $78,378. This measure is designed to assist nonresident parents on very high incomes. There are very few high income earning nonresident parents and the majority of these have private agreements with the resident parent, which probably reflects a greater ability and willingness to pay the current set rate of child support rather than a lower amount. This measure would therefore lower the amount paid by only 4,000 nonresident parents earning annual incomes between $78,378 and $101,153. This measure does not take into account the relative poverty of the custodial parent and their children. The worst case scenario could see a loss in child support of up to $90 per week for one child. This measure is of limited benefit to the majority of non-custodial parents, delivering benefits only to those on high incomes. As I noted in my opening remarks, this is above the heads of 99 per cent of child support nonresident parents.The government would have done well to invest its energies in doing something that will help those in need. In support of this measure the government suggests that most payers with income in excess of $65,000 are paying more than the gross costs of their children. It is argued that a portion of child support payments is directed to extras such as holidays or private school fees. While this may be the case, we believe that such benefits would have been afforded to children had the family unit remained intact. Just because a family has broken up does not mean that a child should not be afforded these opportunities. Needless to say the opposition is opposing this measure in the Senate.Schedule 3 proposes new ground in departure from the normal CSA formula. It is proposed that income earned from a second job or regular overtime benefit a child or children in the current family, as opposed to those being paid child support. The amount of income excluded will be limited to a maximum of 30 per cent of the parent's total income. The merits of this measure are very clear. I have met a lot of parents with second families who are really struggling to get ahead or even keep their heads above water. Help for them is long overdue. Without diminishing the obligations they have to their first family, a lot of parents have called for greater fairness in the way the Child Support Scheme applies to them. Many argue that there is little incentive to work harder and help provide for their new family and many have sunk under the financial and emotional pressure that such situations bring.This measure will be of assistance. While initially concerned that it might provide avenues for some to illegitimately use the measure to avoid their responsibilities, we are satisfied with the administrative procedures the government has put to safeguard against this. It is important to see how this would determine, in practice, what constitutes a second job or overtime taken to support a second family. In a world where work patterns are increasingly precarious and employment histories fragmented it may be difficult to establish what constitutes a deviation from an established or normal pattern of work. But, as I said before, we are confident from our discussions with the Child Support Agency and the government that the measures and safeguards here are strong.For example, the senior case officer will compare the financial situation of the children for whom the applicant is paying child support with the position of the children in the applicant's current family. The resources available to each will be examined, particularly any other sources of income that could adequately provide for the applicant's new family. All in all we are satisfied with the thoroughness of this approach and its ability to determine those who genuinely need help. It is a difficult area when parents repartner and the government has done a commendable job in balancing this equation in the two measures. This brings me, as I said, to another good measure, which is in schedule 4. This schedule proposes to increase the family tax benefit and child-care benefit income test deductions for child support payers from 50 per cent to 100 per cent by allowing a dollar-for-dollar deduction for any child support paid. This will ensure payers with new families will have these benefits assessed on actual income available to that family rather than gross income and will lead to an increase in family payments for many struggling second families. We will certainly, wholeheartedly, be supporting this measure.Schedules 5, 6 and 7 will receive our support. We have some doubts about schedule 8, and we would like to keep talking to the government about it. It seeks to remove the requirement that supporting documents be provided to the other party where one customer is seeking to vary a CSA assessment. This measure is designed to appease many payers and some payees who object to their personal financial and other details being given to their ex-partner. The Department of Family and Community Services, in its submission to the Senate legislation committee examining this bill, argued the case for this measure. The department concluded that `the principles of natural justice are satisfied by the exchange of the application and response forms alone'. We were receiving conflicting advice on this and we would like to hear the government respond to these points of view coming from others who are opposing it. We reserve our right to oppose this measure until we have further discussions with the government. We will support schedules 9 and 10.In conclusion, the opposition are happy to support most of this bill. We have a fundamental objection to the income cap and hope we can work with the government to address the inequities that exist in the current proposition to adjust the contact threshold. With a bit of goodwill from the government I am confident a solution can be found to this difficult issue. Child support, as we in the parliament all know, arouses very strong passions, and it is seen as evidence that there is some sort of gender war taking place in our society. From my point of view, we should stop looking at this issue just through the prism of gender; most importantly, I think we have to continue to look at it through the prism of need.Labor understand that there are no easy fixes, but a responsible government must tackle these issues. After talking to many individuals affected by these problems I will always consider well thought out and fair proposals in this area. The correct balance between the needs of custodial and non-custodial parents is very difficult to achieve. Reform needs to continue, but it needs to be based on fact and on some quality research. The Labor Party understand there is a way to go before the child support system will be widely accepted as delivering the best outcome for our nation's children while being at the same time as fair as possible to both parties. I hope that in the future we are able to move forward to a situation where there is less hardship and less misery all around. There is no question in my mind that the breakdown of a marriage or any relationship involving children is a terrible thing. It leaves emotional scars on parents and children. I hope that the government's bill represents a further step in the development of a fair and just social policy. We look forward to the government's response to the issues that I have raised today.19:07:0021341Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I am very pleased to be in this chamber today to support further reforms to the child support system through the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. Most members would be aware of my longstanding interest in this issue, which is fuelled by many of my constituents having been unfairly affected by the child support regime that grew under the previous Labor government. The amendments we are debating today build on earlier amendments to make the system fairer. I am proud to be part of a government that is prepared to tackle this difficult issue and to make ongoing changes to improve the system.This was yet another issue that the Labor government put in the too hard basket and did nothing about. While there is still further to go on this issue, I am very pleased that, over the past few years, we have made significant improvements. I am sure that we all wish there was not the necessity for a child support system but, sadly, family breakdown is part of life. Just as the government has a role to play in supporting all families with children, we have a particular role to play in assisting those who go through the difficult process of marriage breakdown by having in place a system that ensures a framework for financial support that is fair. In reality, it is not about money and financial support only. In fact, for many families that is the least important aspect. Far more important is the ongoing relationship that families have with their children. I was pleased to stand up in this House just last month to discuss amendments we have made to the Family Law Act regarding access arrangements and the enforcement of parenting orders. It is crucial that we acknowledge the right and role of both parents to have a continuing relationship with their children, with only a very few extreme exceptions. Unfortunately, it has been all too easy in the past for fathers, in particular, to be shut out of their children's lives, and the child has been the one who suffers most when this happens.Many people point to the introduction of the no-fault divorce in 1975 and the impact of changes to the Family Law Act at the time as the cause of so much family dislocation. Certainly, the Family Court has a significant track record of awarding custody of children solely to mothers, although this has changed slightly over the years and we are seeing more shared parenting arrangements. On that note, I was very interested to read an extract of an excellent address given by Dr Peter Saunders of the Australian Institute for Family Studies in his Bert Kelly Memorial Lecture to the Centre of Independent Studies last month. Dr Saunders was commenting on divorce rates in the US and he stated:A remarkable fall in divorce trends has taken place in American states where child custody is routinely granted to both parents, rather than solely the mother. Up to three-quarters of divorce petitions are filed by women, but this willingness to break up the marriage apparently declines when faced with the prospect of having to share parenting post-divorce. In states with high levels of joint custody, divorce rates have declined almost four times faster than in states where joint custody is rare.It is certainly an interesting reflection on the impact of social policies on families. I have digressed; I would love the opportunity to discuss other issues raised by Dr Saunders in his address, and I will do so at a later date. I strongly commend his speech to other honourable members of this House as well worth reading.The fact is the Howard government is acting to make sure that both the child support system and the family law system are made easier, and this is most definitely reflected in the bill we are debating today. One of the most important aspects of this bill is the recognition of parents who have contact with the child for between 10 and 30 per cent of the time. Currently, there are no means of recognising this important contribution and the cost involved in this sort of arrangement. Under the new measure, if a non-custodial parent has contact with his child or children for between, say, 10 and 20 per cent of the time, he will have a reduction in the child support percentage he is required to pay of two percentage points. In other words, it will be reduced from 18 per cent to 16 per cent for one child. If the contact is for at least 20 per cent and up to 30 per cent of the time, the reduction will be three percentage points—or from 18 per cent to 15 per cent for one child.Not only does this correctly recognise the cost of the contact that is met by the non-resident parent but we hope it will encourage parents to maintain contact with their children. I have spoken in this House before about the many studies that point to the importance of contact with both a mother and father for the welfare of the child, so I will not go into detail again today. I believe the government should pursue every avenue it can to encourage that ongoing contact. It is a shame, in my view, that the single women and IVF debate has sought to once again portray fathers as a disposable commodity and to downplay the ongoing roles of dads in their children's lives. Another important aspect of the bill is that it recognises the reality that many fathers—I point out that I am using that term as a generalisation in this debate; I know that sometimes the roles are reversed and the mother is the non-custodial parent—go on to have second families, and this ought to be acknowledged. There are two significant measures that do that in this bill. The first is that additional income earned by way of a second job or regular overtime for the benefit of children in the parent's current family can be excluded from the child support formula assessment. Naturally, there are provisions to ensure that this is fair. The extra earnings must not be earned as part of a regular pattern established before the second family, and it must not come from normally expected improvements in the parent's earning pattern. This is a major step forward, and it restores some incentive for those who want to work harder to create a better lifestyle for their families.The other notable measure is that there is an increase in the deductible child maintenance expenditure for the purpose of calculating the family tax benefit and the child-care benefit. In fact, child support payers will be allowed a dollar for dollar reduction for any child support paid, which effectively means that child support payers with children in new families will have their family tax benefit and child-care benefit assessed on income that reflects the actual income they receive. This legislation also allows for the lowering of the cap on income that is subject to the child support formula assessment. The bill also makes a number of minor and administrative changes, including establishing departure prohibition orders, and I note and support the government's amendment in this regard to add the words `or indirect' to bring this into line with current comparable provisions.As I said at the outset, I have spoken many times in this parliament on the child support system. On behalf of many of my constituents who have been asking for commonsense and fair arrangements, along the lines of those in this bill, I thank the Minister for Community Services and congratulate the government for having the courage to tackle this issue. As I said, there is still some way to go yet, but there is little doubt that the Howard government has delivered significant reform of the Child Support Agency to bring a greater level of fairness, particularly for the second family with children. These children are every bit as important and deserve our consideration. Having spoken recently on these matters, I do not propose to take up any further time in the House today, but I strongly support the bill, and I am very proud to be part of a government that stands for fairness and equity in all matters relating to Australian families. I commend this bill to the House.19:16:0021343Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—I welcome the opportunity, like other members, to speak on the Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000. Like all members in this place, the mere mention of child support conjures up the many cases that have been, and continue to be, raised with each one of us in our electorate offices. Human nature being what it is, when a marriage or relationship breaks down, there are invariably winners and losers. Winners and losers react in different ways and with different behaviours. Custodial parents are women and men; non-custodial parents are women and men. Often, after the breakdown of the marriage, the non-custodial parent does the right thing and assumes full responsibility for the children, and they move on with their lives. In this day and age, second families are the norm, while third families are not uncommon. This not only complicates life for the parents but places enormous and often unbearable pressures on the young children involved in these families. To give honourable members some idea of how vast this potential scenario and the potential for further stress on families is in my state of Tasmania, the headline from last Sunday's Mercury, the Tasmanian newspaper, said, `Torn apart: Tassie divorce shock'. The article said:Tasmanian marriages are disintegrating at the fastest rate in the nation. More than half of Tasmanian marriages end in divorce. Marriages would have a better chance for survival if vows were replaced by the toss of a coin: heads we win; tales we divorce. Latest Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show an alarming 55 per cent of Tasmanian marriages end in divorce—well above the already disturbing national figure of 46 per cent. Despite the massive failure rate, Tasmanians continue to ignore the opportunity to take free marriage counselling, which is appalling. One can only wonder what long-term effect this is going to have on Tasmanian society, let alone the individuals caught up in this appalling statistical statement. As the honourable member for Lilley said, this legislation involving child support always—and I stress `always'—causes concern and raises blood pressure levels within our community, which is directly and indirectly affected by marriage breakdown. Every federal member can quietly reflect on instances told to them of just how vulnerable people feel having to deal with the Child Support Agency. As I said previously, we often talk of winners and losers when we deal in this area. As a male, I am appalled by the conduct of many of my sex who not only have subjected their former partners to intolerable behaviour in their relationships but have become more unfeeling and devious after their relationships have ended. But, to give the other side of the story, I realise that, likewise, there are those in the female fraternity whose deviousness and dubious morality can be easily associated with their male compatriots' bastardry.As I said, there are winners and losers among both custodial and non-custodial parents. The turmoil in their lives is evident and often devastating. Because many of these adults are vocal and articulate when aggrieved, we readily hear about it. But what we do not hear about are the effects on the children. When we debate national legislation in this place we often do so in apparent abstraction. It is as if it is going to have an impact only here in this place. In this bill we are talking about the impact on real women and men and real children and the way their daily lives unfold or fold up. Sadly, the latter is sometimes the reality of the effect of such legislation that we are debating tonight in the House. At this stage, since I have 10 minutes to go and I am going to be interrupted, I will place on the record a very moving letter written by someone involved in this process. It says:Dear Mr Quick,Thank you for inviting me to share my ideas of, and personal experiences with, the child support service managed by the ATD. It was with some interest that I watched Centrelink change its name from Social Security—a large proportion of its clients not living up to its name by feeling very socially insecure. The Child Support Agency could well afford to change its name under the same grounds by my own observations of my own case. I have barely felt supported by this department, with my children more isolated and at times violated.The children's father and I separated in 1989. I fled the home because of physical violence directed against one of my children, mainly my eldest son from my first marriage. From a fully owned home to rented accommodation with no furnishings, save a couch, with minimum money in my account, I set about starting a new home. Overwhelmed by trips to the supermarket: where to start? What do you get when you need everything? Eating off squares of material spread on the floor; each meal a picnic on the living room floor, eating in shifts because we only had two bowls and two plates to start with. My ex-husband had started to smash my crockery, stating that he would break it all before he would let me have any when I tried to take some.I had my first experience of Child Support. The irony of the textbook nature of my case, where the very existence of Child Support is based on situations where there is no hope of reasonable negotiation or one of the parties fears for their safety. Amidst all this, mountains of paperwork started to arrive which made no sense, rhyme or reason. Much of it over the first 12 months remained unread due to exhaustion and confusion. It took me years to work out the patterns of when money would be withheld. I have accumulated mountains of meaningless paperwork, all in the too-hard basket.Eventually, the two children lived between their father and I week about. I tried to resume my nursing career, working seven shifts on and seven shifts off. After several years of this, stress related illness forced me out of the work force. Slow recovery led to me doing four shifts per fortnight as my energy allowed. I have since lost my practising certificate. The children are now living with me full time and, for now, my chosen career is that of a full-time parent. These children have earned it after the trauma they have been through. It is their basic right to have a parent who is prepared to do just that, parent them. Between their father and I, our fractured relationship history, these kids have other siblings. The horrendous experience of having run away from their father's house, accompanied by police intervention, lawyers, social workers, et cetera, has left its mark. Child Support has been on this journey with us. They know about the stalking, about the hundreds of prank phone calls, the dogs being poisoned, the broken windows, the false letters sent in my name to the taxation department resulting in loss of benefit and bank fees incurred. They know about the false accusation of de facto relationships and the degrading intrusion on my privacy. Yes, it has been a big exciting adventure.Child Support know about the fire that swept through the area and the loss of 80 per cent of our assets just a week after our youngest son had fled his home one night, distressed, to come and live with me. They know we've lived in poverty, tenderly guided through this experience by the Salvation Army, Centacare, Anglicare and the Benevolent Society, not to mention the amazing goodwill and charity of friends.They know the effect this stress has had on my mental and emotional health as I have lived with inevitable depression that accompanies poverty and the paranoia of being stalked, the feelings of failure and being a drain on society, the loss of esteem. They have had to deal with me hysterical and distraught as they condescendingly hand out wholesome advice like, `Take out a personal loan to buy food.' I did.Despite all this, through numerous reviews, the Child Support Unit chose to aid and abet his financial abuse. He has been actually encouraged to squirt and desert, astounding stuff. I sleep sound at night knowing this man is safe in his $400 a week beachfront home surrounded by his fine art collection, coins and stamps, and fine wines, comfortable amongst his antiques, his overseas trips undisturbed, and his trips to the snow unhindered, reassured that his lifestyle takes priority over the children's basic needs, counselled by these people not to seek legal advice. They definitely have the children's best interests at heart, or so it would appear. Despite being warned that on paper he was deliberately mismanaging his finances, still his needs have overridden those of the children. This is not some soap opera on TV. This is real life and the issue here is food in my kids' bellies and clothes on their backs. I have written letters that include such words as iniquitous, incredulous, outraged. I feel like I am being punished by Child Support for living within my limited means and not letting them force me into total bankruptcy. I have been proud to survive under such challenging circumstances, inspired by visions of Australia's pioneering families serving in conditions harder than we face now, and comforted knowing that you can always find someone worse off than yourself.Surely it should be his turn to attend financial counselling and learn appropriate budgeting skills. This money is not for my personal benefit. It is for the children and they are truly wonderful. They accept school uniforms for Christmas presents and other school supplies for their birthdays. They go without, without complaining, grateful to be in a stable, settled environment. My decision to fulfil my most important job and stay home and care for my children is reward in itself. Because I feel so strongly about not putting these kids at risk of substance abuse and I am hoping having someone home for them when they get home from school, not leaving them unattended for hours as latchkey kids, not giving them the opportunity. I can't get these years back once they have gone. This is my opportunity to be a mother. I have noticed that children made to be an adult too soon spend their adult lives trying to replace their missing childhoods. My children are thriving. One has just got the highest mark in his grade at high school for a national paper from the New South Wales University competition. The other is voted into the SRC. Both are active scouts and contribute positively to the community. They have fine friends. These children are thriving from their supportive environment. Therefore, the Child Support Unit can be congratulated on providing such character building conditions that have strengthened our resolve to be a successful family despite the odds. Our lives are rich. We have each other, an abundance of love and care. Financially, they can rip the rug from under our feet, undo our months of hard work scrimping and saving but we'll always have each other. The most single distressing issue I've faced in the last 11 years is the continuing destabilisation of our budget through Child Support. It has cost me hours of grief and frustration, not to mention the endless phone calls. I have queried on more than one occasion if they do their job so badly in the hope that people will stop using their service. Anguish after anguish after anguish and feeling upset over this. Where else am I supposed to go? To a Family Court already over clogged and equally as unjust? You are only as good as your lawyer and his interest in your case.I don't have the stamina any more to face another drawn-out, useless legal battle. I need all my energy to be a mum. It is hard work, as I am sure you can agree from just first-hand experience. I have been unfairly accused of name calling when I know I gave that up with the first two years with help from my GP. I am soon to face another review and it is with a heavy heart and no expectation that I will go. I predict that his and his current wife's income will remain negatively geared, the assets moved sideways. I am not as au fait in the legal arts as he. As he suffers on his $75,000 per year income combined with his wife's non-existent income, we realise our existence on taxpayers' money and thank God for the Salvos. I admire his ability to abdicate his true financial responsibilities to his children. By all outward appearances, there are large numbers of fathers who work hard and take home barely the dole, often being denied access to the children, and men who work in short bursts to avoid paying at all. There are a lot of mums like me, going by all appearances, insane as they go without, filled with the anxiety of making ends meet on nothing, as payments are missed or withheld.Debate interrupted.Adjournment2134610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 7.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2134619:30:0021346Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Today the House has spent considerable time looking at telephone calls and how they impact on one particular family of one particular minister in this House. Families in my electorate have had problems with their telephones and telephone calls but they have been treated very differently. I thought I would share with honourable members tonight some of the concerns of constituents within my electorate. There is a pensioner couple in my electorate who foster and care for a profoundly disabled child. They received a telephone account for $86. Sure, it is not an account for $50,000 like that of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, but they were pursued to pay that money in a way that the minister has not been pursued. The phone calls were to dating services such as IVR Dating, Talk for Two and Asia Alive. The only way they were able to get out of paying those phone calls was to prove beyond all doubt that they were not only out of the house when these calls were made but also away on holidays. They had to prove that no other person had the key to their house. They also had to prove that the security that they had on their place was sufficient to stop somebody breaking in and using their telephone. This family was put through such scrutiny in relation to only $86 of telephone calls. On the other hand, in the House today we have heard about the family of the minister for workplace relations being given latitude when this family, these pensioners, in my electorate were not. Another example is a gentleman from Swansea. He was moving into a new place and applied to have his phone connected on 17 August, and it was connected on 18 August. Between 18 and 23 August, while he was not living in the home, $1,600 worth of calls were attributed to his phone. These phone calls were to Ascension Island and to the Seychelles, and they were all numbers that I believe related to some sort of sex hotline. This gentleman's phone has been cut off. He is only allowed to have incoming phone calls. He has not made any of those phone calls whatsoever. Yet, unlike the situation of the minister for workplace relations, he is being pursued. He is being asked to pay that money back. It hardly seems fair that somebody who did not make the calls—he was not even in the house—is being forced to pay them back. The final case is a family from Caves Beach. They have a young teenage boy who suffers from attention deficit disorder and possibly some other more serious disorders. At night he managed to disconnect the phone, put it into his room, and use the computer. He made $10,131.60 worth of calls to the Philippines. He was calling a girl over there, talking to her on the Internet, and this went on for some time. I contacted the office of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and asked for some assistance. The response I got from his office was: the bottom line is that the debt is their problem—it is part of a contract that when you hire phones you undertake to pay the calls. My feeling is that the debt that has been run up on the minister's phone card is his debt. It is his responsibility. Why should he get away with it? Why should he not have to repay his $50,000, while a struggling family with a disabled child has to repay $10,000? That family has been allowed to pay that debt off at $200 a month because they are real battlers. If the minister cannot afford to pay back the $50,000, maybe he should pay it back in the same way as that family from Caves Beach. (Time expired)2134719:35:0021347Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise tonight to speak about the figures which were produced by the NRMA and released on Monday. NRMA provided a listing of the most dangerous black spots in the whole of New South Wales. In fact, the most dangerous black spot in New South Wales is located in none other than the electorate of Cook: that is, the Miranda Five Ways intersection. It recorded no fewer than 1,188 vehicles which crashed at that intersection. Compared to the United States, this figure was 10 per cent higher than the number one black spot in the US, which is located in Dallas, Texas, according to a survey by US insurance giant State Farm. So the number one black spot in New South Wales is at the Miranda Five Ways. 1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr Billson—Could be the world's worst black spot.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—Well, it could be the world's number one. But certainly what is disappointing is the response of the government to this problem. Almost daily there is an accident at this intersection. Even when the media went out to photograph the black spot, while they were actually standing there, a crash occurred. I hired a new secretary and on her way to the office for her first day she had a very significant crash at this intersection. You take your life in your hands when you go around this roundabout.What is disturbing is that the New South Wales Minister for Transport, Carl Scully—who is known for not keeping the trains actually on the rails—said that he had visited Five Ways and that the government had allocated $5 million to fix the problems, $5 million only. But he said it could not be labelled a genuine accident black spot, suggesting insurers wanted more done about the site to save on payouts. This is the response of the Minister for Transport in New South Wales—a job I know a little bit about. He just dismisses it and says it is a put-up job by the insurance companies because they have to put out a fair amount of spray paint in terms of their insurance policies. He says: `Don't let us fix it. It is a set-up PR job by the insurance companies.' But with 1,188 accidents, it is the No. 1 black spot not only in New South Wales but also in the country and it is bigger than the highest one in the USA. 8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—Weren't you the Minister for Transport? MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—It is a major intersection because one way leads up to Miranda Fair, the other one leads up to Sutherland, the other one down to Tom Uglys Bridge and across into the western suburbs, the other one up to Caringbah and the other to Cronulla—a major intersection. Of course, the member opposite would well know that there are two major intersections, one of which is in his electorate. 8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—Yes, you may well remember that one five-way intersection was fixed by a very reliable transport minister in New South Wales—the only way to fix a five-way intersection is by a flyover—at Homebush Bay. The problem was fixed and the number of accidents that occurred there dropped dramatically because of the flyover. The other flyover that was built was in the electorate of Smithfield, which of course is part of Carl Scully's electorate. It had the same problem with five ways leading into one intersection and many accidents, and a flyover was built. It was good enough for the Minister for Transport in New South Wales to have built in his own electorate a flyover, which is not cheap—it costs about $20 million. Of course, Miranda Five Ways is in a marginal seat there held by Barry Collier. The minister promised he would fix it. Well, he will not. He will not fix the problem with traffic lights—a $5 million fix job that the minister says will solve the problem. This is a PR exercise by the insurance companies, according to Mr Scully. In fact, the reality is that we have more than daily accidents on this No. 1 traffic black spot in New South Wales and, Minister Scully, we are waiting for you to fix the problem. 2134819:40:0021348Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—Last week there was a united front presented in a press conference with the Labor Party, the Greens, the Australian Democrats and two Independents. The three parties called for the resignation of the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation in relation to comments that he had made about Aboriginal people and their civilisation. However, the two Independents present, Peter Andren and I, did not call for his resignation at that time but simply said that the minister should come into the parliament and actually apologise for the hurt that he created and for the image that he tried to create of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in relation to their culture and traditions.The minister has been back for a few days and has been in the parliament talking about everything under the sun—and I might say misleading the House in a number of ways—but the fact is that he has not made any statement of regret, he has not apologised and he has let the record stand in relation to the matter. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I realise that very few people are listening to the honourable member speaking. However—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The parliamentary secretary will come to his point.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—I will, Mr Speaker—he did say that the minister for reconciliation had misled the House, and that is clearly an inappropriate thing for him to say. If he wishes to pursue that line of argument, there are forms of the House that the honourable member should follow. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I did not feel that the member for Calwell was being unintentionally aggressive in his attack on the minister. I will let the matter slide and listen closely to what he is saying.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Yes, I did not say `deliberately misleading'. The member does not know the forms of the House but, anyway, I will continue. The fact is that the minister has had the opportunity to apologise or to come and explain to this House what was happening. When the Prime Minister was asked about the matter last week, he said, `Read the whole transcript of the interview.' I did that; I read the whole transcript of the interview; and it was a pretty obnoxious interview in terms of the views that he was presenting about Aboriginal civilisation and culture. The minister ought to come into this House and explain to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people what he was trying to establish by his outrageous remarks about their culture and civilisation.Having said that, we know that this is part of the general move that we have had from the minister and from the Prime Minister in terms of the attitudes towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people and also part of the general attempt to get away from any scrutiny of these matters by international bodies such as the United Nations. The government recently announced that it was going to get away from its obligations under United Nations treaties. I am sad to say that those comments by the government were welcomed by extremist organisations here and around the world. A fax was sent to honourable members from Eileen Pittaway, the Director of the Centre for Refugee Research. In it she refers to a fax that was sent by an extremist group in the United States called C-Fam, which reads:Dear Colleague: We report today some very good news. The government of Australia has pulled out of the UN treaty monitoring system. This means they will no longer cow-tow to unelected 'experts' who tell them how to run their own country. And this points up the essential powerlessness of the UN commissions. All it takes is one government saying 'no'. Perhaps this is a harbinger of more good news to come.Spread the word.Yours sincerelyAustin Ruse PresidentAction item: Email the Australian Mission to the United Nations and Congratulate them for standing up for their sovereignty by pulling out of the UN treaty monitoring system.Extremist organisations of this kind are the only people who have welcomed the government's actions. The actions by the government in withdrawing from UN committees have been universally condemned by a whole range of organisations in this country and outside. (Time expired)2134919:45:0021349Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—I rise to report on the proceedings today at the Shepherdson inquiry into Australian Labor Party electoral fraud in Queensland. For the second week in a row, the people of Queensland have heard more stories of how the Labor Party in Queensland turned a blind eye to electoral roll fraud. This is the same Labor Party that had as its last three state secretaries the Queensland Premier, Mr Beattie, the member for Lilley, Mr Swan, and the state member for Woodridge, Mike Kaiser. It is also the same party that has been dominated by the powerful right-wing AWU faction, which has been linked closely with most, if not all, of the recent allegations on electoral roll fraud.Interestingly—and I point this out for the erudition of the House—both Mr Swan and Mr Kaiser are, to my knowledge, members of the AWU. Proceedings in the Shepherdson inquiry have been hotting up over the past few days. Recently we have seen Susan Foster, wife of convicted former Labor councillor Shane Foster, contradicting the evidence of the state member for Townsville, Mike Reynolds. Two people with effectively nothing more to lose have now suggested in the inquiry that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Premier of Queensland committed perjury in the inquiry. We have heard also that the handwriting of the Mayor of Townsville appears on a list of fraudulently enrolled voters. These voters were presumably the ones he needed to support him in his attempt to win the state seat of Mundingburra and his subsequent effort to secure preselection against Mr Reynolds.But that is not all. I understand that there is now a direct link between false enrolments in Townsville and Brisbane. Evidence on 6 October, when Townsville mayor Tony Mooney was under examination, suggested that applications for 12 people to be enrolled in the Townsville electorate were lodged on a single day, 10 October 1996. Councillor Mooney expressed no knowledge of these enrolments, most of which were lodged by his alleged numbers man, Andy Kehoe. Today, several people whose names have not been the subject of previous discussions gave evidence that on the very same date false enrolments in Townsville were lodged on their behalf with the Australian Electoral Commission. I understand that Mr Kehoe was responsible for the Townsville enrolments discussed with Councillor Mooney on 6 October 2000. A man called Joe Felice was the instigator of the Brisbane to Townsville false enrolments on the same date. The common denominator in all of this is Mr Swan's and Mr Kehoe's faction, the AWU. Kehoe, an AWU man, was acting for the AWU candidate in the Townsville preselection, Tony Mooney.However, the most interesting news out of the Shepherdson inquiry was reported today on ABC Radio in Brisbane. In a bulletin this morning, the ABC quoted former ALP state secretary Mike Kaiser—the successor to the member for Lilley and now the state member for Woodridge—as saying that electoral fraud was not widespread in the party. I find this a strange comment, because only yesterday Mr Kaiser stood up in the inquiry and gave evidence that suggested that claims of electoral fraud in the Labor Party were not—and I quote from the ABC news story:... uncommon although his job was to win elections, not to investigate every allegation made to him.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Unbelievable!WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—Unbelievable. Mr Kaiser then went on to tell the ABC:The ALP is an innocent victim in all of this.I cannot hear the harps playing. I have no sympathy for the Labor Party and I am quite certain that the people of Queensland will not share Mr Kaiser's view of how poorly the Labor Party has been treated. Three former or existing members of the Queensland Labor Party have now been charged with electoral fraud. All three of these people have now given to the Shepherdson inquiry evidence that suggests Labor really took to heart the old Labor adage of `vote early and vote often'. In Queensland, Labor not only seems to encourage people to vote early and vote often but has shifted voters around to rort elections and predetermine preselection ballots. Tomorrow the inquiry will hear from Andy Kehoe, Mark Zande and Joe Felice. Mr Kehoe and Mr Felice have already been implicated in serious matters and have had a long and close association with the Queensland Labor Party. I for one will be watching very closely tomorrow to hear what these men have to say about electoral fraud and to find out in particular whether there is any more evidence to link Councillor Mooney and other members of the Townsville Labor Party to the rorting and fraud that surrounded the 1996 Mundingburra election. 2135019:50:0021350Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—The people I want to talk about now you would not want to vote too early, Member for Groom, because they are going to have a pleasant little surprise for you and your colleagues on the other side. Disappointment, disillusionment and disgust would, I suggest, be the best descriptions for the reaction of our country's senior citizens over this government's broken promise of a one-off $1,000 savings bonus to compensate for the introduction of the GST. The one-off tax free payment of $1,000 that Mr Howard promised two years ago to give every person—WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MP849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Sit down and listen to this—aged 60 and over just did not happen. In fact, many received very small or insignificant payments—WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MP849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Sorry, you are seated—and some, nothing at all. The member for Groom—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Groom, the member for Braddon has the call and will address his remarks through the chair.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will remind the member for Groom, through you, Mr Speaker, of what Mr Howard said on Radio 6PR in Perth on 25 August 1998:You get a $1,000 savings bonus for all people over the age of 60.I quote again from Mr Howard speaking at the Carseldine Retirement Village in Brisbane in the electorate of Petrie, where I have just recently been. The ALP candidate—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The honourable member should be aware that the forms of the House do require him to refer to the Prime Minister by his correct title and not by his actual name.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The parliamentary secretary will resume his seat. The member for Braddon is conscious of that, and I do not believe he was deliberately seeking to denigrate the Prime Minister. I will ask him to refer to him as the Prime Minister.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM—I quote again from Prime Minister John Howard's Carseldine Retirement Village speech:... for every person 60 and over there will be a savings bonus, a one-off tax free payment of $1,000 in relation to investment income that you might have.As I just mentioned—or tried to mention—I was recently in the seat of Petrie with a colleague and I can suggest to you that the votes of numbers of senior citizens that I met there are changing very much, and I hope to see Petrie in ALP hands. As for those who did receive the full $1,000, I would like to quote from one of those elderly pensioners who wrote to me:I'm one of the lucky ones, but what about those people who did not receive any money—they are the ones who really need it.Unfortunately for the Prime Minister, Mr Howard, his statement two years ago misled many pensioners into believing that they would receive a $1,000 payment to offset the introduction of the GST. But Mr Howard failed to clarify that not every pensioner would be eligible for the $1,000. Conditions applied, but we did not hear about these in August 1998—only later in the small print of the Centrelink booklets. The government's own figures, revealed through Senate estimates hearings, were that more than 300,000 elderly Australians would receive a one-off payment of between $1 and $50. The figures also showed that 43 per cent of Australians over 60 would receive no payment at all. In my electorate of Braddon, on the north-west coast of Tasmania, Mr Howard's broken promise has sparked unprecedented protest from age pensioners—a reaction that I know has been felt across the nation and come to the attention of both sides of this House.In addition to receiving almost 3,000 responses from senior citizens in my electorate to a petition circulated last month objecting to the government's handling of the issue, my office has received hundreds of calls from elderly people who have expressed disgust and dismay at the Prime Minister's treatment. These have come from all political persuasions. In short, they feel they have been cheated. Surprisingly, it was not only the people who did not receive any money who signed the petition; many others were angry that the promise had not been honoured, and were concerned that other needy pensioners received little or nothing. One age pensioner summed it up as follows:Thank you John for the $7.00 you sent me—you sure fooled me.Another said:I only got $52—big deal.Another pensioner wrote that she was fortunate to receive the bonus but was `really peeved that Mr Howard had broken yet another promise', claiming that it had become his trademark. In fact, she went on to say:Thank you Mr Howard for our high petrol prices so that many of your fellow Australians cannot afford outings.We all hope you enjoyed your great party for the Federation—another waste of funds—funds which could have been given to the pensioners as promised. (Time expired)2135119:55:0021351Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise this evening to bring the attention of the members of the House to a great achievement from the Goldfields region in my electorate of Kalgoorlie. This year's Perth Royal Show, which concluded a little over a week ago, was a highly successful one for exhibitors from the Goldfields region. The Leonora shire, which is two hours north of Kalgoorlie, was this year invited to be the official guest exhibitor at the show. The display by the Leonora Tourism Committee, organised under the stewardship of Maxine Cable, incorporated replications of a traditional miners camp, complete with underground hand bogger and a blacksmith's shop. Other members of the committee included Tim Hewson, Terry Demasson, Graham Canning, Sue Oliver and Peter Prugnoli. They were capably assisted by Steve Robinson and Dave Hadson from the Leonora shire.The centrepiece of the display was a one-third scale replica of the Leonora State Hotel. The real thing was constructed in 1902 and was the first commercial hotel to be built by the Western Australian government. These days, the restored hotel is owned and used for accommodation by the Sons of Gwalia mining company. However, at the show many former Leonora residents were able to walk through the model and identify various aspects from the original building. The display garnered the Royal Agricultural Society's special award for commercial exhibitors, a fitting reward for the many hours of hard work put in by the whole Leonora team. The display was initially constructed in Leonora so local residents could enjoy it. It was then dismantled and transported to the Perth show for inclusion there. Congratulations are due again to Maxine and her hardworking team at the Gwalia Museum, where real examples of mining materials and life and the whole ambience of 100 years ago are on display and should be visited by all Australians.The Goldfields district display, organised by the Goldfields Tourism Association, on behalf of the Goldfields-Esperance Development Commission, the Kalgoorlie-Boulder Chamber of Commerce and Industry and local government throughout the region also enjoyed considerable success. The display was awarded three first prizes and a second prize—the best results ever attained by the Goldfields district display at the royal show. The Goldfields district won awards for the best display of wood products and the best display arrangement, and took second prize in the minerals display category. The Goldfields district display was also awarded the Sir Gerald Strickland Memorial Trophy for the highest percentage points for primary produce, including minerals. I congratulate the Goldfields Tourism Association executive officer Neta Gill and display coordinator Norm Buivids on the competition success of their exhibit. I commend the Goldfields and its outstanding historical attraction to all Australians. It is truly a fine example of what can be done to reconstruct life as it was in the glorious yesteryear of winning gold throughout Western Australia.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—It has a great member, too.84THaase, Barry, MPMr HAASE—Indeed! I thank you for that, Minister. The Goldfields are considered by many to be the last frontier still today. I spend quite a deal of my time convincing people that Kalgoorlie and the surrounding Goldfields are, in fact, a very civilised place for professional people to work in and raise their families. With almost every facility for suburban living, Kalgoorlie-Boulder is truly a great place to raise a family. Often I find it does not deserve the reputation it has as the hardworking, hard-drinking edge of the frontier. So I recommend to all members of this House and the Australian public: give the Goldfields a go on your next tour of Australia. It has a great deal to offer and a great life experience to enjoy, and I am sure it would be memorable for any visitor.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 8 p.m., the debate is interrupted.20:00:0021352House adjourned at 8.00 p.m.Notices21352The following notices were given:7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams to present a bill for an act to repeal or amend certain acts as a consequence of the enactment of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2000, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act to amend the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947, and for related purposes.—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members213532135309:40:0021353Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—I wish to highlight the coalition's duplicity regarding the continuing problem of tree clearing in Queensland, which has serious implications for our national efforts to combat salinity and greenhouse emissions. The recent official state government report Land cover change in Queensland 1997-99 revealed that the average annual clearing rate over the past three years was 425,000 hectares, with 52 per cent occurring in the very sensitive Murray-Darling catchment. This level of clearing was 25 per cent higher than that reported for 1995-97 and 47 per cent higher than in 1991-95. For over a year the Beattie government has been seeking to obtain the Commonwealth's cooperation and assistance on the matter. The response from the Commonwealth has been two-faced and irresponsible, with various ministers putting forward diametrically opposed positions. Consider first the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. On 9 August 1999—14 months ago—he wrote to his state counterpart, Mr Welford, saying:... it is timely to reassess progress towards the Bushcare national goal of no net loss of native vegetation cover. I am concerned to note that Queensland ... land clearing still appears to be occurring at the rate of at least 300,000 hectares per annum ... we need to substantially reduce the net loss in native vegetation cover in Queensland ...The clear implication of this letter, from the third most senior minister in the Commonwealth, was that Queensland needed to drastically reduce the level of tree clearing and that it would receive Commonwealth support to do so. Subsequent events revealed that the opposite was the case. In December, the state cabinet considered proposed new land clearing controls, as urged by Senator Hill. However, the real intentions of the government were made clear by Minister Truss in his strident media release of 7 December headed `Time to end Labor's land clearing hysteria'. In this he said:Labor is trying to whip up public sentiment to justify their pre-election preference deal with the Greens to implement draconian land clearing laws on private lands ... In southern States, farmers have found that tree clearing laws are often incredibly insensitive, inflexible and illogical ... The Commonwealth should not assist in funding unreasonable laws.Importantly, this man is actually the Chairman of the Murray-Darling Basin Ministerial Council, which deals with the downstream consequences—economical and environmental—of excessive land clearing and other poor natural resource management practices.Minister Truss was enthusiastically joined in his irresponsible attacks on the state government by his junior minister, Wilson Tuckey, whose contemptuous approach to our political processes was shown by his instruction that his department should shred all future letters from Queensland on forestry matters. It is now history that the coalition helped whip up so much hysteria in regional Queensland that the Beattie government was unable to proceed with its announced proposals. In the months that followed, approaches from the Premier to the Prime Minister seeking support for alternative proposals were rejected on political rather than scientific grounds. More recently, Senator Hill re-entered the debate, telling the media that cabinet had agreed to fund a buyback of existing tree clearing permits, provided farmers agreed to an immediate cap on the level of further permits. (Time expired)2135409:43:0021354Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I wish to raise a peculiar anomaly that has particular significance at this time. Information that I have indirectly received from the Tax Office indicates that the number of trucking operators claiming under the diesel grants scheme is dramatically down on expectations. Under the federal government's scheme, transport operators, as you know, can claim a total of 24c a litre on the diesel they consume—in my part of the world transport is an enormous industry—yet contrary to forecast figures the actual number of operators claiming this lucrative savings component could be down by as much as a third. There can really be only two plausible explanations. The first is that, contrary to national registration figures and statistics used by both industry and the federal Treasury, the real number of trucks on our nation's roads is in fact 33 per cent lower. Such a scenario seems highly unlikely and leads us then to a slightly more disturbing conclusion. It would seem that many trucking operators or owner-drivers are simply not claiming what they are rightfully owed and are thereby placing themselves in a far more difficult situation than need be. At a time when hardworking truckies and their employers are battling under the weight of soaring fuel prices, including those for diesel, it is nothing short of tragic that this saving is not being claimed.Despite the millions of dollars spent to highlight such rebate schemes for various industry groups, for one reason or another a large number of transport operators appear to be failing to take advantage of them. The federal government, the Australian Tax Office and peak trucking bodies apparently have not succeeded in getting information out to all those who are eligible. Surely this situation must be severely aggravating the plight of smaller owner-driver operations, which are also hit simultaneously by current fuel costs. It is entirely possible that these people have been too busy trying to make a living to have availed themselves of all the information out there in the marketplace. Yet it could very well be that some of the operations which are being pushed to the wall could be salvaged by taking advantage of this diesel rebate.For that reason, I implore all the aforementioned bodies, with the assistance of local, regional and national media outlets, to highlight the availability of this scheme. To make a saving of 24c on every litre of diesel would be a major windfall for transport operators—now more than ever. It is imperative that these operators and those operating smaller trucks, especially in my areas, have the knowledge which will allow them to claim the 24c a litre rebate and the GST on smaller vehicles. All those outlets that I mentioned should take the opportunity to inform people of their rights.2135409:46:0021354Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—In the short time available this morning, I would like to speak briefly about the work of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation and, in particular, the Youth Constitutional Forum, which was held in Canberra from 16 to 18 August this year. Around 90 young Australians aged between 18 and 30, from a wide range of backgrounds and from across Australia, participated in this forum. They have prepared a communique outlining some vital issues which they would like the community to grapple with. I thought it was particularly important to bring it to the attention of the parliament because a number of the issues, as they deal with constitutional change, are issues that all members of parliament and all parties need to pay some attention to.Amongst the very constructive points in the communique, there is actually quite a sobering message for participants in political parties. There does seem, in this age group, to be some cynicism about the work that we do and the way that we communicate with our constituencies. So I thought it was worth while briefly dealing with the four main topics that the communique, and the forum itself, addressed: representative democracy, federalism, constitutional symbols and rights, and Australia's place in the international community. The forum set out and expressed clear support for 21 propositions, which are in the communique which I will be seeking to incorporate at the end of this brief speech. Participants were concerned to make it clear that they regarded this as only the beginning of the process, not the end. They have indicated that, as a first step, they wish to appoint an executive steering committee to pursue the recommendations of the two-day forum.It was apparent—and I was a participant of the forum in that I spoke at one of the sessions, but I was not a member—that there was an overwhelming rejection of conservatism by this group. I do not mean `conservatism' in terms of the two political parties necessarily, but it was quite clear that the sort of `if it ain't broke, don't fix it' theory did not apply to these young people. These people have inherited a fairly peaceful and prosperous country and time, and they are prepared to say, `How can we actually make it better? How can we make sure that we set ourselves up properly for the future?' They were very keen that all levels of government should support some independent organisation that can pursue these issues properly. It is ironic in a way that I am making this speech at the time that the Youth Roundtable is in Canberra and obviously discussing a range of issues. The roundtable is something that the government funds and—perhaps to an extent that we are not entirely happy with—it tries to narrow the issues that it deals with. But constitutional debate is one of the things that we need to have, and this group of young people are very enthusiastic about the work that can be done. I seek leave to incorporate the communique from the Youth Constitutional Forum.Leave granted.The document read as followsYOUTHCONSTITUTIONAL FORUM 2000Communique17-18 August,Old Parliament House and Parliament House,Canberra Ninety young Australians aged 18-30yrs with a wide range of backgrounds from around Australia participated in the Youth Constitutional Forum organised by the Constitutional Centenary Foundation at Old Parliament House in Canberra from 16-18 August 2000. The purpose of the Forum was to consider the issues for the constitutional system as Australia moves into the next century and the process by which discussion, debate, review and change should proceed.The agenda for the Forum was developed from responses to a scorecard in which the participants were asked to rate key features of the Australian system of government on a scale from 1-5. Drawing on those results, the four main topic areas identified for the forum were Representative Democracy, Federalism, Constitutional Symbols and Rights and Australia's place in the International Community.In considering the issues for the future, participants were asked to take into account the range of pressures for change experienced by all countries on the eve of the 21st century. These include, in particular, changing values, demands for a greater role for people, the different techniques now used for governing, globalisation and internationalisation, and the revolutions in science, technology and communications.The Forum expressed clear support for the 21 propositions set out in the communique below. Participants are concerned to make it clear, however, that they regard this only as the beginning and not as the end of the process. In particular, they note the complexity of a number of the issues, which require substantially more consideration, discussion and reflection than was possible in a Forum of 2 days. Many of the propositions that recommend particular changes therefore should be regarded as preliminary at this stage. The Forum concluded with an action plan, the first step of which is to appoint an executive steering committee to pursue its recommendations. Other steps are set out in the communique, and all young Australians are urged to participate.Representative Democracy1. Australian political parties need major structural and regulatory reform to reverse the long term declines in membership or engagement that are having an increasingly detrimental effect on our democracy2. We need to find an appropriate balance for Australia between the control of political parties and free debate by representatives of the people.3. Representation and participation in Australia's parliamentary and political process should be promoted.4. The Speaker of the House of Representatives should be independent.5. Timing of elections should not be at the discretion of the government. In making this change, consideration would need to be given to the double dissolution mechanism presently used to deal with deadlocks between the House of Representatives and the Senate.6. New methods for changing the Constitution should be considered, including other ways of initiating referendums and the possibility that some parts of the Constitution should be able to be changed more easily.7. Under current constitutional arrangements, some rights of people who live in the territories are different to those of people who live in States. This is an issue that needs attention.Federalism8. One major issue is overlap and duplication between the responsibilities and activities of the Commonwealth and the States.The Forum agreed there should be a re-working of the current distribution of power between government at all levels in the interests of accountability, accessibility and responsiveness and in order to remove duplication. Issues of particular concern include:. Human rights. Environment. Education. Health. Generally, hiding behind states rights as an excuse for inactionThe group identified several ways of dealing with these problems. These included:. Revision of the express powers given to the Commonwealth in the Constitution, and a clearer delineation of powers.. Better education about the roles of the levels of government.. More effective co-operation between governments.It was tentatively agreed that a two tiered federal system is a desirable aim, based on the principle that decisions should be made and services delivered at the lowest possible level of government. This could best be achieved by:. A gradual and ongoing process of review of the functions of the levels of government.. Review of existing local government areas, as the basis for future regional governments, which could effectively replace current state governments. 9. A secondd major issue connected with the federal system concerned the effectiveness of the Senate. The Forum agreed that, although the Senate ensures that there are more representatives from the small States in the Parliament, the Senate does not represent the states in any other way. Effectively it is a party house, and offers the opportunity to experiment with ways of making a House of Parliament more broadly representative of the diversity of the Australian community. Suggestions about how this might happen include:. Provide education about current system of proportional representation and affirmation of its effectiveness. . Introduce measures to enhance the representation of minority groups.. Encourage political parties to be more representative of cultural diversity in their make up.There was broad support for a change to current arrangements to ensure one vote one value.Constitutional Symbols10. The Constitution itself: The Australian Constitution should be a symbol Australian people can identify with. Currently this is not the case.11. The Head of State: The Queen should be removed as the Australian Head of State and replaced by an Australian. Australians would more easily identify with an Australian Head of State.12. A New Preamble: A new preamble should be aspirational and encompass the following values, such as:. Recognition of the traditional ownership of Australia and the diversity of experience of many indigenous nations, the ongoing spiritual connection of indigenous people to the land and sea, and recognition of past injustices.. Recognition of the diversity of experience of the Australian people.. Recognition of a shared commitment to equality.. Recognition of and commitment to the value of participatory democracy.. A commitment to restore, conserve, protect and engage in an ecologically sustainable interaction with the environment. 13. Identity: A sense of ownership of and an emotive engagement with the Constitution helps both to enhance the symbolism of the document and strengthen a sense of national identity, as national identity reflects national values.14. Education:Education about the Constitution and system of government is symbolic as well as practical. A commitment to assisting public understanding of the Constitution is a tangible recognition of its importance.Rights and the International community15. Whatever rights exist in Australia, they are not articulated clearly enough or generally understood by Australians. It is important for the extent of protection of rights to be examined and explained. Once existing rights are clearly identified, consideration should be given to whether these rights are:. Comprehensive, and . Applicable to everyone. Protected well enough. The Forum recognised that rights can be protected in different ways: for example:. In the Constitution. In Legislation. Through international law . By accepted Executive practice. By the common law. By other innovative means; for example, sunset clauses in the Constitution, which are monitored by an appointed review body and reconsidered at regular intervals.The Forum concluded that rights should be protected in a Bill of Rights of some kind. 16. Australia and the world. There is a need to establish a contemporary and collective view of what Australia is: socially, environmentally and historically.This must include consideration of Australia's identity and position and role in the international communityA new accountability to the Australian people by the Australian government is needed, for decisions made in the international arena and responses to international affairs.Australia has a responsibility to be a good global citizen. This includes complying with its international obligations.Courts should be required to interpret legislation in a way that is consistent with Australia's treaty obligations, when the Australian legislation is ambiguous (the “Bangalore” principles)Process: Where to from here?17. It is important to have a process that further defines the issues and options for the Australian constitutional system, encourages greater engagement with it and assists understanding of the system of government as a whole. It should involve young people across the broader community. The Youth Constitutional Forum should be used as a catalyst for this process.18. The process has two components:. An advocacy component. This involves refining the issues and options, reaching conclusions that attract broad support, advocating the results to achieve change.. An educational component. This requires the establishment of a body to provide impartial, independent and accessible information and understanding of the Australian constitutional system. A higher level of knowledge is important in its own right but also necessary for an effective debate on difficult issues. The educational function will not be satisfied by existing civics initiatives in schools - many young people will miss out because, for example, they are in apprenticeships. The body should build on the work of the Constitutional Centenary Foundation.19. Participants in the youth forum should provide the core support for the advocacy role, at least initially. A steering group will be formed immediately. An email list will be compiled, including the email addresses and affiliations of participants. The group will stay in touch by email, although face-to-face meetings are envisaged as well.20. The steering group will have the responsibility of drawing up a program to enable the further investigation of the various issues. The existence of the group and its activities should be published to an increasingly wide range of other young Australians, using the networks of this group and in other ways. The aim should be to actively involve as many others as possible, in all parts of the country.21. The group should also lobby for the establishment of a body to carry out the education component. Amongst other techniques it should:. Distribute kits with accessible information targetting specific audiences. Have an interactive website. Use mobile vans for remote communities. Include programs for teachers and youth workers, which emphasise how the Constitution affects every day life.. Use film, television, etc.. Encourage DETYA to make constitutional education part of next year's Youth Week.For further information, contact: Ms Marian SchoenExecutive DirectorTel: 0414 934 918marians@centenary.org.auConstitutional Centenary FoundationLevel 2, 723 Swanston StreetCarlton Victoria 3053Tel 03 9349 1846Fax 03 9349 1779ccf2001@centenary.org.auwww.centenary.org.au2135909:49:0021359Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—In the Townsville-Thuringowa region over the next three, four or five months or so there are going to be some pretty important investment decisions made by business and by government. I particularly refer to the provision of baseload power for North Queensland and also the proposed $700 million redevelopment of the Queensland Nickel refinery site. Both of these projects are extraordinarily important to North Queensland and, of course, to Townsville and Thuringowa.There has been quite some debate on where baseload power might be provided and how it might be fuelled. Until now, the Queensland government has adopted a bandaid approach to power supply in North Queensland by installing a couple of what are called peaker stations in Townsville. These are small—approximately 150 megawatt—stations, and it is the desire of the government that they never run. It seems to be odd public policy to outlay significant capital expenditure on peaker stations and then never run them. But be that as it may, the solution is to get baseload power, and I think everybody understands in my community that the solution is to run it from the proposed gas supply that will come either from the southern end of the state or from New Guinea. One of the most attractive propositions has been that the existing Transfield peaker station adjacent to Queensland Nickel be converted to a baseload power station. This proposal is outstanding in that it will be a cogeneration facility, which means that not only is the gas source used to generate electricity but you can then recover the steam component generated by this process and use it in the nickel refinery for their particular processes, which will give extraordinary efficiencies. I find the project very attractive indeed. An alternative is to put a baseload power station adjacent to the zinc refinery at Stuart but, from my reading of the proposals, the idea of going to cogeneration would certainly seem to be very attractive in terms of economies, greenhouse gas reductions and efficiencies. In our patch we have got some very significant investment decisions to make. I certainly back Queensland Nickel in their proposals to expand the plant, and one of the risk factors that can be taken away from the project is by going to cogeneration.2135909:52:0021359Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—Many questions that should be asked of the so-called `new economy' seem to be avoided—for example, how widely have the recent economic benefits being distributed? It would naturally follow that widespread economic distribution would provide strong economic benefits, and the more dispersed the economic benefits, the more stable the economy. Is that the case in the new economy? Who has the recent so-called new economy raised on the rising economic tide and who has it sunk? Many people point to the United States as a splendid example of the new economy. New economy employment it may be, splendid it is not. Full-time workers in the United States classified below the poverty line by some $US13,000 plus have actually increased in recent years to some three million workers. Remarkably, full-time employed workers in the US are slipping into permanent poverty in the new economy. In the so-called new economy, many people cycle in and out of employment and many people have precarious casual employment. In Australia, of those available to work, we probably have, as a percentage, seven per cent unemployed, seven per cent underemployed, seven per cent hidden unemployed, perhaps up to seven per cent full-time employed but living in poverty, and 22 per cent precariously casually employed. In that framework, up to 50 per cent of the available work force are in a pretty turbulent economic environment. Are these people benefiting from the new economy? How realistic is it for these people to make choices to accumulate wealth and carry out personal and financial planning? Or are the beneficiaries of the new economy those CEOs of those basically evil companies so loved by the stock market in finance, insurance, telecommunications, information technology, retail and services who receive remuneration at the gross, obnoxious rate of 200 to one to their lowest paid worker? One attribute of the new economy, of course, is that any benefit to the lowest paid worker employed full time ceased general improvement 20 years ago. Current growth in the economy may be the longest, but it is certainly not the strongest. We have record high foreign debt, a record high current account deficit and a record low Australian dollar.More low skill, low productivity employment exists in the United States and in Australia now than 20 years ago. What is revealed in the United States, and which would be mirrored in this country, is that the percentage of people earning high wages has fallen from 28 per cent to 21 per cent. The percentage of people in jobs paying middle wages has fallen alarmingly from 37 per cent to 16 per cent. The percentage of people employed in the lowest paid jobs in the US, and mirrored in this country, has increased dramatically from 35 per cent to 63 per cent. This is the real welcome to the `new economy'.2136009:55:0021360Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I wish to raise a number of issues. The first one is to congratulate the people of Narangba on forming a Lions Club. I went to their charter night last Friday. It will be a great service to the people of Narangba. Secondly, I would like to bring to the House's attention the plight of people with cystic fibrosis. This is a very misunderstood disease. Families struggle to explain to the wider community the implications it has for their lives and for the young people who unfortunately suffer from this disease.3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—All that funding for elite schools would go a long way towards fixing that up.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH—Thirdly, in relation to CF—not taking the rude interjection from those members opposite when discussing such an important matter—I encourage the government to continue to look at its disability tables and, in doing so, ensure that the needs of these people and the fantastic job that they do in maintaining the quality of life of their children are taken into account.The two other issues that I want to raise are very specific to my electorate. The first one is that last Friday I launched a community campaign to have QUT and North Point TAFE combine with the high schools to have a QUT campus located at Caboolture. This is a project which has enormous public support throughout the Longman electorate and I am attempting to gain 10,000 letters of support from the people of the Caboolture region so that the young people that study there can retain their family links and not have to move away to further their education. We are also hopeful that this will regenerate jobs in the community, bring new businesses to the region and rejuvenate the CBD, which has been in slow decline for some time. We have the support of the mayor, Joy Leishman, and we have the support of all the high schools. It is great to see the whole education sector working harmoniously together to come up with better outcomes for not only our youth but the whole region. The final issue that I would like to raise is that of the Bruce Highway. The Bruce Highway is the road that stretches from Brisbane right through to Cairns, but particularly I want to mention the part where commuter traffic—42 per cent of my electorate—travels to and from Brisbane daily to work. Unfortunately, today it is more like a car park than a road. We, as a government, put $35 million into upgrading this highway—taking the Pine Rivers Bridge from four to 10 lanes, and increasing the highway from six to eight lanes through to Dohles Rocks Road and Anzac Avenue. With the demise of the funding for the light rail and the Centenary of Federation, I am encouraging the government to spend that $65 million on the Bruce Highway to ensure that the most cost-effective piece of road in the country is upgraded with this money. It will increase and improve the quality of life for those people who travel to and from Brisbane, Burpengary, Morayfield and Caboolture, and will ensure the safety of those passengers and the dwellers in my region. I commend that project to the House and ask that the government give serious consideration to the use of that fund.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills21361R97021361Debate resumed from 5 October, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr McClelland moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House condemns the government for:(a) not proceeding with the NVE classification; and(b) delaying the implementation of classification reform restricting the availability of violent and demeaning material currently permitted within the X classification”.10:00:0021361Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 is a further refinement of the film, video, publications and computer games classification laws, and I support the bill. I wish to represent to this parliament children who are being harmed by legal sexually explicit material. I remind those who deride all forms of censorship that there are no rights without responsibilities. They are the two sides of the one coin.The subject of sexually explicit material and its availability has been regularly considered and debated by this parliament over the past 30 years. During that time, the focus of legislation has shifted from censorship to classification. I personally value, as I am sure most Australians do, the principles of personal freedom and freedom of speech that underlie the transition. One of the advantages that we have in this parliament today, which our predecessors in this place did not have, is the wisdom of hindsight. We are able to see the results of changing from censorship to classification. Throughout history there has always been a tension, a community concern, about the availability of sexually explicit material. The extent of censorship has oscillated from time to time and from one place to another. Censorship laws were one of the first laws of the new Commonwealth of Australia enacted in this parliament in 1901. There is no question of their broad community support during the first half of the 20th century. Possibly as a result of the social flow-on effects of the Second World War, which saw enormous disruption to normal family life and adult relationships, community attitudes towards the censorship of obscene materials began to change in the late 1950s and early 1960s.In 1970, the then minister for customs, Don Chipp, released a ministerial statement on censorship that signalled the commencement of the move from censorship to classification. In the statement he said that the concept of censorship was abhorrent to all persons who believe in the basic freedoms, yet within every community there is a body of opinion that demands some protection from the consequences of total absence of rule. At some point, censorship becomes a necessary evil. He then introduced the idea of community standards being defined in the context of open public scrutiny and broad community discussion. In other words, the censorship/classification debate was not closed off one way or another. In 1973, the then Attorney-General, Senator Murphy, introduced the policy that adults should be entitled to read, hear and view what they wish in private and in public, and that persons—or those in their care—be not exposed to unsolicited material that was offensive to them.These two statements, one from a minister in a coalition government and the other from a minister in the ALP government three years later, established the ground rules for changing an important and contentious public policy. Both sides of the parliament shared a view that the old censorship regime needed to be liberalised so that adults could be able to read, hear or see, within certain limits, whatever they wished. But their right to do this was no greater than the right of others to be protected from being exposed to the same material that had, for most of the millennium, been considered obscene or offensive.Judging the achievement of the Chipp-Murphy objectives 30 years later, I believe that most fair-minded people would agree that the right of those who wish to see, hear and watch whatever they wish has been well met. I think it is also fair to say that those who wish to be protected or who should be protected from offensive and obscene material have, in the real world, not had their equal right met as fully as it was intended 30 years ago.It is one thing to be offended by something; it is another thing to be harmed by something. The rights of those who are offended are as important as the rights of anyone else, and this parliament has a duty to protect their rights. But it is not those who are offended by obscene material that I am primarily concerned to highlight in this debate. The truth is this: what may be X-rated and a bit of a giggle to some adults, when viewed by children can sexually traumatise them. It can turn them into dysfunctional adults, and sometimes habitual sex offenders, for the rest of their lives. While the legal availability of X-rated material began in limited quantities in 1984, it was not until the early 1990s that the mass marketing machines got going. So it is not surprising that it is only now that the harm caused by exposing children to sexually explicit material is beginning to float to the surface of public attention. On 18 June last year the Melbourne Age reported that, in 1998, 84 kindergarten and primary school children with deviant sexual behaviour in Melbourne's outer eastern suburbs had been referred for treatment at a clinic, the Birrell Centre for Children, in Ringwood. Most of the 84 children had used force to trap or trick other children into having sex with them. Many had sexually penetrated other young children, had forced others into sexual activity or had been touching the genitals of their peers. Others were treated for threatening to sexually assault people or for masturbating in public. While most of the children treated at the clinic came from homes where the parents were under stress from divorce or illness or other types of disruption, the trigger that damaged their sexual development and turned them into abusers was their exposure to sexually explicit material. I have had inquiries made and I understand that a major factor was X-rated videos. Using ABS population statistics as a basis, 84 children in the outer eastern suburbs of Melbourne translate to about 4,100 children across Australia. According to the 1999 Productivity Commission's Report on government services, there were 97,929 notifications of child abuse and neglect in Australia in 1997-98. About half of these notifications were substantiated at the close of investigation. This indicates that up to eight per cent of substantiated notifications of child abuse and neglect could contain sexually explicit material as a factor. Whatever the correct number is, be it larger or smaller, child abuse caused by children viewing sexually explicit videos is a new phenomenon and will continue to worsen until something is done. The effects upon children are appalling. Children who are sexually traumatised show a range of pathological responses, such as sexual dysfunction, preoccupation with sexual activity, sleep disorders, withdrawal from other children and adults, and an inclination to act out what they have seen or experienced. This acting out was confirmed by the Division of Paediatrics of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians last year. They released a report that said children could not understand the emotional cause and effect that lies behind what they see on TV, including videos. Consequently, they may copy the action they see without really understanding the consequences and may harm themselves or other children as a result. I commend the college for this report. It was entitled Getting in the picture—a parent's and carer's guide for the better use of television for children. I recommend the report to members and parents. I understand that it has been generously made available free of charge. Late last year, my attention was drawn to a report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Task Force on Violence which was tabled in the Queensland parliament. On page 129 it stated:Throughout the consultations there were calls from both men and women to expose the severity and serious long-term effects of sexual abuse for victims, particularly children who reportedly are increasingly being sexually violated ... The incidence of sexual violence is rising and is [in] a direct relationship to negative and deformed male socialisation associated with alcohol and other drug misuse, and the prevalence of pornographic videos in some Communities.According to the report, more than one community received COD consignments of pornographic videos worth between $4,000 and $5,000. With that volume of sexually explicit material being pumped into isolated indigenous communities, something has got to be done to alert people to the harm they can cause to the children of those communities. I would like to suggest to the government that we consider the merits of placing health warnings on these videos that explicitly warn of the danger to a child's health and the consequences. It will be no use putting in a ho-hum statement. The current consumer advice on X-rated videos is totally inadequate. It states `18+', followed by the words, `Restricted to adults 18 years and over'. It is merely advice. I understand that there are some deceived parents who have allowed their children to watch X-rated videos in the belief that the videos were a form of sex education that would be of benefit. Then there are the predators. It is well established that one of the ways in which paedophiles inveigle children into having sex with them is to first show them sexually explicit material. For these reasons, the penalty for allowing children to see sexually explicit material should also be shown on the videos. These notices should appear on the video box covers and at the start of the film. I believe that these changes could be incorporated into the bill without any amendment. Furthermore, there need to be more treatment clinics for recovery programs, such as the Birrell Children's Centre in Victoria, where children who have been exposed to such material can get specialist help. I would like to see the federal and state governments properly resourcing such recovery programs. They should be as accessible as the product that causes them the harm. It is a widely accepted principle that the abused often becomes the abuser. A dollar spent when a child becomes sexually traumatised will not only save years of pain; it will save thousands of dollars later in life. This new cause of child abuse cannot be blamed on past generations. It is a problem caused by our generation, and it has been drawn to our attention. I am reminded of article 19 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that deals with the protection from abuse and neglect. It says:The State shall protect the child from all forms of maltreatment by parents and others responsible for the care of the child and establish appropriate social programs for the prevention of abuse and the treatment of victims.Nothing could be clearer than that. Because of the time constraint, I have not mentioned the many people I know, including me, who have been exposed to unsolicited, sexually explicit material—and that raises the issues of non-compliance. I have instead tried to focus on a new and grave problem involving children in our community—but that is another issue for another time. It is not a question anymore of material that is offensive to a person's moral standards and values, but a grave new health problem—the psychological trauma and physical violence that can arise from viewing sexually explicit material. I hasten to add that I am not talking about violence depicted in sexually explicit material, as this has been prohibited under the classification guidelines for some time now, but the sexual violence that can come from children viewing non-violent, sexually explicit material.Today we look back with horror at children working in the mines and the mills of 200 years ago. We are appalled at how adults could condone children working in conditions that stunted their small bodies for life and terrified their minds. Is what happened then much different from the way young lives are being emotionally stunted, traumatised and twisted by an adult world pursuing pleasure and money today? Let us not visit another plague upon our children. It is my hope that the passage of this bill signals a change in policy direction. I hope it marks a change on both sides of the House whereby the health and safety of children are considered ahead of the passing fancies of adults in the realm of what is, after all, just pastime entertainment. I support this bill, just as I support health warnings on non-violent, sexually explicit material, and help for children who have been harmed by non-violent, sexually explicit videos. I commend the bill to the House.10:11:0021364Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 is also supported by the opposition, as there are a number of valuable contributions in it to the issue of film classification. In particular, I support the need to maintain an independent and impartial classification body representative of all community interests and the need for the classification process to be conducted in accordance with the principles of procedural fairness. I say this with the French film Romance in mind. I refer to the Office of Film and Literature Classification's press release dated 28 January this year titled `Ban on French film Romance lifted'. It states:The Classification Review Board announced today the lifting of the ban on the French film, Romance. The decision by the Classification Review Board follows an application by the film's Australian distributor, Potential Films, for review of the Classification Board's R C (Refused Classification) rating. In announcing the decision, Ross Tzannes, Acting Deputy Convenor of the Review Board, said the Board heard a presentation from Mark Spratt of Potential Films this morning and, after viewing the film and considering the issues, decided to classify Romance R18+, effectively lifting the ban.In reaching this decision, the Board noted the general principle enshrined in the National Classification Code that adults should be “able to read, hear and see what they want”.The board also believed the film's sexual depictions do not offend against standards generally accepted by reasonable adults to see what they want.In reaching this decision, Mr Tzannes notes:... the classification of `R' would be accompanied by consumer advice reading “High Level Sex Scenes”.I bring this press release to the attention of the parliament today because, as a recent example, it clearly demonstrates what is meant by `procedural fairness'. What we have here is a decision of the Classification Board—the CB—that was subsequently overturned by the Classification Review Board—the CRB. What is the process under which this occurred? An application to review the original decision of the Classification Board was made. As I noted earlier, the decision to refuse classification was appealed by an entity called `Potential Films'. I say `entity' because a search with the Australian Securities and Investment Commission—ASIC—on 15 February 2000 revealed that the only occurrence of this name is a trading name registered in the state of Victoria. We know nothing more about the entity.I now move to the Classification Board's primary decision. The board was empanelled in the normal way, and it is an open question as to whether those behind the trading name Potential Films contested the composition of the board or whether they restricted their application to the merits of the classification itself. Whatever the case, the Sydney Morning Herald wasted no time denouncing the entire classification administrative system. I refer specifically to an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on 21 January 2000 entitled `Romance killed by conservatives'. The article makes compelling reading for its temerity and audacity in attacking the process. The author states:Romance was banned only after conservative forces in the censorship board joined the classification process.The journalist who wrote the article made the following comments, which are worth reproducing in full in order to gain a complete understanding of their implications. He said:Romance was first seen by a panel of 14, which favoured the film's release by a margin of 8-6, the Herald has learnt. But the OFLC announced last Friday that the film would be banned from general release after a further screening to a larger board that included classifiers regarded as holding more conservative views. The ultimate vote to ban the film was 9-8. It is believed a classifier on the first panel was wavering on whether to release the film and the OFLC acting director, Mr Simon Webb, was concerned he would have the casting vote.The SMH article goes on to say:Mr Webb is on leave from the OFLC but his temporary replacement, Mr Peter Harvey, said no official vote was taken by the first panel. But the Herald has established the first panel was leaning toward its release. “I do not believe there was ever a vote,” Mr Harvey said yesterday. “We discuss how people are thinking about it but no decision was ever taken at the first meeting.”The SMH article also noted that `at least three of the board' were not present at the first meeting of classifiers on 6 December, and continued: ... the decision was to hold [the classification] over to the next board meeting on December 21. We did not have all the members and what we try to do is get as many members as possible to look at [controversial] films like this ... Up to 20 board members can participate in the classification of the film. The SMH article went on to say:A standard film may only require three classifiers. However, if the classifiers do not agree, more are called in. It is not uncommon for controversial films to be seen by a full board.The SMH journalist then got personal and wrote:One of the additional classifiers on the second board was Ms Mary Moos. It is understood Mr Robert Hellmers was also called in for the second panel. Both are believed to have conservative views. Two other temporary classifiers, Mr Damien Power and Ms Christine Mearing, thought to be more liberal, were apparently not on the second panel. Mr Harvey said he assumed Mr Power and Ms Mearing had been asked to vote.What temerity and gall to name in this way individuals involved on a panel. This is clearly media manipulation, with the journalist fully aware of the fact that at the time of the press release any number of people had a statutory right, pursuant to section 42 of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995, to apply for a review of the decision.So what can we say about procedural fairness in this case? Here lies the truth about the handling of the movie Romance. First, the Classification Board made a determination to refuse classification, initially awarding the film an RC classification—the term `banned' has no place in this discussion and is a serious misrepresentation by Mr Gotting. Secondly, a person or persons acting under the veil of a registered business name known as Potential Films, registration No. VIC 0927132Z, appealed that classification. Thirdly, the CRB overturned the said decision, substituting the RC classification with an R18+ rating. In the interests of ethics, they `sensitively' accompanied the rating with `consumer advice', reading: `High Level Sex Scenes'.My first point about procedural fairness goes to the heart of the conduct of the media in their deplorable exploitation of the good conduct of the OFLC. The media, specifically the Sydney Morning Herald, appear to have conspired deliberately to manipulate public opinion during an administrative procedure in the classification of a video. The SMH appears to have intervened deliberately during the film classification process to manipulate the final outcome of the Classification Review Board's decision.Under the rules of procedural fairness, I think that an administrative decision is bound in the same way as a legal decision in a court is—that is, a decision that is not final but still pending the final outcome of a review determination is sub judice until the matter is ended. Given the fact that certain persons have locus standi to commence an application for review under section 42 of the act at any time, it was clearly grossly irresponsible on the part of the Sydney Morning Herald to publish its story on the primary decision of the board before the applicant seeking review, Potential Films, or any other prescribed person had had the opportunity to have its case for review heard before the Classification Review Board.Given the amount of research indicated profoundly by the author in the SMH article, it is an open question whether he and hence, vicariously, the Sydney Morning Herald knew of the existence of the appeal by Potential Films. Whether constructive or actual, knowledge of the appeal is nonetheless irrelevant to the issue of whether the Sydney Morning Herald committed a potential breach of procedural fairness by contaminating the minds of the CRB that ultimately led to the overturning of the primary decision.What matters is that the Sydney Morning Herald article potentially seriously contaminated the capacity of impartial decision making by the CRB. The media article is replete with emotive and inaccurate terminology, such as the use of the word `banned', coupled with the offensive naming of individual members of the Classification Board with politically marginalising labels—for example, attributing politically marginalising statements along the lines of `He's a Conservative', with the implied assertion that `He' is biased in his decision making, versus someone else who is `not conservative' and therefore unbiased in his decision. How do we adjudge the conduct of the media in this matter? The OFLC classifies many thousands of items each year. However, the Sydney Morning Herald sought to highlight this particular film. Why? Could it have had anything to do with the timing of this bill? A more cynical reply is that Romance was a test case before the board, a conspicuous lessening of ethical standards. It was an attempt, a successful attempt, to redefine what is X rated and what is not.Why has there been this necessity to redefine the classification? Let us look at it plainly. The real reason for the reclassification is to lessen the objection to what erotica is. What is erotica anyway? The Oxford Dictionary defines `erotica' as `erotic literature'. The word `erotic' is defined as `of or causing sexual love, esp. tending to arouse sexual desire or excitement'. That is what erotica is. To place the word `non-violent' before the word `erotica' completely obfuscates the issue—as proposed with the original legislation, before it was aborted in February of this year.Whether or not erotica is violent, it is not the essence of the classification that pre-exists in the X classification. Specifically, the classification of erotica as X at all is in no way relevant per se in the degrees of violence contained in the film. No, the classification as being of a restricted nature is based on the content of erotica, the content which arouses sexual desire or excitement. That is why erotica is restricted or ultimately refused classification, not because it has socially acceptable or unacceptable levels of violence.Like so many classifications in Australian society, we have witnessed the demise of terminology contrived to deceive the reader into giving an act or thing a greater validity and acceptance than it deserves. Australian culture is replete with examples of this. The term `voluntary euthanasia' is one such euphemism. The term `brothels' and its elimination as a prescribed term under the Disorderly Houses Act of New South Wales is another good example of a euphemism. For is there such a thing as involuntary euthanasia? No, there is not. Is there such a thing as a brothel that is not disorderly within the meaning of the term? No, there is not. Equally, is there erotica that is any less erotic simply by the existence or otherwise of a degree of violence? I think not.Let us not forget one basic fact about this legislation. The proposed changes in this legislation go to the classification of videotapes; in this bill we are not talking about movies. Why do I make this distinction? It is because there is a very big difference between a child's access to theatre compared with a child's access to a videotape. That is the point in issue. We have allowed whoever is responsible for this amendment to have clouded our minds and to obfuscate the real issues. Whether we call it NVE or X, erotica is erotica, it will always be erotica; it will never be anything else. Splitting hairs will not alter this fact. The fact is erotica must be proscribed to those who would be unable to cope with it and those whose minds must be protected against it. And we must realise that this terminology, if allowed to pervade the video cassette recorders of children or anyone who is not capable of dealing with it, poses a serious degradation of societal standards. The relevance of the conduct of the film Romance to this bill is apparent in the conduct of classification of this film—that is, the use of selective terminology and the manipulation of process to derive a predetermined result. With regard to Romance, it would be instructive to know exactly what point in reasoning did the CRB disagree with the primary panel's decision—that is, we can reverse the statement to say that the primary decision panel did find the movie offensive `against standards generally acceptable by reasonable adults'. We are at a loss, in the OFLC's press release, to understand what the reasons of the review board were in reaching this 180-degree backflip. With regard to the Office of Film and Literature Classification, there is a fundamental distinction between the administrative function of deciding on each item for classification, on the one hand, and the public interest that constitutes public morality, which is latent within the minds of parliamentarians when enacting legislation. The two functions are utterly separate, in my view. The Office of Film and Literature Classification does not have the mandate to determine the morality of a particular classification. That is the exclusive domain of the parliament, which must define what each category is. Parliament, by its very existence, applies its own moral reasoning in making laws such as classifications which determine the very powers of the Office of Film and Literature Classification. Parliament is free to make and unmake laws. It is completely inconsistent to say that the enactment of a law runs contrary to the administrative decisions of the office whose life is breathed into its nostrils by virtue of parliament's enabling legislation and the powers—A division having been called in the House of Representatives—Sitting suspended from 10.27 a.m. to 10.41 a.m.83DMurphy, John, MPMr MURPHY—As I was saying before the division, it is completely inconsistent to say that the enactment of the law runs contrary to the administrative decisions of the office whose life is breathed into its nostrils by virtue of parliament's enabling legislation and the powers it is given by virtue of that legislation. With regard to the issue of due process in this matter, the principle of due process is a further administrative law principle which is subject to the application of powers rather than the function of law making itself. The function of law making—of defining categories—is squarely a matter of public morality in the hands of the parliament. If we were to permit NVE classification, we would be participating unambiguously in making a positive discriminatory decision in favour of this new classification. As such, we would be making a positive discriminatory moral decision in favour of NVE.With regard to the national cooperative scheme, any changes to the classification categories, the national classification code and the classification guidelines which are required to implement the modification of the X classification must have the unanimous agreement of the Commonwealth, states and territories—and that is rightly so. This is because, yet again, the purpose of the powers of changing classifications is a question of public morality and not the exercise of an administrative power.The government, as we know, initially proposed a new NVE classification to replace the current X classification, as I spoke about earlier this morning. The NVE category was to have considerable overlap with the new X classification it was proposed to replace. However, some material previously permissible within the X classification would not be permitted within the NVE classification. This includes mild fetish material, the depiction of any violence whatsoever, the use of sexually aggressive language and the portrayal of persons over the age of 18 as minors. Exercising his prerogative, the Attorney-General, in light of prevailing public morality—which is deliberately being influenced by the pornography industry to accept lower standards—announced on 13 May this year the decision to abandon the NVE classification and to retain the X classification. With regard to the Office of Film and Literature Classification, I note that not one church organisation or representative thereof has been chosen for those panels. The office's decisions are therefore biased against prevailing moral standards, other than those that the individuals represent. The office does not, in my view, reflect the prevailing community moral standards of the majority. The office is an imposer of moral standards rather than a passive reflector of moral standards. Church organisations and religious moralities represent the vast majority of Australians. There is no basis for the office to suggest that it reflects public morality. It does not. The office imposes a positive discriminatory ethic of its own making. This is not a criticism per se, for that is what a body of its kind does. That is why it is set up with public members. However, this is not a question of discriminatory ethics being bad per se. It is a question of what positive discrimination is being reflected. It is immoral for any moral minority to dictate what is being decided. The basis for the legitimacy of the mandate of the office is that the office does, in fact, reflect the public morality of the day. I hope that the government and the office will keep those comments in mind when considering my speech today. I end where I started by saying that I support this bill.10:45:0021369Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise today to support the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999. I congratulate the Attorney-General for his perseverance in bringing this bill to the House. It is good to see that we have in the House one of the lawyers who is on the Attorney-General's committee, and knows the tortuous route in which this particular bill has progressed, as does the Deputy Speaker, Mr Andrew, who is in the chair. I also congratulate the people who worked on this bill, because it is worthwhile legislation.It is very interesting that, when we talk about classification of films, all kinds of people come out with their own points of view. Getting the right balance between those who want total freedom and liberality in what is produced in relation to films and those who want to restrict as much as possible is difficult. But the balance that has been struck here is appropriate. As mature members and as mature adults, we are not about to restrict the ability of people to access X-rated videos or films, if that is their wish.Classification is established so that people know what they are accessing and so that there is some protection for young people accessing such films or publications. The key criterion is that we protect our youth from some of the publications which we as adults would consider are not terribly helpful in their formative years.This bill removes violence from the X classification, takes it out as a separate area and bans it. That is where a lot of our concern is. The evidence is that excessive violence in movies does produce antisocial behaviour. Its removal from the X classification—even when it relates to sexual behaviour and fetishes, et cetera—is a worthwhile move, from my point of view.The contribution of the Eros Foundation to this whole debate has been less than satisfying. All members of parliament received their publication called Hypocrites: evidence and statistics on child sexual abuse amongst church clergy, 1990-2000. They have provided a whole number of cases in which they outline abuse by various church officials, priests, ministers, et cetera, of young people in their charge. All of us would be concerned about the cases that have been outlined and the evidence that is occurring, which has been ongoing for a number of years. We are aware of it. It is very unfortunate that we have had this type of evidence before us and that this has occurred. But if the Eros Foundation believe that this is going to be a way to liberalise films and publications across Australia for young people and older people then they are mistaken. We all deplore what has happened in terms of child abuse. No-one in this House would in any way sanction any aspect of child abuse, which is extremely damaging to individuals—to their future, their personality and their psychological make-up. We deplore that. The Eros Foundation, in producing this publication, is saying that the church has no right to make any statements in regard to classification, because this has occurred. Anybody who is familiar with theological debates and so on will be aware that this is what the church is all about—the church is there for flawed individuals as well. If people do not understand that and think that those who attend churches or those who call themselves Christians in some way are a higher level of being that never err in any way, they are mistaken.So they have confused the issues and, by bringing this whole area into debate, they have weakened their argument. By all means let us have a debate about film classification; by all means let us have a debate about censorship. But bringing in these red herrings to attack the church with the aim of producing increased liberalisation I think is highly inappropriate. So I have written to the Eros Foundation and said that it was an unhelpful contribution to the debate and that if they think it is going to influence the members they are sadly mistaken. The members of this House take the classification seriously, and I am glad to see the members of the Classification Board here today. I know that it must be a very difficult task and a challenge in terms of what category in which to put the films. We can only sympathise with them as the outcries come from various groups—I know it must be hard. So coming to these categories does seem a worthwhile outcome.There were reports in the newspapers, and there was some debate about it in our own party room, on whether it was appropriate to have the classification of non-violent erotica. There is some attraction in having it because you know that you will not have violence in that category, but it also seems to be a watering down of the X category. In terms of its introduction into our community, people clearly know what X means: it means that sexually explicit material is included in those publications. Calling it something else makes it almost a euphemism. It will not have violence, and that sounds nice, but the fact that it might have full-on, sexually explicit material obviously would be a concern if it is seen as being a lessening of the controls and more access for young people at a pretty important and formative time in their development.We note that this legislation makes a number of changes. It restricts the allowable content of the X classification and removes the violence out of that classification, and that is something that we would all support. It expands the current range of films that do not have to be classified, and I think that is appropriate in terms of lessening bureaucracy. It broadens the definition of `standing' in the original act to mean that a larger group of people and organisations can seek review of a classification decision. I had a little trouble understanding what the definition of the word `standing' was, but that is apparently what it means: people can refer to the Classification Board to review the classification of films. Fourthly, it makes a number of minor technical changes to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 that will improve compliance and effectiveness. Finally, an extra amendment has been added which will authorise the director of the Classification Board to exercise extra powers under state and Northern Territory laws to recall certain films, publications or games for a review of their classification if so required. This means the board will have that ability for computer games where there are add-ons which are seen as being inappropriate. I think that that is appropriate because that is the area that a lot of our young people are accessing and the amendment is very worth while. So with respect to the X category, we refined the X category to mirror what was previously intended to be called `non-violent erotica', excluding a great deal of undesirable material that was previously allowed into the X category. There have been some questions from the opposition in relation to the classification. I may have misunderstood the shadow Attorney-General. I do not usually have any disagreement with my colleague in the adjoining seat, but I heard what he had to say and there seemed to be some condemnation of the government for not proceeding with the non-violent erotica classification. I note from the previous speaker that the opposition will be supporting that, so I am not quite sure how the two relate together. However, the changes in this bill are really all about substance and not labels as such.For the information of the House, the material to be excluded from the previous X classification is: any depiction of violence whatsoever; sexually aggressive language or conduct; mild to severe examples of fetishes, and portrayals of consenting adults as minors. These changes are sensible and fair and are exactly what was proposed under the initial legislation. It is only a question of the categorisation. What is more, there seemed to be little problem in getting the state and territory leaders to agree that these provisions could be incorporated into the X classification. In terms of other provisions, the legislation provides that certain types of films do not need to be registered. This includes films in specialist areas such as education, hobbies, religion or family/domestic, as well as films produced for business purposes. This exemption will not apply if there is a likelihood that the content of these films will be of M classification or higher. That seems to be appropriate and to bypass a lot of the normal bureaucratic procedures. Another welcome move is the expansion of the range of persons and organisations that can seek a review of a classification decision that they do not agree with. I believe that is appropriate in terms of the democratic approach in our community. The range of people who can appeal a decision has been expanded to include anyone who has had extended involvement or has researched the themes or actions involved in the classification of the contentious item. In terms of more minor amendments, the bill takes into account developments in the computer games industry, as I mentioned before, and creates a definition for add-ons, which are new levels or parts to an existing computer game program which are not part of the original. I commend the board and the people in the Attorney-General's Department for the changes in that area.The controversy surrounding legislation such as this should not be allowed to cloud the good sense of government in making these changes. Claims by groups such as the Eros Foundation really have no foundation when making these important changes for the wider community. Freedom of speech carries little weight in the debate surrounding this bill. In any reasonable society, freedom of speech should not extend to allowing demeaning, degrading or sexually violent material to be endorsed by the government. There is a minor anticipated cost of some $300,000 in terms of the question of classification. I believe it is money well spent. The large number of technical amendments contained in the legislation will also slash compliance costs for businesses.I commend this bill to the House. I believe it is an appropriate and sensible way to go in terms of classification. I commend the Attorney-General and his department for the changes that they have made. It has not been an easy path for the people represented here today who worked on these classifications, and I commend you for a classification system which, at this stage, has the wider support of the community. You seem to have adopted an approach which has the broad support of the various groups involved in this debate. Well done. 10:57:0021372Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—It is a real pleasure to follow the member for Cook. As always, he has revealed his compassion and concern for our youth and has articulated a balanced position. In following his compelling observations, I will preface my remarks on the specifics of the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 with some more general comments to try and give some social context to it. The right to speak freely is a foundation stone of a free society. Without freedom of speech, the institutions of a free society grind to a halt. One need only consider how this chamber would collapse if its members were not free to speak their minds. The same holds for those who speak the truth from without the parliament. Without the freedom to speak freely and, importantly, to hear those who would utilise that freedom, our society is significantly poorer. With the advent of the Internet, emails and the World Wide Web, people are enabled as never before to communicate with vast numbers of people around the world, yet freedom of speech is by no means absolute. No person within or without a community speaks without constraint. The old adage—I think I first read it in a torts book on defamation—holds true to this day: no man is free to shout `fire' in a crowded theatre. And no-one is free to impugn another's character on a whim, just as no member ought to be free to use this parliament to defame any citizen.We are all constrained by the responsibilities we have as citizens, as members of communities. Yet we should not regard responsibility and freedom as principles at loggerheads, not even as counterbalanced public goods. As the member for Hughes remarked earlier in this debate, rather they are the two sides of the very same coin. Not merely are they both important, they are meaningless if separated. Responsibility without freedom is tyranny. Freedom without responsibility is anarchy, in practice, and most certainly madness in thought. As people, we naturally tend to withdraw from the idea of totally unfettered freedom—a state better described as licence than liberty. Yet, too often, we do not cast the same sceptical eye at those who would advocate greater responsibility at the cost of less freedom. This is, after all, the foundation stone of socialism. If we cannot trust in freedom, including the freedom of others, then we face a slippery decline into authoritarianism.In recent years, liberalism has come under sustained attack, with the ideal advocated by Voltaire, that `I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it,' being disregarded as a defence of the privileged. We have grown intolerant of others and much too quick to legislate against their words and ideals. We have failed to recognise that the most effective way of countering prejudice and untruth is to bring it kicking and screaming into the light of public debate.The coalition government has made plain its intentions. The government has striven to advocate both responsibility and freedom in equal measures. It has rejected the absurdity of `political correctness' for its own sake that marked previous governments, but it has also rejected the arguments of those who would, for example, refuse the classification of contentious material simply on the basis of the medium on which it was contained. For this consistent even-handedness the government has paid a price—criticism from both extremes: criticism from some who would praise free enterprise and association but reject freedom of thought and expression; and criticism from a Left that would assert, most stridently, `rights' without considering that one of the fundamental rights is the right to the products of one's own labour.In recent years our better newspapers have noted a revival in opposition to censorship of any kind. One reason for this renewed vigour on the part of the anticensorship lobby is the substantial achievement of that lobby with regard to the changes that have taken place in Australia since the 1960s. But members of that lobby have lost sight of how far we have come. It is clear, for example, that the classification system we now have is a marked improvement on the arbitrary and prudish system that characterised censorship in Australia until the late 1960s. The classification system we now have recognises the following principles: adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want; minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; everyone should be protected from exposure to unsolicited material that they find offensive; the need to take account of community concerns about depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence and the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner. I am quoting there from the Guidelines for the classification of films and videotapes 1999. It is important to note that these principles are the principles not of freedom without responsibility, nor the reverse, but the principles of that double-sided coin. We should be free to speak and express as we wish, but we accept the constraints of responsibility—the special constraints in relation to children, the constraint on unsolicited expression and the requirement to abstain from instruction or motivation of antisocial activity. The legislation before the House today represents another initiative by the coalition to foster freedom and responsibility within Australian life, and a reinforcement of the principles on which the classification guidelines rest. This legislation as amended will subject material classified under the X-rated category—a category reserved for sexually explicit material without sexualised violence or coercion—to tighter guidelines than presently apply. The issue of X-rated material, both sexually explicit film and publications, has been a longstanding issue of contention. It involves a consideration of community standards as well as matters of choice. Despite its relative inaccessibility—after all, its distribution is primarily by mail order from the Australian Capital Territory—there are literally millions of X-rated videos in Australia. This is despite restrictions ranging from a ban on sales and production in all states to a ban on possession, as is the case in Western Australia. It is estimated that over 640,000 Australians are listed on adult video mailing lists and this is said to be the second largest number of subscribers, behind only the Coles Myer Fly-Buys scheme. It must be said that a significant number of those adult video subscribers are from states with tight restrictions on sale and possession, and perhaps it is worth noting that adult shops generate a turnover of about $100 million annually.Opinion polls show consistently majority support for the continuing availability of sexually explicit material. For those offended by it, the answer is to not access it rather than attempt to deny adults generally the freedom to access non-violent sexually explicit videos if they wish. The popularity of this material amongst a significant percentage of the Australian population makes the prohibition of this material practically impossible and, I would suggest, in the information age, with perhaps the expansion of bandwidth and the better availability of videos over the Internet, it would be near impossible. Not merely is there significant demand that would continue to be met by black market distribution but there is already a reservoir of material present here.There is a further practical barrier to the prohibition of material presently classified as X. The classification system rests on informed cooperation between the Commonwealth, states and territories. The Commonwealth provides the national classification system and the states and territories provide the legal framework for enforcement. It is clear that the ACT and the Northern Territory will not countenance the prohibition of the production or mail order sale of X-rated material. Their assemblies and their voters will not consent to such a measure. The attempt to enforce prohibition in these circumstances would break apart the entire classification system and put an end to the cooperative legislation scheme for censorship. Therefore, the coalition government is faced with a significant demand for this material, a practical barrier to wholesale prohibition and the concerted opposition to a prohibition by the ACT and the Northern Territory, regardless of whatever case might be put forward for abolition. The sensible course of action has been taken by the coalition government to reinforce the classification system and apply its guidelines in a more stringent manner to the X classification. The more restrictive guidelines for X-rated material will allow for the exclusion of undesirable material which is presently available and which state and territory ministers have agreed to proscribe.I note that the government has moved to amend this legislation. Originally, as the member for Cook pointed out, the legislation included the abolition of the X-rated category and its replacement with an NVE category—non-violent erotica. As of May of this year, the government has decided to retain the X category but continue with the substantive changes to the guidelines for material in that category. It had become clear that the proposed NVE category did not describe accurately the material contained in that category and so undesirable material will still be excluded under the current X classification.In line with the passage of this legislation, the states and territories will implement amendment of present state and territory legislation and the national classification code will likewise be amended. The state censorship ministers have indicated to the Commonwealth that their cooperation and agreement with this legislation, both before and after the government's amendments, did not imply any alteration to the existing bans on the sale or hire of X-rated films and videos.This bill does not simply relate to the X classification. A number of measures are contained in the legislation, including those to ensure the smoother running of the classification system and the continued involvement of the community in classification decisions. The bill will expand the present exemptions from classification. At present those exemptions include films for business, accounting, professional, scientific or educational purposes. The amendments will exempt current affairs, hobbies, sporting, family, live performance, musical presentation and religious films. These types of films are typically distributed to a specialised market in relatively small numbers and removing them from the need for classification will foster diversity and efficiency. The exemption will only apply to films that fall within the G and PG categories. There has been some concern that the implementation of a cost recovery system for classification would have impacted on these specialist productions, and these provisions should address that concern. Likewise, the waiver of fees for short films and films by emerging artists should ensure that these productions and their producers are not disadvantaged.Under the present Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act, `a person aggrieved' has the right to seek a review by the Classification Review Board of a classification decision by the Classification Board. The bill before the House will allow, with certain safeguards, organisations or persons with a particular interest and involvement in the contentious aspects of the subject matter of the classified material to be included as persons aggrieved for the purposes of the act. As a result, the review board will be given greater guidance and flexibility in its dealings in reviewing matters—and that must be for the better. This amendment bill represents an important step in the development of Australia's classification system. I believe it deserves support through the parliament and most certainly throughout the community. I commend the bill to the House. 11:10:0021375Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I rise today to add my support to the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999. The censorship of what adults should be allowed to read, hear or see is a very difficult issue. Community views on censorship are usually divided, which makes it a touchy policy area for governments. Broadly speaking, the Australian censorship system is underpinned by the following principles, which are outlined in the National Classifications Code: (1) adults should be able to read, hear and see what they want; (2) minors should be protected from material likely to harm or disturb them; (3) everyone should be protected from exposure to material that they find offensive; and (4) there is a need to take account of community concerns about depictions that condone or incite violence, particularly sexual violence, and the portrayal of persons in a demeaning manner.I pride myself that I am no prude. In broad principle terms, I am against the concept of censorship. But with many things in society, we must draw lines in the sand. We draw lines in the sand about what we take into our bodies by way of food. We have very strict laws. We have an organisation called AQIS. We have very strict laws in regard to drug, pest and chemical control. We have very strict labelling laws. We have all sorts of rules and regulations that are meant to do nothing but advance community welfare. It always seems to me a contradiction that, when we come to the matter of what is taken into the minds of Australians, and particularly young Australians, we throw up our hands in horror and say, `That is too hard. You cannot have any form of censorship.' Any civilised society must draw a line in the sand at some point with censorship. The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 makes a number of changes. One of the main provisions of the bill is to ensure that sexually explicit videos are subject to tighter guidelines. The government is aware that some members of the community who find the portrayal of sexually explicit material on videotape offensive are unhappy with the government's decision not to ban this material. Indeed, I have some such people in my own electorate.On the other side of the coin, we have the Eros Foundation and others who claim that more than a million Australians read or buy pornographic material on a monthly basis and so the government should be taking a softer approach. This is by and large a divergent view, but the government has to approach the whole issue from the general community welfare perspective.The classic test for sexually explicit material to be considered pornographic involves three questions which go way back in English law. Firstly, does the material tend to deprave or corrupt? Secondly, is it a danger in the hands of the young or the unwitting? Thirdly, does it tend to grievously offend community standards? By and large, the government's view is something like that. In Australia, the X-rated category is reserved for sexually explicit material and cannot contain any depiction of sexualised violence or coercion. Of course, over time, we have removed a number of other things from the guidelines, such as the denigration of women.The bill will further restrict the X category to exclude material such as the portrayal of people aged over 18 years as minors. I think that is a very important guideline. It is not just the fact that the person who is on the screen may be under 18, which would be doubly offensive; it is the fact that it covers persons on the screen being portrayed as under 18. Certain fetishes will be excluded, as well as sexually aggressive language. We have all heard such language in the streets of our cities, and it has to come from somewhere. I believe there has been a desensitising of the Australian public in these matters. The tightened rules on the X category will go a long way to address some of those problems. Under the national cooperative censorship scheme, any changes to the classification categories, the national code and the classification guidelines must have the unanimous agreement of the Commonwealth, states and territories. Complementary state legislation will follow the Commonwealth legislation. Currently, the sale and hire of X-rated videos is banned in all states, but not in the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. I understand that state censorship ministers have made it clear that it is unlikely that there will be any alteration to the ban on the sale of X-rated material in their states.A range of miscellaneous amendments are contained in the bill. These amendments have arisen from experience with the act's operation since it first came into force in 1996. Amendments included in the bill expand the current range of films that are exempt from classification. This has been done to ensure that specialist product continues to be available on the Australian market. This is generally material with limited market appeal which may be affected by the cost of classification services. One of the downsides of classification is that material which is in no way offensive has been subjected to the same charges as other material. Censors have been required to spend a great deal of time pondering these matters and trying to compare the two types of material. This was quite unfair.Currently, the act covers films for business, accounting, professional, scientific and education purposes. Under the bill, exemptions will be expanded to cover current affairs, hobbyist, sporting, family, live performance, musical presentation and religious films. The bill will enable the Classification Board, upon application, to waive fees and issue certificates of exemption for specified classes of material. However, to preserve the integrity of the current classification system, the films exempted will lose that exemption if they fall outside the G or PG classification. That is fair enough, because if they cannot measure up to the `general exhibition' or `parental guidance' categories, on balance, they require some form of restriction and the censor in that case would reserve the right to look at that material.Some other issues to be addressed by the miscellaneous amendments include: ensuring that digital multimedia products and imported materials are dealt with fairly under the classification laws; ensuring that the Classification Board has the power to determine consumer advice when certifying certain publications and computer games; requiring coin operated arcade machines to display classification markings; and providing the director of the board with the power, where none exists, to call in a publication, film or computer game for reclassification. I think that is a very worthy objective.In addition to the range of amendments I have mentioned, the bill originally contained a proposal to change the title of X to NVE—non-violent erotica. However, the Commonwealth has decided to retain the X title rather than that of non-violent erotica because it did not accurately reflect the material contained in the category.I supported that move, for this reason: I think that in giving the name `non-violent erotica' there was a tendency for people to think that somehow they could be mollified about the material—somehow it was not quite as bad, somehow it was just a bit naughtier than an R-certificated film, and with that in mind it was not really all that bad to look at it. That is not what was meant by that. Even with these amendments it is quite clear that the X certificate in almost all instances applies to pornography. People know that pornography is part of the X-certificated category and I do not think there was anything to be gained by changing that classification or pretending it was something else.I am not normally a person with a suspicious mind, but I could see a circumstance where the NVE might have led the states to believe, over time, `Well, this is perhaps not quite as bad. It's only a little bit worse than the X certificated. Why don't we get in on this game? Why doesn't our state start making a few bob out of these NVE-classified films?' And that would lead in time, I imagine, to production facilities for these types of films becoming more widespread in Australia and the outlets also becoming more widespread. Then we could see, over time, that someone would say, `Really, why shouldn't we have those in the video shops? They're only just a bit worse than X-certificated films. And we can put them down at the end of the shop and enclose them in a special section with a sign saying that persons under 18 years of age should not be entitled to come into this area.' In my earlier life I had a long association with the film industry. I supervised a number of theatres for a popular Queensland chain, and I was a manager at the time when the R-certificated films in the cinemas came into vogue. Let me tell you that with the best will in the world and with the most careful screening by staff—and in those days there were a lot of usherettes and ushers in the theatres—it was very difficult to assess whether a person was 18 years, or younger or older. I remember one classic case, which I will tell against myself. One night I noticed in the queue a particularly attractive young lady with beautiful golden plaits and big ribbons at the end of them. She was wearing bobbysox gear. I walked up to her and I said, `Look, you're not seriously trying to tell me that you are over 18 years of age?' She looked me straight in the eye and said, `Mr Neville, my name is Mary-Lyn So-and-So. I am a Bachelor of Arts with Honours and I have been teaching for two years.' And I was a person trained to look out for those things. The X certificate was being introduced and on certain nights we even had a policeman on special duty in the theatre to give the message that we were fair dinkum that, if adults were going to see adult material in an adult context, that was what it was going to be. It was not going to be some backdoor method of allowing young people to see sexually explicit material.So I could see, with this NVE going down the track, those sorts of scenarios developing. I think there is a good understanding in Australia, even by people who do not use the material, of what the X certificate really means.Earlier this year I received a paper from one of my constituents, Spencer Gear, who is a youth counsellor and a former minister of the church, urging me to oppose the reclassification of X-certificated films as non-violent erotica. This is not some soft and woolly zealot: Spencer Gear is a coalface man who deals with kids in the most dreadful circumstances. He holds a masters degree in counselling and has studied overseas in this area: he knows what he is talking about. He has also run a section of the Peirson Adolescent Support Service in Bundaberg—a well-known community organisation that looks after young people who are at risk—for seven years. Drawing on this practical experience, he told me that in the year before he sent this paper 455 people were referred to the support service, a quarter of whom were victims of sexual abuse. Mr Gear said that many of them were abused after the molester had watched X-certificated videos and that sometimes the molester watched them with the victim. He said that, in his experience, while not every case was linked to pornographic videos, the association between sexual abuse and pornographic films was a constant theme that had escalated over recent years.In the paper he also quoted Dr John Lyons and Dr David Larson, who published an analysis of the effects of violent and non-violent pornography. Their professional analysis concluded:... systematic research results suggest that exposure to pornography does have an important causal impact. They noted especially that:... non-violent pornography contributes to aggressive and callous attitudes and behaviour towards women. Mr Gear also pointed to a Cairns policeman who, after eight years working with the Juvenile Aid Bureau, said in an article in the Cairns Post of 1 August 1990 that every sexual offender he had charged used pornography as a stimulant to the crime. The police officer said:... pornography is the recurring factor in every sexual investigation.Further, Mr Gear quoted the Northern Territory Supreme Court Justice Sir William Kearney, who he said confirmed from the courts what Mr Gear and his counsellors hear in the counselling office. In 1989 Mr Justice Kearney said:... people who think there is no connection between pornography and the violent and bizarre crimes that come before the courts, ought to do the case studies.I said at the start of my speech that censorship is a very difficult policy area for governments. I reiterate my personal view that censorship in society should be kept to a minimum, but I also reiterate my belief that a civilised society that cares for its young people and community standards should draw some lines in the sand. We have limits on various things across society. For example, we do not allow certain religious symbolism—be it the crucifix, the Star of David or the crescent moon—to be denigrated in any way. Why? It is because large sections of our community would find that offensive. As I said before, there is a set of rules governing the way we behave in society: what we eat, how we drive and how we play. There are rules for everything. While I do not suggest that draconian measures should be taken, I think the government is fully justified in retaining the X certificate, and I commend this bill to the House.11:29:0021378Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 has a long history and follows changes that have been made over a period to the classification of films and other material. In 1997, the Attorney-General proposed the exclusion of depictions of a person with numerous sex partners in changes at that time. However, we have moved on, and the government has chosen to modify the material that will be included under the X classification.There has been some debate and a lot of discussion over the last 12 months about the use of the term `non-violent erotica'. It was a matter that was discussed between the attorneys-general of the states and the Commonwealth, and there may have been a feeling at one point that non-violent erotica was a more accurate description of a new group of classifications which were formerly X rated.The government's proposal was to exclude certain violent actions and certain violent material from the X classification. In doing so, the Attorney-General felt that it was conducive to change the title. What was being removed from the former X-rated classification that warranted its change of name? Consistent with the censorship principles agreed to by all Australian governments and in accordance with the government's original intentions, certain sexually explicit material without any form of sexual violence or coercion will continue to be available for adults who wish to access it, but there has been a removal of films containing incest fantasies, sexualised role-play, violence and strong depiction of fetishes—and a description of those fetishes is available. There has been a proposal that those changes be made since 1998.The government considers that there is scope for further restriction. In this proposed legislative change to the X classification, mild fetishes, any depictions of violence whatsoever, the use of sexually aggressive language, permitting persons over the age of 18 to be portrayed as minors in X-rated videos, and golden showers are all excluded. That is the government's change to the X classification which justified the change of the title to non-violent erotica. Discussions with the states concluded one thing: agreement that it should be called non-violent erotica. But then the government changed its mind and has now continued the use of the X classification. In listening to the one spokesman from the Australian Labor Party, there is no doubt in my mind that he also agrees that the classification should still be entitled X. There is no doubt in the minds of parents and those who supervise juveniles that X-rated means that it is not on, whether it is in the form of video, film or television or whether it relates to any form of Internet media. There is a clear understanding of what X means. To change the title X to something else would mean a massive change to the meaning of what can be used in X-rated material. So the government has made these changes but kept the title, and I think that is a sensible outcome.There have been further restrictions, and I reiterate that those restrictions are any form of violence whatsoever, certain fetishes, sexually aggressive language and the portrayal of people over the age of 18 as minors. They are being excluded, but not to be excluded are a number of features that, in my personal view, would be better excluded.Where do we stand on the censorship issue? Where we stand on the censorship issue—and previous speakers have talked about this—is something that is of concern to anybody who loves democracy and freedom. My best reference goes back to the classification of videos inquiry conducted by the Senate in 1988. You may remember that a protracted examination was done by a cross-section of senators. They came to the view that it is not so much a matter of what is said by parents and those in charge of minors about their requirements to limit access to material but of what is said by those who produce pornographic material about their freedom to be able to produce it. It is not so much a matter of definition; it is a matter of where the line is drawn between those two contending views. And the Australian community expect us to draw that line. They do not expect us to have an attitude of laissez faire and do nothing, because, over and over again, the evidence before that Senate committee indicated that pornographic material does have an impact on certain people, particularly if there is violence depicted. Now violence is out, but group sex is still in there. There are some things, Madam Deputy Speaker, that are close to home for both of us, given the part of the world where we live, for we remember the Murphy brothers and their extreme violence. We think also of the Tasmanian massacre and the influence of pornographic material on the young man involved in that. To what extent does the portrayal of women as compliant, useable commodities affect the outlook of people who view those films? I think that it does affect those people, and there is strong evidence that it does so. I know that the radical feminists, because of their concern about the portrayal of women as commodities to be used, would say that pornography should be out altogether. Although I do not agree with all their views, I think there is strength in that argument, and we need to codify processes to ensure that women are not represented in that way.Who will be most influenced? Young people under the age of 18 and those who have a psychological preference to see women abused are the main groups that I am concerned about. How do you define the latter category of people who have a psychological preference to see women abused? It is very difficult; I do not know that we can label people in that way. We have laws that protect society at large from individuals who are unbalanced, but should that imbalance be encouraged in their younger years? I believe that we have a very strong responsibility to anybody under the age of 18 to make sure that we do not exacerbate attitudes that may be dormant or encourage as an accepted attitude that the abuse of women is the norm. Therefore, we have to draw lines. The government has drawn a line in this instance and, although the line lacks some cohesion in the stated principles, generally it is an improvement on what was there before. As a result of material presented to him by Mr Spencer Gear, one of my colleagues has spoken about the perception of soft pornographic videos and child sexual abuse. I have also received that material and find it compelling. Mr Gear is a practical youth worker dealing with young people on a day-to-day basis, sometimes in very ordinary circumstances, and there is no doubt in my mind that he presents a very practical, hands-on snapshot of the impact of pornographic material on young people. I was very impressed. The member for Hinkler, Mr Neville, is in the chamber, and I wish to pay tribute to the timeliness of Spencer Gear's submission to us when we are involved in this debate.One of the facts of life is that young people generally watch television and use media unsupervised. Despite the claims of parents and some parent groups who are outspoken about how good they are at supervising their children, 85 per cent of viewing is unsupervised. So we can take the words of Spencer Gear and his examination and experience in these areas as being pretty substantially true. He says:I am no theorist. My counsellors and I have to work with the victims of non-violent erotica videos, and the scene is very ugly. These images are very difficult for counsellors to leave behind when they finish a day's work. Imagine how difficult it is for the children. These children come to our counselling offices with glazed and staring eyes, daydreaming and committing sexual and behavioural acting out. Those abused as children often experience confusion when relating to another sexuality in adulthood.And he goes on:Approximately 25 per cent of those were sexually abused—He is talking about the people that he has seen through his Bundaberg office—Many of them were abused after a molester watched X-rated videos. Sometimes the molester watched with the victim. If you pass this legislation, what will that redefinition do to the mental health of our children and the ability of counsellors to deal with the negative consequences of such acts? It is hard enough working in this field without having the government legislating NVE that will encourage such sexual violations.It is a very compelling letter. I feel for our young people and I am pleased that Spencer Gear has chosen to write to me and to send me an email on these issues. It is my own experience that that is the case and that the depiction of women in a demeaned attitude will encourage attitudes, amongst those who see such material, that will perpetuate the demeaning of women and the processes that this House generally would seek to exclude.The joint select committee that I referred to sat at length, and the bulk of the evidence that came to it, with regard to X-rated videos in particular, indicated that those videos engendered a sexually aroused and manipulative orientation towards women and that they mediate in the mind of the viewer a perception of women in general as being highly promiscuous and available. That, for some misguided or unbalanced individuals, is just the sort of stimulation they do not want.I was distressed to receive a letter from the Eros Foundation calling many people who work with young children, and particularly members of the clergy, hypocrites. I do not think anybody sets out in that position. If they have a calling to a clerical vocation, I do not think any of them set out to finish up as manipulators and abusers of children. But I think that probably Robbie Swan, who runs that organisation, sets out to definitely play on the preferences of people who could be influenced by his material. No matter how sad that may be, the abuse of children by members of the clergy is a sad and dreadful thing. It is outrageous and criminal that people in a position of trust should abuse that position, but their intention is not to abuse children when they begin. Robbie Swan's intention is to have people use X material and to be gathered into continual use of it. The NVE classification has its origins in the findings of this select committee. I understand this has been the claim within the Attorney-General's Department. That is not the case. In fact, the NVE classification cannot be traced back to that Joint Select Committee on Video Material in 1988 because that committee said that NVE titles should never be proposed unless the material contained therein depicted only a loving, caring relationship integral to the context of the video. I believe that that loving, caring relationship cannot be shown as a group sex scene but must be the relationship between a couple. Therefore, I believe that there is still further to go. I appreciate what the government and the Attorney have attempted to do. I am pleased at the advances that have been made and it is very significant that the state Attorneys have now accepted that the X-rated description is the best description. There have been some changes to remove material from X rated which probably could have been taken out anyway if the definition of X rated were carefully adhered to. But we have clarified that process. There is still ground to go if the treatment of women on film is to be shown as something where women are properly honoured and properly depicted. We have come to a situation where we have made advances. I want to extend my appreciation to the government and to encourage the Attorney-General to go even further with the portrayal of women as something other than sex objects to be manipulated. That portrayal, particularly in a group situation, should be banned.11:47:0021381Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—In a way the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 could be a difficult bill to speak on and in another way it is quite straightforward. Some people in the community see it as a difficult issue. Some people have some very clear ideas on what the government should or should not be doing. But generally the community view would seem to be that families that are well adjusted do not have a problem with the kinds of material that can circulate in the community. They can leave it alone and not be concerned about it. But, be that as it may, the government has chosen to put through the parliament this classification amendment bill. I think it is a pretty sensible way of going. There was a suggestion that we abolish the X-rated category and create the non-violent erotica category. At the end of the day we have decided to retain the X category for sexually explicit films and videos but with much more restricted content. The Commonwealth's decision to retain the title X was taken after concerns were raised that the title of non-violent erotica did not accurately reflect the material contained in the category. While no agreement on an alternative title was reached, most state and territory censorship ministers indicated in March this year that they did not support calling the category non-violent pornography.In Australia, the X-rated category is reserved for sexually explicit material and cannot contain any depiction of sexualised violence or coercion. It is proposed that the X-rated category will be subject to tighter guidelines than apply currently. The proposal is that the category will be further restricted to exclude materialsuch as the portrayal of people aged over 18 years as minorscertain fetishes and sexually aggressive language.Under the national classification scheme, it is the responsibility of individual states and territories to determine what material can be sold or hired legally in their respective jurisdictions. State censorship ministers have made it clear that their previous agreement to the Commonwealth's bill did not imply any alteration to the ban on the sale or hire of X-rated films and videos. This bill supports the state and territory censorship ministers. The government welcomes the support of the opposition for the legislation. The opposition agree with the government's policy on X-rated videos, and they did so publicly at the last election. Most of the other amendments have been discussed with industry, and I think it is fair to say that they have been warmly supported. Originally the amendments included the replacement of the X classification for videotapes with a new, more restrictive non-violent erotica classification. This has now been disregarded. However, this material includes mild fetishes, any depictions of violence, sexually aggressive language and the portrayal of persons over the age of 18 as minors in the X-rated classification.I did note that there was a concerted campaign by the industry, which apparently suggested that they were a very powerful lobby and that they could influence the result of elections in this country. Many members and senators get these kinds of suggestions almost on a weekly basis—and I dare say you would, too, Madam Deputy Speaker Crosio—that if you do not do this or you do not do that, then you will suffer at the next election. But governments cannot run that way and members and senators cannot run that way. At the end of the day, what is in this bill was decided on the principle of the matter: it was decided on in the national interest, and it was decided on advice from the states and the territories. That is how governments should properly operate. I am not suggesting that lobby groups should not lobby members and senators, but I always treat with deep suspicion paragraphs at the end of letters and emails that say, `If you don't do this, we'll vote you out at the next election.' I guess that I have heard many colleagues say, `You'll just have to do that.' We will do what we should do in the national interest. If you do not adopt that view, then you should not be in this place, but I digress.The amendments in the bill will outline the expansion of the current range of films exempt from classification, and this has been done to ensure the continued availability of specialist product on the Australian market which may be affected by the cost of classification services. The range of films that are exempt has been expanded to include current affairs, sporting, family, live performances, musical presentations, religious and hobby films, and I think that is an entirely sensible way to go. These additional categories of films to be exempt fall typically into the limited market appeal category. To preserve the integrity of the current classification scheme, the films exempted will lose that exemption if they fall outside the G and PG classification.The financial impact on the film and video industry is expected to be minimal and, of course, that is a good result as well. The removal of legal uncertainties and procedural anomalies within the scheme should reduce costs to businesses as well as improve compliance levels. I think that we could all point to that as being a good outcome from this bill as well. Expansion of the range of films exempt from classification and the waiver of fees power will also reduce costs to business and ensure the continued availability of specialist product on the Australian market. The impact on the X-rated industry will not be great as it has the capacity to quickly access and, where necessary, adapt material to be submitted for classification—it will know what the rules are—to enable that classification to come within the guidelines of the proposed new X-rated category.Another aspect of the proposed amendments relates to the social implications that such change will bring. There has been some concern expressed in Townsville and Thuringowa that such X-rated material may unduly influence our kids, for example. It might be fair to say that material portraying violence, sexual references and sex scenes does, or could, have a damaging effect on minors. It has been my view that children brought up in a balanced family life, with family values, will not be affected by this material. Sometimes I think that we parents think our kids are little angels; that they do not see or talk about these things among their colleagues. They do. But if they have a balanced view, this material will just be part of their normal day-to-day experiences, they will reject matters that are not appropriate and they will do that of their own volition without having government or parents direct them to do so. We should credit our kids with having the ability to screen or filter out what is and what is not appropriate. It is proposed that the category will be scrutinised using tougher guidelines than apply to the current X-rated category. The new, more restrictive category will exclude material that is currently available under the X classification which censorship ministers have agreed should be proscribed. The expansion of the range of films exempt from classification will address some of the concerns expressed by the industry about the proposal to move to full cost recovery for the classification system.I do not think I need to say any more on the bill. I believe it is supported by those on both sides of the parliament. There have already been some good contributions to the debate. I look forward to hearing the contribution by the member for Moreton. I ask the parliament to support the legislation.11:57:0021383Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—After that big build-up, one suspects that the pressure is on to try to deliver something new to the debate. There have been a lot of very good contributions by members on this issue. As the member for Herbert quite rightly said, the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 is supported by those on both sides of the House. It would, at first glance, appear to be very straightforward. We have heard today a number of variations on an ongoing theme that I may touch on.It is also, in a debating sense, worth noting that extremists on both sides of the debate regarding the use of erotic material for personal gratification really need to take a cold shower. There are those who say that pornography is the cause of sex crimes; that pornography is the cause, worst of all, of child sex crimes. I think, in all, a commonsense, balanced view would be that blaming pornography for sex crimes is like blaming guns for murder. It is also true to say that the gun manufacturing industry does not promote the virtues of being able to use their implements in the way that those who are in the business of producing pornographic material promote their product. Whilst I support the right of any adult Australian to access material of their choice for their own personal use, I submit that, with every right, there is an equal and heavy responsibility on the consumer as well as on the producer of pornographic material to do the right thing. In a lot of ways, pornography is pornography in the eyes of the beholder. There are those who often seek the hedonistic experience of being outraged; who seek to be confronted by pornography so that they can complain about it. Equally, there are many of us who are concerned that our sons and daughters, or our grandsons and grand-daughters, are being desensitised, slowly but surely, to accept that certain activities, disclosure and basic talk around the dining room table that is lowering the common denominator of conduct in our society are acceptable and the norm. I have said in this place, in an earlier discussion on similar matters, that I was concerned about my son. At the time he was five; he is now 8½. He walks past the newsagencies at Eight Mile Plains, Sunnybank and other places and sees half-naked women portrayed on the posters outside the newsagencies depicting the covers of what were once great publications like New Idea and Woman's Day. They now carry stories discussing people's sexual activities and the level of gratification they have received as a result, apparently as public interest stories. If anything else, it is that lowering of standards in the broad media that also needs to be considered by society. Parents in this country would rightly expect, as technology is offering new items of interest, particularly to young people, that standards would be set. Ever since Eastman invented the Kodak camera, there have been attempts to photograph people who are nude; people doing things with other people who are nude. KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—Good heavens!CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—As the member for Hinkler says, good heavens! It is no surprise to any of us because we are all grown-ups and we understand the way of the world. It is also right that we should not allow our young people, particularly, to be confronted by this. As young people, generally, constantly try to stretch the envelope to test new horizons, to take things a stage or two further than the generation before, I think in this area we have reason to be concerned. We need to give parents proper direction. When they start to purchase computer games for their children and their children access those wonderful computer games, they might graduate from playing Zoombeanies to something like Dark Reign or some other exciting computer game. Parents need to understand whether their children are going to be confronted by lewd, rude or suggestive images, or violence for that matter. I support this bill because it is necessary to continue to reassess and correct what technology is throwing up as far as challenges in this area are concerned. I am very concerned about this lowering of the common denominator of standards in our society, not because I am, by any stretch of the imagination, prudish. I support the right of Mr Swan, from the Eros Foundation, to put his views. I think he needs to have a cold shower when he alleges that anybody who questions the activities of the erotic and pornographic film industry in this country—however you want to describe them—is some sort of prude and a moral crusader. We have all lived through the revolution of 20-odd years ago when everybody went out and bought a video recorder and, as occurred with Eastman and the Kodak camera, saw all of those rude movies. I did, anyway. I am quite happy to say that Saturday night parties became late-night sessions watching rude movies. Generally, they were pirated, to the great shame of those who were part of that activity. Departmental officers will be delighted to know that I would not participate in anything of the sort now—particularly having regard to the pirated versions. At the end of the day, we should not allow our children to have unfettered access to video libraries and rude movies. We would not allow that now, so we should also be very concerned about computer games and other material that they might come across. No matter what we do as a government to try to stop the legitimate distribution chains making these materials available, there will always be illegitimate distribution chains operating. I suspect that one of the good things that comes out of this is a challenge to the erotic film industry in Australia, the distributors and the producers alike, to exercise some proper responsibilities in their conduct and, in doing so, to take a bit of pressure off themselves from those on the other side of the debate who need a shower equally as cold. The responsibilities that they need to exercise include not allowing the material they produce to be accessed, through their distribution chains, by young people for a start. They have to insist that those they sell the movies to agree that they will act as responsible adults and keep material away from young people. If this industry wants the right to sell what some see as filth, then they should exercise that responsibility. I also believe that this industry should not be advertising movies—although they may contain actors who are above the accepted legal age in most countries of 18 participating in a variety of apparent sexual acts for the pleasure of the cameraman and crew and those who watch—in lewd, horrible and suggestive ways that try to portray those persons as being young, or younger, than they really are.Somebody who used to work in this industry who is a constituent of mine—I will not name him because he has all sorts of problems associated with getting out of that industry which concern me greatly—drew to my attention that the industry in Canberra and the one in Darwin will happily advertise movies such as, `She was 14 and she loved three blokes a night.' Again, I am no prude, but I am very concerned that this industry would allow themselves to have an association with anybody who would advertise a movie as having a storyline promoting some sort of virtue in underage sex. I think it is disgusting in the extreme, particularly as somebody who has an almost 11-year-old daughter and is fully aware of the pressures that are going to face her over the next half a dozen years. It will be bad enough hosing down the teenage boys without thinking that there are going to be those who are influenced into believing, through this desensitising process, that 14-year-old girls are into three different blokes a night—as this particular movie, advertised a few years ago, suggested. At the time I wrote to the Attorney-General and drew his attention to it. I must say not much happened as a result. I am welcoming the passage of this legislation because it gives him some opportunity to have some greater control over this industry. What is also important about this legislation, and far from the claim from some that it is legitimising the industry, is that it is in fact enforcing in this industry the need to have all of their distribution chains and the products in that distribution chain disclosed. You cannot have what, on one hand, seems to be a legitimate business—legitimate under the law: selling movies which are legitimately obtained and allowable under the classification standards of this country—and, at the same time, have that company selling stuff under the counter. If you do that company should be shut downand the advantage of this legislation is that it makes it possibleand they should be financially penalised. Their large scale, so-called legitimate business should be heavily penalised. If anybody in this industry decides to cross the line and go down the wrong track, using backdoor methods to get the wrong sorts of films distributed—nudge, nudge, wink, wink—then come down hard on them. In that regard I welcome the efforts of the Attorney-General to bring this legislation forward.As I said at the outset, some are not satisfied by whatever happens. In his contribution to this debate, the member for Hinkler noted some comments from one of his constituents.KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—Spencer Gear.CK6Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVE—Spencer Gear, who is a man of the world. He is not a zealot, by any description, I am assured. He is somebody who used to be in the radio industry, therefore is a person of the world who understands some of the bold horizons that exist in people's minds. He has his own concerns about matters that have appeared before the courts involving those who have perpetrated crimes against young people. A particular one was about a Brisbane man showing his 11-year-old stepdaughter an adult cartoon of Hansel and Gretel engaging in sexual acts so that sex seemed like a game after this. The crown prosecutor, Leanna Hurley, told the court the man had led the girl to her bedroom and undressed and raped her after viewing the video and that he had had sexual intercourse with her at least once a week. I submit that it is quite possible this particular horrible crime was going to occur whether there had been porn involved or not—that there was something wrong with this person. Maybe I am being very generous in my view of this, but I suspect, as I said at the outset, that you cannot blame the gun manufacturers for those who then use guns to shoot people.Despite Mr Gear's well-founded and recognisably decent concerns about what he believes this legislation does for legitimising this industry, it is important that this industry be given a status from which we are then able to penalise them when they do the wrong thing. It makes sense to me that, if there is a legitimate industry operating—legitimate in the sense of official—the illegitimate industry will probably try to conduct their activities under the cover of this legitimacy. I would expect, if one wanted to find where the really bad movies are being distributed from and through, one would need to look no further than the legitimate industry itself, and use that as the basis for inquiries. This legislation challenges those involved in the non-violent erotica industry to come completely out of the closet about their activities and to be ever vigilant to crack down on those who do the wrong thing. Otherwise governments are going to turn the screws on them and crack down on them very hard. Before I finalise my contribution to this discussion, I mentioned at the outset my concern about the mainstream media. Magazines like New Idea and Women's Day discuss the sexual prowess of all sorts of personalities, and all sorts of amazing, apparently public interest stories are published by them every week. I am also concerned about very public organisations funded by government which also, I think, cross a lot of the lines. In the area of non-violent erotica, there is a sense of narrowcasting involved where people make a choice to purchase. In the area of broadcasting and the ABC and SBS, and the Triple J station in particular, there is a great need to look closely at the standards they are setting. When we talk about desensitising, when we talk about lowering the common denominator, Triple J has a lot to answer for.ABC and SBS television and ABC radio are not subjected to the same standards that commercial broadcasters and commercial telecasters are meant to meet with regard to the use of language and the portrayal of certain subjects and scenes. They are, of course, independent of government, but they use this as a means of, in fact, lowering public standards. The other night, SBS ran a movie, which I understand was called Orgasmic, which had great hilarity in featuring all sorts of phalluses. I noted a couple of months ago an amazing movie which came out of Germany which had as its central character a killer condom which was running around and killing prostitutes and their clients by eating the clients' penises. From my personal viewpoint, it was very funny. I had no difficulty dealing with what this movie was about and got a deal of amusement from it. But I raise it here because I think some people in our community are not as well adjusted as I think and hope I am. They do not understand that one thing is fantasy, and you then turn that off and go and deal with reality. Whilst there are hedonistic experiences gained from non-violent erotica, there is a reliance on the individual person being able to switch from that fantasy and that escape from reality and become re-attached to reality. Government has not finished with this matter. It never will. I suspect the community will also have to be ever vigilant, but I am concerned about the way public broadcasters continue to try and lower some of the standards we would expect them to be trying to improve in this country.I must not leave out Triple J completely. Radio is the most influential medium in this country. It is not well understood by broadcasting bureaucracy in government, by senators or by those in this place—although I do not wish to incur the wrath of my colleagues by saying that they do not understand the real influence of radio. Radio's influence on people—particularly young people, and especially teenagers and pre-teens—is immense. What is happening on night-time radio in this country, day in, day out, is an absolute disgrace. If you talk to the major radio network executives—which I have had occasion to do—at Triple M, B105, SAFM, 2Day FM and so on from various markets around Australia, you will hear the same thing: Triple J went into the gutter and lowered standards. It broadcasts discussions about menstrual cycles, orgasms and the amount of sexual activity among teenagers, believing that in so doing it is relating to its audience. The commercial broadcasters have watched their ratings decline and have had to lower their standards so far into the gutter that it is a disgrace.I call on Triple J to get out of the gutter and, as a public broadcaster, to lift standards. I call on the commercial radio networks to do the same. The ratings reality is that kids find it amusing—just like I enjoyed the movie Killer Condom the other week—but I am concerned that too many kids do not have enough touch points in their lives to help them separate the fantasy and the nonsense from reality. Too many kids are being desensitised by material that is made available too freely through the broadcast and print media in this country. Too many kids believe that this is common, everyday activity. The bill before us deals with a specific segment of a market that I guess outrages many people. However, we must go further and try to encourage those involved in our mass media to lift standards. As broadcasters, not `narrowcasters', they must keep an eye on the common denominators—the threads in our society that unite us—and build upon them rather than trying to pull those threads apart.12:17:0021387Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I am proud to address the House today about the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999. I believe there has been a symbolic victory for traditional family values, and this bill draws a line in the sand against the pornography industry's relentless pursuit of yet more outlets for their material. I must mention particularly the roles that the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister have played in this process and the moral resolve that they have shown in dealing with the awkward ramifications of this bill.I think it is appropriate today to outline the events earlier this year that led to the introduction of this bill. I first became aware of the bill on Monday, 6 March when numerous letters arrived in my parliamentary office asking whether I knew the content of the videos that were to be classified non-violent erotica. I did not, so I made it my business to find out. I will digress for a moment from outlining the history of this bill to speak about the role of the Attorney-General in this process. I pay tribute to him for introducing this bill, which contains a number of initiatives that will ensure the removal of some very undesirable elements in X-rated videos. I am particularly pleased that the Attorney-General has seen fit to bring forward such responsible legislation.Returning to the events of Monday, 6 March, I am ashamed to admit that I did not know what would be included in the non-violent erotica classification which would replace the X rating, of which we are all so well aware. When the term `non-violent erotica' was first mentioned to me on that day, like many others I had a view of an art-house film perhaps—something maybe a little bit worse than the R rating one sees in the local cinema. Maybe I was naïve, but the term sounded fairly low level—art house, perhaps romantic. I thought that, really, this had been going through discussions with state attorneys-general and the federal Attorney-General for some time. However, I decided that I would obtain copies of X-rated videos which were to be put into the non-violent erotica category. I phoned several of my colleagues who I thought might be concerned about such an issue and asked them to view these in the privacy of the National Party party room. I am a broad-minded person but I was shocked—as my colleagues were—by those videos. There was no simulated sex in those films. They were not romantic. They certainly were not art house. They were not even erotic. They were hard-core pornography. With my Christian values and my belief in the family unit as the foundation of society, there was no way that I thought the pornography industry could be allowed to use the artifice of a soft sounding classification to hoodwink the states into allowing wider distribution of these films. I could not have looked my 12-year-old son in the face and accepted that perhaps in the future, when he went down to the video store to get out one of the films he frequently gets—TheLion King or something similar—he would have to walk past a stand where there were films such as Bucks Transsexual Adventure or My Life as a She Male for the FBI.Like every parliamentarian, I cherish freedom of speech and expression in this country. But freedom of speech and expression also comes with responsibility—the responsibility to ensure that others' freedoms are not being trampled. I felt very strongly that this material trampled on the rights of families to raise their children as they saw fit. The day after my colleagues and I had seen these X-rated films, we took them to the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson. I am pleased to say that he was firm in his resolve that nobody in the National Party would support legislation that softened the classification on such films. When just the dust jackets of the videos were introduced to the joint party room, the Prime Minister also had strong moral resolve and agreed that such material would never be accepted by his government. Of course, the matter is being discussed again. I wrote to the Prime Minister after that joint party meeting, and I would like to share my letter with the House today. I said: I, and many of my coalition colleagues have most severe reservations about the proposal that a new category `non-violent erotica' will be introduced to replace the existing X-rated classification. I believe that the term non-violent erotica is capable of being misunderstood by innocent persons. They may honestly believe that the term applies to a genuine art-house type feature rather than the deliberate, hard-core pornography which would carry this classification. I went on to call on the Prime Minister and his moral leadership. I said:Frankly I do wonder at the underlying motives of the pornography industry which seeks to classify its hard-core product by the use of the term `erotica' which is more rightly applied to works of art with a sensual depiction or theme. I am pleased to say that this bill will, in a very welcome way, tighten the guidelines on X-rated films. There is a restriction on the depiction of violence, sexual violence, serialised violence or coercion or sexually assaultive language and it will not allow the depiction of minors by those over the age of 18. There is also a restriction on the depiction of fetishes. I certainly welcome these tighter guidelines in this bill and I commend the Attorney-General for this initiative. Again, I return to the theme that there is no way that these videos could be described as non-violent erotica. In fact, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr John Anderson, said that the term was a misleading `warm and fuzzy' description of what was in these films. As one could predict, as soon as the government announced that it would be reviewing the original bill, the pornography industry and its apologists went into overdrive. They have tried to discredit other members of parliament, to intimidate other members of parliament and to do the same to me. The spokes-organisation for this group is the Eros Foundation—again, a misleading term. `Foundation' implies some sort of association with academia. `Eros', again, is perhaps an erotic term. But make no mistake: this is the grubby pornography industry and they are an organised group for pornographers in the self-styled sex industry.What the Eros Foundation did was to lodge a complaint against me with the ACT registrar of films about the screening I had arranged in Parliament House. Madam Deputy Speaker, knowing you and other members of parliament as I do, and knowing how seriously you take your responsibilities as members of parliament, I am sure that every parliamentarian would be enraged to think that their proper investigation of the ramifications of any bill coming before the House would lead to a complaint with the Federal Police. I would have referred it to the Privileges Committee, but I felt it was better to follow the matter through and in fact to show that their complaint was completely without foundation. I was interviewed by the Federal Police quite willingly. I have great respect for the Federal Police. They treated me with great courtesy, and many months later they wrote to say that there would be absolutely no charges laid for the showing of X-rated films in a private place—the National Party party room in the federal parliament.But it shows the gross hypocrisy of the Eros Foundation and their apologists. If these films were really so harmless—and I think they have distributed material to other parliamentarians showing that some 70 to 75 per cent of Australians would welcome these films being more widely distributed—then why would they report me to the Federal Police for supposedly showing them in parliament? If these films are so harmless and desirable then surely the showing of them should not carry a six-month jail sentence were one charged and convicted. KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—You cannot have it both ways.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Exactly; you cannot have it both ways. It is hypocritical in another way, because I recall when some parliamentarians—and I include myself in that group—complained about the classification of the film Lolita some 18 months ago, one of the Eros Foundation's complaints was that none of us had seen the film, because it had not been released at that time in Australia. Taking their criticism to heart, I was determined this time to inform myself properly, as did other colleagues, of the nature of the soon to be non-violent erotica category of film.I was amused, again, at the hypocrisy of others. At the time that the complaint was laid with the Federal Police, I noticed that a Democrat senator, Senator Brian Greig, joined in the chorus of criticism. But he was strangely silent when I mentioned that if the National Party party room was a public place then we would all enjoy going down to the Democrat party room to join in their meetings. We did not hear any more from him after that. I am sure every political party in this building sees their party room as a private place for their party members only.On 7 March, when it was announced that the government would review this matter, I was inundated with calls and letters from right across Australia—I am sure that many like-minded colleagues were as well. They came from the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, the Most Reverend George Pell; from the Australian Christian Coalition—and I am pleased that a representative of theirs, Brigadier Jim Wallace, is here today to hear the speeches given on this bill; and from many ordinary Australian citizens—mothers, fathers and those who are concerned about such matters. It was fantastic to see decent and responsible Australians taking the trouble to write to me and to other members of parliament.Could I mention again the standover tactics of the Eros Foundation and their spokesman, Mr Robbie Swan. During the public debate about this bill, Mr Swan, on radio, informed listeners that he would use the database that the Eros Foundation have of their clients. One should be aware that these films are generally distributed by mail order, so the Eros Foundation have a database on those who purchase them. I must say that their customers must be very alarmed to think that that database, where they assume their name is confidential, might be used for political purposes. Again, it shows the length to which the Eros Foundation will use their own customers and their own database to discredit those who might oppose them. But Mr Swan, on radio, told me that some four per cent of the people in my electorate purchased these films by mail order and that he would use that database against me in the forthcoming election. My response was that that gave me great heart, because that means that 96 per cent of Dawson people do not watch these filthy, grubby films.I also went on to say that if Mr Swan or any members of the Eros Foundation wished to come to Dawson and campaign against me, `Well, make my day. Come on up. Come on up during the campaign.' I would be very happy to have the pornographers campaigning against me, and I am sure every other member of the House of Representatives would be pleased to have such a group campaign against them. Do you know why? Because I have great faith in the decent, ordinary citizens of this country. They are shrewd and they can see through the arguments of the pornography industry, and I know that they will rally to those who take a strong stand against this grubby industry.Moving now to the history of this matter, the government announced on 30 May that the proposal to introduce the NVE classification had been abandoned, and this bill is the result of that review. Again, I pay tribute to the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, whose strong resolve and concern for the family unit, and for standards in this country, had such an impact on the decision making in cabinet. I put out a statement on that day in which I said: As I said in early March when I raised this matter originally, I was concerned that the push for the NVE category would precede a campaign by the sleaze merchants to try and persuade State and Territory Governments to allow the sale of hard core pornography in local video shops.This point warrants some explanation. Under our legal and constitutional arrangements, the Commonwealth has the power and the responsibility to classify material, including videos, films and video games. It is the states and territories, however, which decide where this material is sold. It is only in the Northern Territory and the ACT that this pornography is allowed to be sold over the counter. In all other states, it is available only by mail order.When someone says to you, `It's not the money; it's the principle,' you know it is the money. In the case of the pornography industry, it is definitely the money. There would be no reason why they would not want their product so clearly labelled. If, as they say, they have such a valuable customer base, then why wouldn't they want their material clearly labelled? We all know what an X rating is, and presumably those that seek out this material know exactly what an X rating is. Yet to confuse their customer base, and the rest of us, they wanted a different classification. You know that the only reason they could do that is to broaden their distribution base and fatten the wallets of the pornography industry. Why do I say this? In June 1990 when the ACT government passed legislation—which, among other things, restricted pornography outlets to the Canberra industrial suburbs of Fyshwick, Mitchell and Hume—this was challenged in the courts by the pornographers. They wanted to open the outlets in all suburban shopping centres but, fortunately, failed. So we know what their agenda is. They want it in every suburban shopping centre, not only in the ACT, not only in the Northern Territory, but right across Australia.Again moving back to the tactics that they use: in January 1993, following the announcement that the coalition had adopted as policy the banning of X-rated videos, the Eros Foundation threatened to name coalition members and senators who allegedly used the services of their member companies. Then they announced that they would use their mailing list to campaign against the coalition and distribute 300,000 how-to-vote cards through capital city brothels—absolutely deplorable: strongarm tactics against members of parliament representing the great bulk of decent men and women in this country. Today we see the results of their efforts. They have lost, and lost on both initiatives. They have lost the non-violent erotica category and they have lost the elements of videos that are going to be removed by this bill.I am very proud of what this government has done. Of all the initiatives taken in government by the coalition, which I have been so pleased and proud to be a part of, I am proud of none so much as this. We have stood up for parents—who find it hard enough anyway to raise children in our society—and for those who are concerned about the effect on the weak, the vulnerable and the innocent in our community. The open sale of pornography, undoubtedly the path down which we all would have been led, has been stopped in its tracks today.Before closing I must mention yet another of the strongarm tactics of the pornography industry, used in a particularly nasty manifestation of their frustrated fury. Recently I, and I am sure other members of parliament, received a brochure called `Hypocrites', put out by the Eros Foundation. This glossy yet dreadful little brochure provides details of members of the clergy who have been convicted of child abuse offences. The material I received calls it: ... a publication dedicated to exposing the politics behind the worst sex and violence scenario in Australia at the moment.I responded by writing to the Eros Foundation, and I will share excerpts from my letter. I said:The abuse of children by members of the clergy—or anybody for that matter—is an outrageous and criminal act that deserves the strongest punishment by law. We must always be alert to instances of possible abuse ...However I found your publication to be self-serving and sanctimonious hypocrisy.To try and suggest—as that publication and your covering letter do—that because some members of the clergy have been convicted of child abuse crimes, that the Christian Churches have no moral authority in social issues is frankly disgraceful. That it should come from an alliance of pornographers whose one and only aim in life is to make money peddling their product is risible.I continued:I found your description of the mainstream Churches as `the nation's number one...(Time expired)12:37:0021391Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I commend the Attorney-General on bringing the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 to the attention of the House. I commend also the member for Dawson, who has been actively involved since March of last year in highlighting the proposed NVE classification and ensuring that other members of the parliament were fully informed of what the words `non-violent erotica' actually meant. I realise that she left off before finishing her speech, and I will speak about the Eros Foundation as well.I support the legislation before us. It is a cooperative effort between the Commonwealth and the states and territories to ensure that we have the proper classification of publications, films and computer games. It is not easy, these days, to live in a world where access to the Internet, videos and other forms of interactive technology occurs all the time. Being a parent of two children, I am ever conscious of my role in providing the relevant moral standards for them; I am conscious also of my role as a legislator to ensure that children of other parents in Australia also are protected.I was very pleased when the member for Dawson highlighted the non-violent erotica and brought it to my attention. I am not ashamed to say that I was one of those people who attended the private screening that she organised. I saw enough in about one minute to realise that there was nothing soft, erotic, artistic or however one wants to describe it in those films. They were hard-core pornographic images and they depicted violence. They deserved to be classified in a much stronger category, as they are today in an X rating.The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 provides for the enforcement of classification decisions made under the act. It established the Classification Board and the Classification Review Board and provided the procedures for the classification of material. State and territory enforcement legislation complements federal legislation by dealing with offences relating to the exhibition, sale or hire of publications, films and computer games, both classified and unclassified, in the respective jurisdictions. The amendments to the act laid out in the bill before us today are very contentious—there is no doubt about that—and are clearly warranted. Previous speakers have outlined a number of situations. The member for Moreton and the member for Dawson have provided their own personal perspectives on a number of areas, and I will provide mine as well. Other speakers have correctly indicated that the content of films, publications and computer games available in our society needs to be carefully and thoughtfully monitored. They are not issues that anyone should take lightly. Just the other day, my children went to take out an M-rated video from the local video store. That was clearly a bit contentious as they are 13 and 11 years of age, and I refused to let them view it. The idea that pornographic videos could be displayed in a video store is clearly something that I cannot digest, and I am very pleased that they have been given an X category. The pornography industry is a growing industry. The member for Dawson highlighted some of the areas, the issues and the politics that it has been involved in. The industry has clearly made politics into an art form. I have been written to on many occasions about the number of people in my marginal electorate on its mailing list. I think that anyone with an issue or who is a card-carrying member of a cause wants to target a marginal electorate. There is no doubt that many Australians do avail themselves of the mail-out facilities of the pornography industry, and that is entirely up to them; they can do that in the privacy of their home. But to have these sorts of films being displayed in public places where children can see them is an entirely different matter, and I am very pleased that that classification was strengthened to an X rating.Under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999, the content of material under the X category for films and videos will be restricted to prevent certain overly explicit and unacceptable material being available in this form. Tighter guidelines for the X category remove material that would be considered offensive by Australians—things such as the depiction of sexual violence and the portrayal of people over the age of 18 as minors. The member for Moreton spoke about films promoting 14-year-olds and involving pornographic scenes.There is no doubt that there are many people of unsound mind who do watch these videos and who do think it is the norm to behave in such a way. It saddens me that my electorate is involved in probably some of the worst cases of human depravity. Recently, the whole nation saw the gunman Nigel Parodi and the terrible devastation that saw three police officers seriously wounded. I am not saying that the actions of that particular individual were caused solely by watching pornographic videos, but he was in possession of a huge number of violent videos—and the police informed me of the types of videos that he was watching.Clearly, one has to ask: does watching that sort of pornographic and violent material lead you to go over the edge slightly? I can only go by some of the evidence that has been given to us, particularly from European countries. There have been many cases where young children have been watching videos and playing computer games that have been highly violent, that have led to their being induced almost into a comatose state by the trauma they have seen in these videos. This has led to their hospitalisation for various mental illnesses that have been inflicted. That is the sort of effect that they have on small children. So we do have a responsibility to ensure that children are not able to see these violent and sexually explicit images. I commend the work that has been done to ensure that the states and territories have had cooperation and that they have been responsible for determining which materials can be sold or hired in their region. I know that all governments give careful consideration to the content of material that is made available to their constituents. As elected representatives, we are charged with that responsibility. We cannot just walk away from it. We cannot say, `It's too hard; I don't want to deal with it; it's too contentious.' We have to legislate on these extremely difficult matters. Not everyone is going to agree with the stand that some of us have taken here. Not everyone is going to enjoy the decision. But while Australian governments have traditionally held the view that adults in our society have the right to choose individually what they want to read or watch, the government also has a responsibility to provide protection from material that encourages sexual violence or other harmful acts. Some days, it seems that newspapers are brimming with stories about violent and sexual acts on women, children and men. In the minds of some people reality does become confused. Certain people sometimes do not know the difference between what is make-believe and what is not make-believe. We see those images. The member for Moreton spoke about what is the norm. He spoke about radio stations and he mentioned Triple J. I have had constituents write to me about very disturbing instances, and some of them have involved public broadcasters. One particular episode comes to mind which occurred at about the time that the ABC was looking for increased funding. The Friends of the ABC came to visit me, looking for increased funding and fighting for their cause. I had received numerous letters from constituents in my electorate about a program that was screened on the ABC in which a number of transsexuals came on stage wearing G-strings which had chocolate penises attached to the end of them. Another group of transvestites came on stage and started to eat the chocolate penises. I cannot tell you the revulsion that I felt after reading these letters. One does not expect to turn on the ABC and see such images before one. I brought it to the attention of the communications minister at the time.I feel that broadcasters do have a responsibility to ensure that this type of grubby material is not out there in the public forum. I commend whatever actions are taken to ensure that that does not happen. Also, magazines and the media generally have a role to play. I have a teenage daughter who reads Girlfriend magazine. I thought it was quite a harmless magazine for teenage girls, but some of the articles leave me quite shocked when they deal with sexual activity and what is the norm, and with different types of sexual practices. One has to question their role and responsibility as well. More and more Australians are taking up new forms of technology such as the Internet, email and mobile phones. There are ever present dangers with the Internet as well. One should not ignore those. The so-called chat lines and chat rooms have been popular places in which sex offenders can lure new victims. With these new technologies, there will always be challenges. I face them every day in my electorate. Already, the issue of Internet regulation has resulted in widespread public debate. The Internet is really hard to regulate in practice because there is a lack of centralised control. The worldwide nature of the Web ensures that there are difficulties in determining the source of pornographic and other unacceptable material. These are issues that we as a society are continuing to grapple with. I am pleased that many concerned citizens are raising these issues in the public arena.Further amendments in the bill deal with issues regarding those who may appeal classification decisions made by the Classification Board. Previously, the definition of `persons aggrieved by the decision' did not include members of the general public who were offended by certain material, so it is good to see that that has been included. Those wishing to apply for review had to have a special connection to the offending material. This meant that a great majority of the population were excluded from having their views about the content of material heard. Fortunately, the bill alters the situation so that members of the public, who should have a say regarding all types of material available in our society, can do so.Computer games are another area for discussion. Whilst they are mostly marketed to children, they can often have content that can only be described as suitable for adults, so as a parent one has to be ever vigilant of the types of computer games one thinks are suitable for children. Where add-ons or extra sections are added to the original computer game, these add-ons must also be reviewed by the board. Makers of these computer games may also be required to provide a video showing the content of the game to the Classification Board. Previously it has been difficult for a game to be displayed in full for the purposes of classification, so this is a good thing. The director of the Classification Board has also been given more powers to determine how classified material may be displayed. For example, the board may instruct material to be wrapped in plastic or some other kind of concealing material. The board can also determine how the classification markings are to be displayed on new items such as computer game add-ons. While new technologies and the challenges for classification are enormous, it is important that these amendments bring into effect the power for the board to deal with each development. There are many other amendments, mainly of a technical nature, contained in this bill that assist the classifiers in their task of monitoring and classifying material.The member for Dawson previously spoke about the Eros Foundation. They have a very self-interested role in all of this. They are interested in expanding their empire and there is no doubt that the best way to do that is to get into the retail outlets. I commend the action that has been taken by the Attorney-General that will stop them from doing this. I was also one of the members of parliament to receive that dreadful publication Hypocrites with its reference to the Catholic Church. I have to say that it was a particularly distasteful and unbalanced representation of the clergy. I know that there have been incidents in the clergy but to say that this represents the view of all of the churches is absolutely absurd. I commend the Attorney-General for the particular action that he has taken and I look forward to working in this area and to seeing the practical outcomes of these amendments.12:52:0021394Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The contribution of honourable members to the debate on the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 1999 today reflects the longstanding divergence of opinion that exists in the parliament and in the community on censorship issues. Robust debate on censorship issues, on which everybody has a view, is a healthy sign in any democracy. Ultimately, however, it is for the parliament, through its elected representatives, to draw the rules and to strike a balance on censorship issues acceptable to the community as a whole. I am pleased that the opposition supports this bill and that the further restrictions on the content of the X classification has its full support.The honourable member for Barton, in the context of the reference to the NVE title, rightly points out that we as legislators have to look at substance and not simply at labels. This, of course, is completely at odds with the opposition's attempts to then condemn the government for not proceeding with the NVE classification. The government's decision not to proceed with the creation of a new NVE classification for sexually explicit videos means that the current X classification will be retained. This decision was taken after careful consideration. Contrary to the allegations of the honourable member for Barton, the government consulted the states and territories in reaching its decision. It also took into account the recommendations in the report on the bill by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. The decision to retain the X title reflects concerns that have been expressed that the title did not accurately reflect the material contained in the category. What is important is that, consistent with the censorship principles agreed to by all Australian governments and in accordance with the government's original intentions, certain sexually explicit material without any form of sexualised violence or coercion will continue to be available to those adults who wish to access it.The main feature of the government's proposal is to restrict further the content of the X classification. This is in addition to the restrictions imposed in 1984, 1988 and again in 1996. Although they had previously been agreed to in principle, I have now obtained the formal agreement of state and territory censorship ministers to these additional restrictions, which came into force on 18 September this year. The further restrictions include excluding any form of violence whatsoever, certain fetishes, sexually aggressive language and the portrayal of people over the age of 18 as minors. Given the material excluded from the X classification over the period since its introduction in 1984, these further restrictions are significant. The honourable member for Barton, who has just come into the Main Committee room, referred to staffing issues on the Classification Board, with particular reference to the need to ensure that the board is properly resourced and that members of the board are selected on merit. The membership of the Classification Board fluctuates over time as members complete their appointments or depart to take up other opportunities. The government moved to fill vacancies on the board and appointed a deputy director and 11 members to the Classification Board in September 1999 and two senior classifiers in June this year. I assure the honourable member that all those appointed to the board by this government have been assessed under a rigorous selection process and have been appointed on merit.The sudden death of the previous director, Ms Kathryn Paterson, in September 1999 was tragic and unforeseen. The government moved to replace her as quickly as possible and appointed a new director, Mr Des Clarke, in April 2000 following a merit based selection process. I am pleased to note that the Office of Film and Literature Classification has continued to provide high quality services to the industry and the community through this period, making difficult judgments while balancing often competing interests. I commend the members of the Classification Board and I am confident that the Office of Film and Literature Classification is well able to meet the challenges ahead.The honourable member for Hughes referred to strengthening the warnings contained on X-rated videos, with particular reference to children. I was interested to note that the Senate committee also included this issue in one of its recommendations. I have already taken up the issue raised by the honourable member with censorship ministers and the Office of Film and Literature Classification, and consultations on the wording are continuing.The X/NVE issue is only a small part of this bill, which contains many improvements of a procedural and technical kind that will benefit the community and industry alike. I am particularly pleased that measures in the bill will make a contribution to the continued availability in Australia of material with limited market appeal. I am also pleased with the proposed expansion of the right to seek a review of a classification decision. Once the bill is passed, state and territory legislation will need to be amended. We expect this process to commence following passage of the Commonwealth's bill.The member for Lowe asserted in the course of his speech that decisions of the Classification Board do not reflect standards that are generally accepted in the community. I take issue with that assertion. Recent community assessment panel research indicates that in a majority of cases the board in fact reflects the community view. Panels in Perth, Adelaide and Bendigo agreed with decisions of the board and those findings were consistent with the previous findings of panels conducted in Sydney, Brisbane and Wagga Wagga. Last Friday, 6 October, the Attorney General for South Australia and I launched the report on the Perth, Adelaide and Bendigo panel assessments. I commend that report to the Main Committee. The act requires the board to be broadly representative of the Australian community, and the government takes great care to ensure that this is so. I commend the bill to the House.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.21396Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.13:00:0021396Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I move government amendments Nos 1 to 22 as circulated:(1) Schedule 1, item 5, page 4 (line 4), omit “, 41A”.(2) Schedule 1, item 14, page 8 (lines 15 and 16), omit the item.(3) Schedule 1, item 16, page 8 (line 30) to page 9 (line 6), omit subsection (2), substitute: (2) Subsection (1) does not require an application for a reclassification of a publication, film or computer game under section 39 or a reclassification of a publication or film under section 97A.(4) Schedule 1, item 33, page 13 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item.(5) Schedule 1, item 47, page 18 (lines 24 and 25), omit the item.(6) Schedule 1, item 50, page 19 (line 14) to page 20 (line 13), omit the item.(7) Schedule 1, item 51, page 21 (line 5), omit “NVE”, substitute “X”.(8) Schedule 1, page 22 (after line 7), after item 53, insert:53A Paragraph 53(a)Omit “24 or 30”, substitute “23A, 24, 30 or 44A”.(9) Schedule 1, item 57, page 22 (line 26), omit “14, 16, 33, 42, 47, 49, 50”, substitute “16, 42, 49”.(10) Schedule 1, item 58, page 23 (lines 4 to 8), omit the item.(11) Schedule 1, item 59, page 23 (lines 9 to 20), omit the item.(12) Schedule 2, item 2, page 24 (line 13), omit “, X or NVE”, substitute “or X”.(13) Schedule 2, item 3, page 24 (line 17), omit “, X or NVE”, substitute “or X”.(14) Schedule 2, item 4, page 24 (line 21), omit “, X or NVE”, substitute “or X”.(15) Schedule 2, item 6, page 24 (line 28), omit “, X or NVE”, substitute “or X”.(16) Schedule 2, item 7, page 25 (line 4), omit “, X or NVE”, substitute “or X”.(17) Schedule 2, item 8, page 25 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item.(18) Schedule 2, item 9, page 25 (lines 7 and 8), omit the item.(19) Schedule 2, item 10, page 25 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item.(20) Schedule 2, item 11, page 25 (lines 11 and 12), omit the item.(21) Schedule 2, item 12, page 26 (line 7), omit “NVE”, substitute “X”.(22) Schedule 2, item 15, page 26 (lines 14 and 15), omit the item.I tender a supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House with amendmentsMain Committee adjourned at 1.01 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing21397The following answers to questions were circulated:21397(Question No. 1742)174221397Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MossfieldMK6GreenwayALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: (1) What is the total sum of grants given by the Commonwealth Government to the University of Western Sydney (UWS) in each year since 1995. (2) What is the projected sum of total grants for each of the next three years. (3) What sum has the Commonwealth Government given to UWS under Commonwealth research funding schemes in each year since 1995. (4) What is the estimated sum of grants to be given to UWS under Commonwealth research funding schemes in each of the next three years. (5) For each year since 1995 how many research students at UWS were (a) in Commonwealth funded places and (b) full fee paying students. (6) What is the estimated number of research students at UWS for each of the next three years who will be (a) in Commonwealth funded places and (b) full fee paying places. (7) How do the figures referred to in parts (1) to (6) compare with (a) other regional universities and (b) the “Sandstone” universities.21397Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth Government has given the following total sum of grants (ie. operating resources, research grants and capital pool) to the University of Western Sydney (UWS) in each year since 1995 (2000 figures are current determined amounts as at 31 July 2000, excluding marginal funding). 199519961997199819992000$192,352,764$205,810,069$208,291,892$202,432,888$200,245,479$202,208,121 (2) Total grants funding for future years has not been determined. (3) The Commonwealth has given the following sum to the UWS under Commonwealth research funding schemes in each year since 1995 (2000 figures are current determined amounts as at 31 July 2000, excluding marginal funding). 199519961997199819992000$2,334,613$2,492,423$3,354,108$2,866,887$3,810,251$5,166,121 (4) Research funding is provided to institutions through various formula-driven and application-based schemes. As the amount is based on the performance of institutions and individuals, the variations between one year and the next can be significant. Therefore, projections of research funding for each institution are not undertaken. (5) (a) Commonwealth-funded research student loads (expressed in rounded Equivalent Full-Time Student Units) from 1995 to 1999 follow. Figures for 2000 are not yet available. 19951996199719981999433488542576589 (b) Full-fee paying research student loads (expressed in rounded Equivalent Full-Time Student Units) from 1995 to 1999 follow. Figures for 2000 are not yet available. 199519961997199819997574857299 (6) Research funding is provided to institutions through various formula-driven and application-based schemes. As it is based on performance of institutions and individuals, the variations between one year and the next can be significant. Therefore, projections of research student load for each institution are not undertaken. (7) (a) The figures for regional universities (as listed in the Government's White Paper, Knowledge and Innovation: A policy statement on research and research training) for parts (1) to (6) above are as follows. (1) Total sums of grants (2000 figures are current determined amounts as at 31 July 2000, excluding marginal funding). 199519961997199819992000$1,164,460,916$1,317,562,720$1,344,245,956$1,326,100,834$1,312,335,773$1,284,713,491 (2) See answer to (2) above for the UWS. (3) Sums under research funding schemes (2000 figures are current determined amounts as at 31 July 2000, excluding marginal funding). 199519961997199819992000$58,229,371$67,585,808$73,082,331$65,787,829$73,715,192$70,823,557 (4) See answer to (4) above for the UWS. (5) Research student loads (expressed in rounded Equivalent Full-Time Student Units) follow. Figures for 2000 are not yet available. (a) in Commonwealth funded places 1995199619971998199938214001426343474512(b) full fee paying students 19951996199719981999851794789822897 (6) See answer to (6) above for the UWS. (7) (b) The figures for the ”Sandstone” universities for parts (1) to (6) above are as follows: (1) Total sums of grants (2000 figures are current determined amounts as at 31 July 2000, excluding marginal funding). 199519961997199819992000$2,115,028,911$2,222,368,026$2,240,200,942$2,258,567,959$2,228,052,537$2,222,996,841 (2) See answer to (2) above for the UWS. (3) Sums under research funding schemes (2000 figures are current determined amounts as at 31 July 2000, excluding marginal funding). 199519961997199819992000$220,355,284$255,566,735$263,899,137$311,295,088$285,452,225$278,614,841 (4) See answer to (4) above for the UWS. (5) Research student loads (expressed in rounded Equivalent Full-Time Student Units) follow. Figures for 2000 are not yet available. (a) in Commonwealth funded places 1995199619971998199911,45111,71612,12812,20812,401 (b) full fee paying students 199519961997199819992,2662,2032,1912,1562,446 (6) See answer to (6) above for the UWS.21399(Question No. 1743)174321399McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: Is he, his Department or anyone on his behalf aware of international aviation safety incidents occurring as a result of aircraft landing or taking off in cross winds of 25 knots or more; if so, what are the circumstances of each incident.21399Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has advised that a search on its occurrence analysis and safety information system database for the past 5 years revealed one relevant incident involving an Australian registered aircraft. On 8 January 1998, a Boeing 767 operating a scheduled passenger flight out of Christchurch, New Zealand suffered a tail-skid strike. Conditions on departure from Christchurch, NZ had been very gusty, with a crosswind of 32 knots. None of the crew suspected that there had been a tail strike during the takeoff. Examination of the recorded flight data indicated that crosswind and turbulence were present during the takeoff. No person was injured or killed in this occurrence and the aircraft damage was assessed as minor. ATSB has further advised that searches of safety databases of foreign agencies have revealed three relevant accidents or incidents during the past five years involving large jet passenger aircraft. In 1999 a MD-11 aircraft overturned on landing at Hong Kong in a crosswind which was gusting up to 34 knots. The aircraft was destroyed as a result-of this incident. In 1997 a B757 aircraft ran off the runway in a crosswind of 35 knots while landing at Schipol Airport in the Netherlands. Similarly, in the same year a B747 aircraft ran off the runway when landing at Seoul in South Korea in a crosswind of 25 knots. There was substantial damage to the aircraft in both of these incidents. The International Federation of Airline Pilots' Associations (IFALPA) has recently raised concerns about carrying out operations in cross winds of up to 25 knots. Given these concerns I have asked the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to undertake a review of this matter in conjunction with the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and Airservices Australia.21399(Question No. 1745)174521399McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: (1) Has the Airline Pilots Association designated Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport as a red star airport; if so, why. (2) Will he investigate the concerns of the Airline Pilots Association; if so, what action will he take.21399Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes,- the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations (IFALPA) has written to me on matters concerning Sydney Airport, principally the 25 knot cross wind limitation, and advised that it has designated Sydney Airport as a `red star' airport. (2) I view very seriously any safety concerns raised by airline pilot organisations and I have directed the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to review their concerns as a matter of priority, in conjunction with Australian Transport Safety Bureau, Airservices Australia, and the aviation industry. The review is in progress.21400(Question No. 1748)174821400McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: (1) Did the Prime Minister in answer to a question without notice (Hansard, 5 June 1997, page 5101) describe the closure of the St George Campus of the University of New South Wales as a decision of the governing authority of the University implementing the very clear government policy of greater autonomy for universities. (2) On 11 March 1999 did he in a press release support the transfer of the site to Trinity Grammar for the establishment of a school, commenting that students from southern Sydney remain well served by higher education. (3) Did he meet with Senator Tierney on 21 June 2000 to talk about the St George Campus. (4) Did Senator Tierney ask him to consider releasing Federal funds to ensure a continuation of a tertiary presence at the St George campus. (5) Are Federal funds to be released to ensure a tertiary presence on the campus; if so, what sum and when will the money be released.21400Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In answer to a question without notice from Mr McClelland relating to the St George campus of the University of New South Wales on 5 June 1997 the Prime Minister stated: `My understanding of the situation is that the decision to close the campus was taken by the governing authority of the University of New South Wales. There is a clear policy of granting autonomy to universities. That is a policy of the government: a very clear policy. The decision was taken by the ruling authority of the University of New South Wales.' It is assumed that the remaining questions are directed to the Minister for Education Training and Youth Affairs; (2) Yes. (3) No. (4) See (3) above. (5) No Commonwealth funding has been allocated to any university to ensure a tertiary presence on the campus.21400(Question No. 1767)176721400Hatton, Michael, MPMr HattonLN6BlaxlandALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: (1) Is the Minister's Department and agencies within the Minister's portfolio compliant in respect of the Goods and Services Tax. (2) What action did the Minister's Department and agencies within the Minister's portfolio take to ensure that they were GST ready by 1 July 2000. (3) Is the Minister able to guarantee that no agency within the Minister's portfolio will suffer negative impacts on its budget or services due to the GST; if not, or if the guarantee was subsequently proved incorrect, would the Minister be prepared to resign.21400Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The chief executives of each agency within my portfolio provided me with a written assurance that the agency would be compliant with The New Tax System from 1 July 2000. (2) My department and portfolio agencies assessed the requirements of The New Tax System legislation as it affected them and their stakeholders, ensured that their systems and business processes were adapted or modified to meet these requirements, and communicated with major stakeholders on implications on their relationship with the depart-ment/agency. Staff training and progress reporting were also key factors in implementing the GST. (3) Implementation and management of tax reform by agencies is the responsibility of their respective chief executive officers or boards of management. While the Government will continue to monitor the impact of the implementation of A New Tax System, the reforms are not expected to reduce the level of funding of agencies in this portfolio in real terms. To ensure this however, my department and portfolio agencies will review some of their business practices and adopt Australian National Audit Office best practice. The answer to the second part of the question is no.21401(Question No. 1866)186621401Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 28 August 2000: (1) Is Ministerial discretion an adequate mechanism in meeting Australia's fundamental commitments to refugees who may have failed in their applications for refugee status before the Tribunal, in cases where there is evidence that these people may be subjected to persecution in their home country. (2) Has his attention been drawn to criticisms from the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre citing serious concerns about a lack of transparency and accountability in the operation of Ministerial discretion; if so, how does he respond to these criticisms. (3) Does he have enormous latitude in ministerial discretion matters; if so, what processes are in place to ensure that ministerial discretion operates in an effective and equitable manner.21401Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) I am aware of the claims made by the Refugee and Immigration Legal Centre (RILC). I have issued comprehensive guidelines which are publicly available, identifying the types of matters which I have directed my Department to draw to my attention. The Migration Act 1958 sets out the requirements for accountability. The Minister is obliged to cause to be laid before each House of the Parliament a statement that: (a) sets out the decision of the Tribunal; and (b) sets out the decision substituted by the Minister; and (c) sets out the reasons for the Minister's decision, referring in particular to the Minister's reasons for thinking that his or her actions are in the public interest. (3) The Migration Act 1958 provides the Minister with the power to substitute a more favourable decision if the Minister thinks it is in the public interest.21401(Question No. 1867)186721401Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 28 August 2000: (1) Does the Minister believe that the operation of ministerial discretion satisfies Australia's international obligations under conventions such as the Convention Against Torture (CAT), the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as well as the Refugee Convention. (2) Has his attention been drawn to claims by Amnesty International that without incorporation into domestic law, people seeking protection under conventions such as CAT and the ICCPR would have no recourse to enforceable rights or obligations. (3) Will the Government move to incorporate the provisions of such international conventions into Australian domestic law; if not why not. (4) Is he able to say whether the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee recommended in its report A Sanctuary Under Review that in the future “appropriately trained DIMA staff consider all s417 requests and referrals against CROC, ICCPR and CAT”; if so, why has this not been standard procedure in the past. 21402Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) My public interest intervention powers under sections 351, 391, 417 and 454 of the Migration Act already enable Australia to meet its CAT, ICCPR and CROC obligations as they relate to the removal of non-citizens. None of these Conventions requires the codification of obligations in domestic legislation. (4) The Committee made such a recommendation. This is already standard procedure.21402(Question No. 1868)186821402Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 28 August 2000: (1) Did he release a Press Statement on 10 August 2000 stating that Australia had returned 22 people to China less than one month after they landed illegally in Cairns; if so, considering Australia's international commitments to the UN International Convention on Civil and Political Rights to protect those escaping oppressive foreign regimes, what was the basis of his statement that these 22 people had no claim to remain in Australia. (2) Did these 22 people claim refugee status under Australia's international humanitarian guidelines; if not, what was their reason for escaping China and risking the dangerous boat journey to Australia. (3) If these people did seek refugee status, were these requests processed through the proper departmental channels for asylum seekers. (4) If these people were processed and rejected within one month of their arrival, why does it take up to two years to process the claims of those asylum seekers held in the various detention centres around Australia.21402Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. None of the 22 raised claims that prima facie may have engaged Australia's international obligations. (2) No. As with many other unauthorised arrivals from the region, they were drawn by the false promises of people smugglers about jobs and opportunities. (3) Not applicable. (4) Not applicable.21402(Question No. 1883)188321402Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 29 August 2000: (1) Why have up to 80 detainees at Woomera Detention Centre, many of whom are victims of extreme levels of persecution in their homelands, become distressed enough to violently protest and cause severe damage to the complex. (2) What is the average length of time these protesting refugees have spent in mandatory detention. (3) In light of these protests, and the public demonstrations that occurred in detention centres all over the country, does he recognise a growing movement of public disenchantment with the Government's policies of mandatory detention.21403Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) I am not in a position to state, categorically, what was in the mind of the detainees and what motivated them to riot recently at Woomera. I can advise, however, that various reasons have been suggested to me. These reasons include the gap between misinformation provided to these people by people smugglers and the reality of what Australian law requires with respect to the treatment of unauthorised arrivals; detainees being unhappy about the length of time it is taking to carry out the necessary identification, health and security checks to process their applications; and those detainees, who have been screened out during the assessment process, not wanting to return home. (2) The process of identifying those involved in the riot at the Woomera IRPC is continuing. I am advised that, as of 8 September 2000, of the 7 against whom charges have been laid: . 3 arrived in November 1999; . 3 arrived in February 2000; and . 1 arrived in March 2000.Of the 22 persons currently being held at the Adelaide Remand Centre: . 2 arrived in November 1999; . 2 arrived in January 2000; . 17 arrived in February 2000; and . 1 arrived in April 2000. (3) The requirement for unauthorised arrivals to be detained arises from a law passed by the Parliament in 1992. The policy rationale for the law is to ensure the availability for processing of persons who arrive in Australia having circumvented usual immigration visa requirements. I am aware that some persons and groups in the community oppose the current law, but also note very strong widespread community support for it. Many people have also expressed their abhorrence of the actions undertaken by detainees involved in rioting at the Woomera IRPC.21403(Question No. 1884)188421403Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 29 August 2000: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the significant public demonstrations at the Villawood and Maribyrnong Detention Centres on 26 August 2000. (2) Is there a gap between Government policy and public sentiment on mandatory detention, especially in the light of approximately 2000 public protesters at these rallies. (3) Will he re-consider the Government's policy of detaining all refugee migrants who do not have the opportunity to apply for a visa before entering Australia. (4) Will he respond to the public criticism of the mandatory detention policy from organisations including the United Nations, the National Council of Churches, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Amnesty International and the Refugee Council of Australia.21403Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) The requirement for unauthorised arrivals to be detained arises from a law passed by Parliament in 1992. The policy rationale for the law is to ensure the availability for processing of persons who have arrived in Australia having circumvented usual immigration visa requirements. I am aware that some persons or groups in the community oppose the current law. However, judging from the volume of correspondence I have received since the Woomera riots, letters to the editor in newspapers across the country and calls on talkback radio, I believe that the substantial majority of the Australian population supports the government's stance. (3) The Government has no plans to propose changes to the legal obligation to detain all unauthorised arrivals. This law has bipartisan support within the Parliament. (4) I have responded both publicly and directly to the organisations mentioned, in relation to criticism raised about the policy of detaining unauthorised arrivals. Such criticism has misinterpreted Australia's policy and practice, misunderstood the aims of such policies and failed to focus on the issue as part of the broader context of mass irregular movements of people. I would also note the Joint Standing Committee on Migration (JSCM) undertook a review of detention arrangements in 1994. The committee considered a number of alternatives to mandatory detention including the release of detainees into the care of community groups. The committee raised serious doubts about the feasibility of the alternatives that were being proposed. Since that time no viable alternative propositions have been put forward.21404(Question No. 1885)188521404Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 29 August 2000: (1) Has he consulted with welfare organisations, including the Australian Greek Welfare Society and Co.As.It, which are facing funding cuts up to $100,000. (2) Has his attention been drawn to growing public sentiment including that exemplified in The Age editorial that older migrants should be allowed to enjoy a small slice of the prosperity they helped create and that the Government should review this decision. (3) What are the implications of the funding cuts he authorised to various welfare communities around Australia to the coherence of our multicultural society. (4) What is the justification of these cuts to essential services for people who require welfare assistance to survive within their community. (5) Is he concerned at the furore created by these unjustified cuts, as exemplified in the headlines of ethnic newspapers such as Neos Kosmos and Il Globo.21404Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. Last year, my Department discussed the funding priorities of the Community Settlement Services Scheme with the Australian Greek Welfare Society (AGWS) and Co.As.It when they were advised of their funding for 1999-2000. I also met with a representative of AGWS in March this year. Both organisations were aware that they needed to find more appropriate sources of funding. (2) I am aware of the reactions to my decisions to grant funding under the Community Settlement Services Scheme. I have received letters, both positive and negative, regarding my decisions. I have also read the press reports of community reaction, including The Age editorial of 25 August 2000. (3) The outcome of my decision to make grants according to the advertised priorities of the Community Settlement Services Scheme means that funding was directed to meet pressing settlement needs. The decision was made on advice from the locally convened Funding Advisory Committee, comprising Federal and State representatives. The funding decisions will enable new migrant communities, rural and regional migrants, and refugee and humanitarian entrants, to participate more equitably in Australian society. The Community Settlement Services Scheme also provides funding to meet additional settlement needs, such as those experienced by the aged in established communities. Under this priority group in Victoria, the AGWS have received $214,742 and Co.As.It $210,883 over two years. This substantial amount of funding will ensure that mainstream services are assisted to provide specialist ethno-specific services to the Greek and Italian communities in Victoria. (4) Funding under the Community Settlement Services Scheme is limited. The Scheme aims to address the most pressing needs, with priority given to the group described in (3). Funding priorities change over time, and these priorities are advertised and described in more detail in the guidelines for applicants. This means that the funding is not recurrent or guaranteed, but is assessed each year according to the advertised priorities. (5) The response of any community currently receiving funding and whose application for funding in the following year is reduced or unsuccessful is likely to be strong. As I have identified, however, the Community Settlement Services Scheme is not the most appropriate source of funding for all of the needs described in the applications by AGWS and Co.As.It. I am pleased to advise that the Greek and Italian communities in Victoria have been able to secure separate, additional funding from the Department of Health and Aged Care as part of the Ethnic Aged Care Framework. Under these funding arrangements, AGWS will receive $109,246 and Co.As.It will receive $98,711. The Ethnic Aged Care Framework provides more appropriate support than the Community Settlement Services Scheme for communities seeking to address aged care needs.21405(Question No. 1916)191621405Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 4 September 2000: Is it possible to apply the new SES methodology for the funding of non-government schools to the government sector; if so, what discussions has he or his Department had with their State and Territory counterparts on this matter.21405Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The new SES funding arrangements apply only to Commonwealth funding of non-government schools. Commonwealth general recurrent grants for government schools are provided as block grants to government school systems. The Commonwealth has no direct role in the distribution of this funding to government schools. This has always been the responsibility of State and Territory governments. There have been no formal discussions with State and Territory governments about the possible application of this SES methodology to Commonwealth funding of government schools.21405(Question No. 1947)194721405Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 September 2000: (1) With respect to the Sydney Airport pricing proposal, why was the industry consultative meeting scheduled for 10 August 2000 cancelled at the request of Sydney Airports Corporation Ltd (SACL). (2) When will the Revised Draft Proposal be available for review by the airlines. (3) Will the airlines be guaranteed an opportunity to review and comment on the SACL revised Draft Proposal before it is submitted to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission for determination. (4) To what extent is the Minister's office and the Minister's Department consulted in finalising the SACL pricing proposals. (5) Should the SACL include as part of its pricingproposal a Service Level Agreement with airport users, including compensation to airlines for any failure by SACL to deliver services to the specified standard.21405Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) to (5) The matters raised fall within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for Finance and Administration to whom I note you have also directed the question.21406(Question No. 1949)194921406Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 September 2000: (1) Further to the answer to question No. 1698 (Hansard, 28 August 2000, page 17728) concerning the aircraft noise levy scheme, will the Government consider providing for registration of property titles to confirm that renovation under the scheme has been completed in order to avoid double dipping that has occurred under the scheme. (2) If so, will the Government guarantee that such a registration scheme is established in Adelaide prior to the commencement of renovation work so as to ensure that airlines and the Government are not held liable for the costs of replacement work where there had been interference with the original work. (3) Will the Government complete a report called for by the Sydney Airport Community Forum regarding (a) how many builders taking part in the program are on probation, (b) what happens if insulation is removed or downgraded through either age or change of ownership and (c) the scope for covenants on titles to protect the noise insulation qualities of houses: if so, (i) who will complete that report, (ii) will it be made public and (iii) when will it be completed.21406Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows. (1) No “double dipping” has occurred under the Sydney Airport Noise Amelioration Program, and the arrangements for delivery of the program are designed to avoid such an outcome. The Commonwealth Government does not have power to register information of the nature suggested on property titles. My Department intends discussing the issues involved with the relevant State Government authorities and Local Councils to see what options are available to provide information on whether properties have been insulated to potential purchasers. (2) See answer to question (1). (3) (a), (b) and (c) I am advised that the matters covered by this request were discussed at the Sydney Airport Community Forum meeting on 7 July 2000. As a result of those discussions the Department of Transport and Regional Services was requested to examine the issues further and prepare a paper on options for requiring disclosure of insulation status to prospective homebuyers. A report on that issue will be provided to the Forum for consideration at its next meeting.