2000-11-073917REPS2226302000-11-07—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Questions Without Notice222632226314:00:0022263Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, I refer to your claim yesterday that you have kept your election promise to cut small business red tape in half. Have you seen the response from small business spokesman, Rob Bastian, in which he said:How the hell can he say that. I would say that the paperwork has increased exponentially. You would be hard pressed to find a single business owner who agreed with the PM.Prime Minister, if the head of the small business association thinks you have broken your red tape promise, why shouldn't everybody else?22263Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I stand by the remarks I made yesterday.2226314:02:0022263Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of comments yesterday concerning the future of the federal government's very successful 30 per cent private health insurance rebate?22263Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—It is often not what is said but what is not said. Yesterday afternoon after question time the Leader of the Opposition issued a media release on health insurance. I am delighted that, finally, the opposition has been able to put out something on the coalition's 30 per cent rebate, although it is interesting that the Leader of the Opposition had to do it and that the shadow minister for health still has not issued any press release or statement on the 30 per cent rebate. The Leader of the Opposition said this:... I have made clear that Labor will retain the 30 per cent private health insurance rebate, with no means test or cap.I do not apologise for warning people about the threats to the coalition's 30 per cent rebate posed by a Beazley Labor government. I am glad to hear that they do not intend to impose a means test or a cap. But what one has to look at is the Labor Party's record on this issue. In early August, on Sunday Sunrise, the shadow minister for health attempted to convince Glenn Milne that the 30 per cent rebate was going to stay. She reiterated this several times while, at the same time, people were being briefed that Labor were going to change it and that their policy process was certainly looking at chopping the 30 per cent rebate. We still do not have any detail on how the Labor Party would address the coalition's 30 per cent rebate. The Leader of the Opposition has specifically failed to rule out the following: excluding ancillaries from the rebate so that the rebate would be paid only on premiums for hospital cover; excluding health insurance products with high front-end deductibles; making ineligible those products with exclusions; introducing some form of grandfathering, which is a very real possibility, so that the rebate would apply only to existing fund members, not new fund members; paying the rebate only on the base rate premiums; or imposing a GST on health insurance premiums to pay for their roll-back of the GST. So there are six possible things that could still be introduced under the Leader of the Opposition's so-called denial.We know that the Australian Health Insurance Association has been trying to get information out of the Labor Party since February. They wrote to the Leader of the Opposition in February, asking him what his plans for the coalition's 30 per cent rebate were, but they did not get a reply. They wrote again in June, but they did not get a reply. They wrote again in August, but they did not get a reply. They wrote again in September, but they did not get a reply. They wrote a fifth time to the Leader of the Opposition attempting to get something in writing and, in the first couple of days of this month, they are waiting for a reply. I have to tell them that I would not be too optimistic if I were they. If the Leader of the Opposition is serious about retaining the coalition's 30 per cent rebate in its current form, then, at the end of question time, he will put on the public record what Labor's plans are. He will rule out the six possible things that could still be tampered with, which would destroy the essential nature of the rebate. If he does not, every Australian will know what he is up to. 2226414:06:0022264Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. What action has the minister taken concerning the reports on Friday that the Western Australian state cabinet has reached an agreement with the AMA in that state to require public hospital patients to declare whether they have private health insurance and, if so, to be treated as private patients? Can the minister confirm that such a scheme would be in breach of the Australian health care agreements, which provide for the whole community to have access to the public hospital system as public patients if they choose? Will you urgently require the Western Australian government to stop this latest effort to destroy Medicare?22264Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I am not aware of the details of the proposal, but the Australian health care agreements make it quite clear that a Western Australian government will have to offer choice. I do not believe that they would do anything to alter that, and I would see your comments in the light of a forthcoming state election.2226414:07:0022264Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer update the House on progress in implementing the new tax system? What effect would alternative tax policies have on Australian business?22264Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Menzies for his question. As he knows, the first quarterly business activity statement is due in on 11 November, which I believe is Friday.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—You believe! You do not have a clue!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Hunter is defying the chair!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The member for Hunter must have had another generous lunch, like his father before him. It is due in on 11 November, which I believe is Friday.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Treasurer is entitled to be heard in silence. He has the call, and that courtesy will be extended to him.CT4Mr COSTELLO—One of the options available to small businesses remitting on a quarterly basis is the derived from accounts method, which is available for people who take their GST off a computer program or from accounts otherwise, which produces the actual GST payable on sales with the credits from GST which has already been paid in respect of supplies received. Businesses that use the derived from accounts method are able to take just the amount payable on sales, the credit from what they have paid on their inputs, and remit the difference. The business activity statement also asks about total sales, exports, GST for supplies and acquisitions, but only for the purposes of national accounts. They can be taken directly off the accounts without filling in the whole of the calculation sheet. I was also asked about alternative tax policies in relation to GST and the business activity statement. I made the point yesterday, and I will make it again, that the Australian Labor Party—notwithstanding the fact that it would like to try and use the business activity statement for more illegitimate and populist complaints—actually supported the introduction of the PAYG system. The PAYG system requires a business activity statement to work. I was rather amused by the last question that was asked of the Prime Minister, on record keeping, because when the Australian Labor Party supported PAYG, it actually supported it as a measure to cut business paperwork. The Australian Labor Party would now stand up and say, `What are you doing to cut business paperwork? Look how bad the BAS is.' The Australian Labor Party's policy is to support the BAS as a paperwork reduction measure. I take that from the policy of the Australian Labor Party before the last election—`A fairer tax system with no GST'. The Australian Labor Party, when it supported the introduction of PAYG and the BAS, said: Employers will still act as collectors of taxes under the new withholding arrangements. These will be integrated into the quarterly remittence schedule applying under the PAYG.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—They don't believe you! CT4Mr COSTELLO—This is your policy! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition interjects in a rather animated way! This is your policy! This is what the Labor Party said when it was supporting the introduction of PAYG. It said it would support the introduction of PAYG and the BAS and that, `This move will facilitate a reduction in paperwork.' The Labor Party policy was to support the introduction of PAYG and BAS `to facilitate a reduction in paperwork and hence compliance costs'.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—We didn't have the GST, you goose!CT4Mr COSTELLO—The poor old Deputy Leader of the Opposition now complains about his own policy which he had before the last election to reduce paperwork. It is another example of an opposition which has no principle, which is buffeted by populism, being prepared to campaign against itself to make these illegitimate complaints.2226514:13:0022265Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, will you now absolutely rule out allowing the Western Australian government to require all privately insured patients to be treated as private patients?22265Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—Yes.2226514:14:0022265Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of recent analysis of alternative school funding policies? Is there any support for these policies, and what is the minister's response? 22265Kemp, 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 Dunkley for his question. The schools funding legislation, which is now in the Senate, is the largest single investment in government and non-government schooling that has ever been made by a federal government. The legislation is supported by all major religious groups and all major ethnic communities in Australia. It is supported throughout rural and regional Australia and by all organisations representing non-government schools, which have worked for years to put in place a fair and objective measure upon which school funding can be based.It is fair to say that school communities around Australia are watching with disgust and growing anger as the Labor Party and the Democrats toy with their future, throwing around ill-considered amendments that would politicise school funding and damage education. The Democrat amendments announced yesterday would cut some $285 million out of school funding next year. For all we know, the Labor Party may well support those amendments. The amendments are so ill-considered that the Democrats are calling for the states to register all schools before they receive Commonwealth funding—a measure that has been in place for years. No school receives funding unless it is registered by a state government.The Labor Party only wants to cut funding to a particular group of schools—a group of schools that includes many serving low to moderate income communities. For example, I notice that Minimbah Primary School, in the electorate of the member for Dunkley, has written to Labor members urging them to visit the school before they slash its funding. Under Labor's policy Minimbah would receive $595 per pupil. Under the coalition's policy, it would get $2,340 per pupil, much less than the government school down the road but nevertheless a very significant increase in funding. The Labor Party want to slash this school's funding because it is a school in category 1. Nobody could say that this school serves a wealthy community. It shows the complete bankruptcy on which the Labor Party's amendments are based.These funding cuts would be repeated across Australia if the Labor Party and the Democrats had their way. What strikes you about these amendments coming from the other side of the House is the sheer arrogance of those who claim that they know better the interests of those in the non-government sector than those in the sector itself, which supports the legislation. Nobody except the Labor Party and their usual cohort of 120 celebrity supporters opposes the government's legislation. I looked at the list of 120 celebrities who have apparently come out in support of the Labor Party's view. Many of the names on this list look strangely familiar: Sharan Burrow—Shazza is there, the President of the ACTU; Denis Fitzgerald—Dezza is there as well—the head of the Australian Education Union; two discredited and failed Labor premiers, John Cain and Joan Kirner; and a host of the usual suspects—a swag of ABC journalists, commentators and actors. I also counted five comedians on the list. However, the prize for the over-the-top arrogant comment about this legislation must go to former Family Court judge John Fogarty on Radio National this morning. The bill is the largest school funding bill for government and non-government schools ever to go through the federal parliament but, according to Judge Fogarty, the bill will `entrench marriage breakdown, child abuse and long-term unemployment'. We should be grateful that it is not causing disease or making Australia a target in nuclear war! This is how nonsensical the debate has become. It is time for the Labor Party and the Democrats to stop these arrogant and insulting manoeuvres. The Senate should get on and pass this bill as soon as possible in the interests of all government and non-government school students in Australia.2226614:19:0022266Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Can the minister advise the House what action he has taken to ensure prompt investigation of the serious allegations of medical fraud in Western Australia? Can he confirm that the Health Insurance Commission has not begun an investigation and has not received a copy of the audit reports from Western Australia? If the minister has failed to take any action, can he explain why? Or is the public entitled to draw the conclusion that a lack of action on his part is intended to serve the political interests of the Liberal state government, which of course is facing a state election?22266Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I do not condone medical fraud in any form whatsoever. I cannot give them to you off the top of my head, but if you want to have a look at the figures I am happy to provide them to the House later on, because I did ask for them previously. The fact is that the amount of money recovered for Medicare fraud in real terms is up in the four years of this government compared with what the Labor Party did in the 13 years they were in office. So we have acted far more swiftly and more toughly on medical fraud than the Labor Party ever did.The second point is that the Health Insurance Commission's investigative powers grew out of changes to the act by the Labor Party because the Federal Police were deemed not to be an appropriate body to look into this highly technical area. So the Health Insurance Commission was taking over a police power. At the time, it was seen as quite inappropriate for a minister to get involved. Given that the Health Insurance Commission has been able to recover more money under Medicare fraud in the four years I have been health minister, I have absolutely every confidence that it will deal with this properly, and that it is dealing with it more vigorously than ever happened while Labor were in office.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—I seek leave to table a copy of three audit reports which document the widespread rorting of Medicare in Western Australia. I ask that the minister give them to the Health Insurance Commission and request that they start an investigation.Leave not granted.2226614:22:0022266Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, would you update the House on the progress of the federal government's Medical Rural Bonded Scholarship Scheme?22266Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I am thrilled to be able to tell the honourable member that this historic piece of legislation passed through the Senate yesterday. It passed through with no thanks to the Labor Party, who moved a series of amendments that would have made the bill completely unworkable and would have circumvented the aims of the original piece of legislation. I am pleased, though, to be able to say that the Australian Democrats supported the bill and it passed through unchanged. This is an enormously important piece of legislation that, from next year, will mean another 100 places in Australian medical schools for people who are committed to rural Australia. This will be ongoing—these 100 places will be provided each and every year. Within 10 years there will be a thousand people in the pipeline bonded to serve rural Australia. UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—When will they be serving rural Australia—six years; seven years?8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—The member for Paterson, with his corny interjection, actually makes a point that is worth talking about. In the last budget we provided $562 million over four years to address the rural health needs of country Australians. Spending next year will be of the order of $300 million a year—up from $100 million a year when we came into government. It takes short-, medium- and long-term solutions to fix this problem. We have put the short-term solutions in place with rearranging general practice training. We have put medium-term solutions in place with the John Flynn scholarships, HECS exemption and a variety of other mechanisms. This is a long-term solution. If someone had put in it place 10 years ago we would not have nearly the problem we do today. I make no apologies for trying to put in place a long-term solution to a very long-term problem. PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—It is Labor's policy.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Labor would like to take credit for this, but nothing could be further from the truth. The fact is that the Labor Party was proposing a scheme whereby doctors would be under no compulsion to actually work in rural areas. Some medical specialties earn very large amounts of money by community standards. People in some medical specialities in their early years out can earn $300,000 to $600,000 or $700,000 a year. A six-year bond at $20,000 a year or somewhere between $150,000 and $180,000 is not going to hold in the country someone who can earn $300,000 to $600,000 in their first year out. It is patently absurd. This innovative way of dealing with it through a Medicare provider number means that next year the Canberra medical school will get an additional 25 places and other medical schools will get between five and 10 places. People who are committed to country areas will find it easier to get into medical school, and we will be well on the way to fixing a very long-term problem.2226714:25:0022267Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. Minister, are you aware that your 1 April change to remote locality leave travel entitlements for Australian Defence Force members in the Top End is causing them to be out of pocket and is impacting badly on morale? Are you also aware that for Darwin based ADF members this entitlement used to be set at the full return economy airfare from Adelaide to Darwin less five per cent, whereas it is now set, inclusive of GST, at 62 per cent of this airfare? Are you concerned that the hundreds of ADF personnel in Northern Australia who deferred their leave prior to 1 April due to their serving in East Timor are now being forced to take their leave at the new cut rate? Minister, when are you going to fix this situation?22267Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for the Northern Territory for his question because it allows me to correct some of the misinformation that he has been peddling out there. Firstly, it is not the government that sets this entitlement. The member for the Northern Territory would well know that this is a responsibility of the command within the Australian Defence Force. IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPYT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—Let me also say that neither the intent nor the spirit of the entitlement has been changed.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Just the money.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory is warned!YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—The force member's entitlement for remote locality leave travel is an airline ticket to the nearest capital city within Australia and has not been a sum of money. I am sure that you have been informed that that is what the entitlement is. It is not a sum of money; it is an airline ticket. I am surprised that this question has passed the Leader of the Opposition's office because he is a former defence minister and would well know how the entitlement operates. Defence have arranged a contract with Qantas for travel. Through this process Defence pay no more than 68 per cent of the standard economy airfare. Therefore, this has become a normal part of departmental liability when members choose to offset the remote locality leave travel to travel by other means or to alternative destinations. The remote locality leave travel has generally been subject to FBT since 1986. The member for the Northern Territory has been in contact with my office. We have provided him with the information, and his misinformation is still being peddled out there. He ought to get himself across the issue. The remote locality leave travel entitlement has not changed and it is not the government that sets the entitlement.2226814:30:0022268Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the Australian government's view of recent positive developments on the Korean Peninsula? How will the minister's visit to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea next week assist in encouraging further progress on key issues of concern in this vital region?22268Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Hindmarsh for her question. As suggested in her question, next week I will be visiting North Korea's capital, Pyongyang. This is part of a general process of dialogue and engagement with North Korea that this government began a little over a year ago. Also, the government has been very impressed with the momentum of broader engagement with North Korea that has been taking place. We have seen the North host the landmark Korean leaders summit and North Korea join the ASEAN Regional Forum at its meeting in July. Members will be aware that US Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, visited Pyongyang last month and there is a possibility that President Clinton will visit soon as well. I also note that the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands recently announced that they would establish or restore diplomatic relations with North Korea.Much of what has happened on the Korean Peninsula in recent times is due to the efforts of the South Korean President, Kim Dae Jung, who has been acknowledged for his work with a Nobel Peace Prize. This government has, right from the beginning, given strong support to Kim Dae Jung's `sunshine' policy. It is a policy that has not always been popular in South Korea, but he was prepared to stick with it even when it was not popular, and it has turned out to be, I think, profoundly successful.Let us not forget that the process of engagement does have a long way to go. During my visit I will be trying to push the process forward. We are working with other countries, including the United States, to encourage North Korea to cooperate fully with the International Atomic Energy Agency to remove concerns about its nuclear ambitions. We also want North Korea to come to a settlement that deals comprehensively with the threat its missiles pose to the region and to the broader nonproliferation regime. I will also take the opportunity of discussing North Korea's humanitarian problems because North Korea does face chronic food shortages. To help, the Australian government has contributed about $23.4 million to UN led emergency appeals since the financial year 1996-97.I think this policy of engagement with North Korea is one well worth our while pursuing in the interests of stability in the Asia-Pacific region. A number of other countries are pursuing the same policy. Whilst there is a great deal of distance to cover yet before we feel fully comfortable with what is happening in North Korea, all of us in this parliament can take comfort from the progress that has already been made.2226814:34:0022268Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—My question is to the Attorney-General as Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs. Mr Attorney, following reports in last week's press, can you confirm that the Australian Federal Police's unit Operation Morocco, which is responsible for investigating child sex tourism, has been shut down? 22269Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the honourable member for Denison for his question and for his interest in the subject matter. As he well knows, the operational management of the Australian Federal Police is a matter under the control of the Australian Federal Police. In determining where to allocate their resources, they have regard to the demands and to the priorities, and any decision taken to allocate or reallocate resources is a matter for the AFP. It is not subject to political decision making or interference. In this case I understand that the priorities have been determined by the AFP and there is no need for that unit to be continuing as a separate unit. If there is any further information to be provided I will seek it from the Minister for Justice and Customs and provide the member for Denison with a further answer.2226914:35:0022269Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Is the minister aware of any information that indicates price changes for consumers after the introduction of the new tax system? Minister, are there any alternative views on the way that consumers may have benefited from the new tax system?22269Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Petrie for her very keen interest in this matter. I remind the House that last week we discussed the ACCC price surveys, which were a comprehensive assessment of the impact of the GST on prices after 1 July. At that time we were looking for similar surveys across the Labor Party frontbench. We found one at the web site of the member for Lilley. I think we all remember that.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—You were wrong.DK6Mr HOCKEY—Oh, I am wrong! The member for Lilley stood up after question time and said, `In fact, we have done an August survey,' and he waved around a newsletter, which was not on his web site. Why would the member for Lilley not even seek to table the newsletter? I just happen to have come across a copy of the newsletter and, lo and behold, the price survey is not on the first three pages; it is on page four of the newsletter. I had a look at the survey and, in fact, there are figures for August. As you pan down the list of supermarkets, there are 28 supermarkets listed with information provided by 27. Of the 27 supermarkets surveyed in the electorate of Lilley, 26 were cheaper after the introduction of the GST. So Franklins, Woolworths, Hypermarket, Bi-Lo and Coles were all cheaper after the introduction of the GST. What a surprise that the member for Lilley did not want to table it in the House! What a surprise that the member for Lilley did not put it up on his web site! When you look down the list, you find there is one supermarket where prices have increased after the introduction of the GST. It is located in Nundah, which is right around the corner from the member for Lilley's electorate office. It is called Food For Less—in fact, it should be `Food For More' but it is Food For Less. The interesting thing is that the survey is run by the member for Lilley. There are his mates in Queensland—the mates who are giving evidence before the CJC—and you can just imagine one of his mates coming into his office and the member for Lilley saying, `Can you go down to Food For Less and do a survey?' Of course, he goes down to Food For Less and, as his previous instructions have been `Just add a few extra digits', on this occasion he added a few extra digits. So Food For Less turns out to be more expensive than every other supermarket in Lilley. The Labor Party has been hoist on its own petard here. In the words of the member for Lilley, after the GST has been introduced, the people living in his electorate are better off than they were before the GST. Mr Speaker, I am happy to table the newsletter. If you do not mind the annotation here, `Swan is a goose', I am happy to table it. 2226914:39:0022269Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Minister, are you aware that Telstra has stated that all its call centres will now have a minimum of 150 staff? Does this not mean that 98 people employed in call centres in the member for Page's electorate and 44 in the member for Cowper's electorate are likely to lose their jobs? Minister, can you tell the House why you support Telstra's job loss plan, as well as its further privatisation? 22270Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The first point that I would feel obliged to make in this place is that I really just cannot afford to take at face value any claim made by somebody from the opposite side in relation to the speculation—the second point—about changes in the way Telstra run and where they run their call centres. Telstra have made it plain that they regard rural and regional areas as often very attractive to run call centres from and have not given any clear indication to me, or to anybody else that I am aware of, of where they will go in net terms. But they have made it plain that there is likely to be an expansion in the attractiveness of call centres being placed in rural and regional areas. When you talk about the telecommunications industry looking at something like a $3 billion investment in infrastructure in rural and regional and remote Australia and when you look at how anyone with even a basic understanding of the future for rural and regional Australia—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—Jobs!4K4Mr ANDERSON—And jobs as the member for Dickson keeps interjecting—you would know full well that the key to it is world-class telecommunications. That is what it is all about. That is where the jobs are being generated. That is where they will be in future. If the ALP had its way as far as rural and regional Australia is concerned, we would still be living in the days of stagecoaches and `Your three minutes are up, sir; are you extending?' approaches to telephone calls. That is where you would have us—you really would. The reality is that we need cost-competitive, world-class telecommunications in rural and regional Australia. In the end, that is where the best opportunities for maximising jobs and investment in rural and regional Australia will come from in the future. 2227014:42:0022270Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is to the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. Is the Minister aware of comments made on the Four Corners program last night from representative timber communities? I quote:Well, he simply speaks the workers' message.The message that they used to hear from the Labor Party once, they now hear it from Wilson Tuckey.It's a simple straightforward message which gives a mix of concern for the forests and all the values we hold dear, but also holds jobs, people and communities in high regard. It's a great message.It used to be the one the Labor Party and the union movement spoke to the world.Can the Minister advise the House of any initiatives that will promote growth and new employment opportunities in the Australian timber industry? Is the Minister aware of any alternative policies?84GWilkie, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Swan is out of his seat.22270Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I can advise the House that that quote is completely accurate and no-one needed to fake the letterhead or the words that are contained therein! It again raises the issue of truth in labelling regarding the true status of a political party that still masquerades under the name of Labor. We have all these scare stories coming out, with fake letters and fake letterheads; that was said by somebody who represents the workers and who has made it clear that it is this side of the House that is acting in their interest. Both the member for Eden-Monaro and the member for Gilmore will also be delighted to know that their active representations on behalf of their workers in their electorates have now succeeded in getting agreement between me and the New South Wales government in regard to the last regional forest agreement in that state—the southern region. The long and drawn out negotiations delivered another 6,000 cubic metres of sawlog to the industry, and that represents 100 workers who would otherwise have been sacked. We know very well that that is not of concern to the people on the other side. There has not been one criticism of Premier Beattie buying two sawmills with taxpayers' money for one reason and one reason only—to sack the 100 workers that were employed there. The same members and all those other members of this side of the House that come to me with representations on behalf of workers in forest industries will also be pleased to know that last week was the first meeting of the Action Agenda's Forest Products Advisory Council attended by, amongst others, a representative of the CFMEU—and a very great contribution was made. That body will of course be passing on through me to the ministerial council meeting to be held this Thursday night their views and their support—DT4Crean, Simon, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned.SJ4Mr TUCKEY—for a national forestry standard and for better control of our forests so that we do not see another million acres burnt out as has happened in New South Wales this year. Finally, we will spend a lot of time talking about getting pulp and paper mills back into Australia and cooperating with the states, doing all the environmental inquiries now so that we do not have another farce like that that occurred in Tasmania, where the Labor government did not have the wit to overcome the problems that have arrived there environmentally. All they wanted to do was get scientists to prove why we could not have that facility. We find people complaining we have not got enough paper in this country when, through Labor's own actions, workers were denied jobs and people who require paper have to import it from other countries.2227114:48:0022271Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question without notice is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, are you aware that the member for Groom has told ABC Radio that the government has `failed to nail down any success in terms of regional development and moving regional issues forward'? Are you also aware that the member for Lindsay has told ABC Radio that the problem is that your cabinet is `city-centric'? Are you also aware that the member for Hume has told ABC Radio that the regional portfolio should be taken away from you? Minister, when are you going to act on the calls of your colleagues and start standing up to your city-centric Liberal colleagues in cabinet?22271Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. It reflects the fact that the opposition's MPI is on this today, run by the member for Paterson over there. Presumably they have noted that today is Melbourne Cup day and have chosen a day when rural and regional issues, which they apparently seek to highlight today, will not really be the focus of a great deal of attention, which I think reflects pretty accurately Labor's concern for rural and regional Australia. There they were at their national conference in Hobart, and so important was rural and regional Australia to the ALP that the Leader of the ALP could not even mention rural and regional and remote Australia. But then he does, of course, have his two secret weapons, the two ex-ACTU presidents, who are his `mechanism', if you like—the two `popular' people in rural Australia that are going to win the bush back! The question is absurd, really.There was a question a moment ago about Telstra. One of the useful things that we have been able to do in relation to telecommunications policy was to set up something that the ALP never did, and that was to set up the RTIF, Networking the Nation. The member for Fraser described the RTIF as `nothing more than a slush fund'. The Labor shadow minister Stephen Smith referred to the projects as `bribes for the bush'. These are not actually particularly old quotes like the ones we heard a few moments ago from people like the member for Groom. It is interesting that when the Leader of the Opposition finally got out into regional Australia, he wandered into the Portside Online centre in Tasmania—84GWilkie, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Swan is warned.4K4Mr ANDERSON—and he said:I haven't seen anything like this before. It has attributes which suit exactly the sort of vision that we have for regional Australia. Someone had to point out to him then that he had voted against it. He had voted against it! That is the problem with the ALP. Whether it has been our ensuring that, through restoring the nation's books, we were able to achieve that most important objective for rural and regional Australia, getting inflation and interest rates under control; whether it has been in programs like the Natural Heritage Trust, Networking the Nation, the social bonus, the $600 million plus for regional health, which the Minister for Health and Aged Care talked about, to address the problem that is a direct result of the failures of those opposite to plan for health in rural and regional Australia in the past; whether it has been initiatives like the Regional Solutions Fund, the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy, or a whole range of very worthwhile initiatives—the reality is that Labor's performance pales into total insignificance when it comes to any contrast with the things that the coalition government has delivered for rural and regional Australia.2227214:52:0022272Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Would the minister inform the House of the continued growth in auto exports from Australia. Would he also inform the House of any threats to Australia's auto industry exports. 22272Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for his question. The House will be interested to note that this year the export of vehicles and automotive parts out of Australia has increased by 36 per cent, to $3.8 billion. The Australian automotive industry is one of the great success stories of Australian exporting industries. Motor vehicle exports grew by 44 per cent, to $1.9 billion, last year, into some interesting markets and out of areas of much needed employment in South Australia and Adelaide and out of Melbourne in Victoria, where the member who asks the question comes from. It is interesting to note that in the last 12 months those motor vehicle exports grew to $1.9 billion compared to the last year of a Labor government in this country when there was only $550 million worth of motor vehicle exports. Under the coalition, exports of motor vehicles have risen by an average of 29 per cent a year, to 85,000 units last year. During Labor's last year of office in 1995-96, there was only one passenger vehicle exported to the Middle East—one single, solitary vehicle. Last financial year, under our government, 55,910 motor cars were exported from Australia to the Middle East—$1 billion worth. We went from one car to $1 billion worth, and it had nothing to do with the Labor Party. The Labor Party get out there and say, `Oh, it was all the Button plan.' It just so happened that you were expecting the people of Australia to believe that the automotive industry—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman!SU5Mr VAILE—in Australia got the Button plan, slipped it into the drawer for 10 years and then pulled it out when they got some decent economic management and got into the export market. That is a lot of rubbish. The Australian exporters will not believe the Australian Labor Party when they put that on. Just to finish off the point, I was in South Africa recently with a trade delegation. We are about to start exporting Holden motor cars from Adelaide into South Africa. We will come back here in 12 months time and see those figures increased again. And it has nothing to do with Labor Party policy; it has everything to do with the economic management of our government and the industry policy of our government. The member for Fraser can laugh all he likes, but it has nothing to do with your policies in the 1980s. It is the economic management we have generated in this country. As the Treasurer pointed out yesterday, the figures post June of this year in terms of domestic demand and consumption have been increasing. The Labor Party warned that the sky was going to fall, that there would be no market for motor cars in Australia. In July the figures were up by 26 per cent, in August by 21 per cent and in October by 10 per cent. On top of that, there were fantastic export figures that are generating more and more jobs for Australians today and into the future. 2227314:56:0022273Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs LIVERMORE83ACapricorniaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, are you aware that 14 of the jobs being cut by Telstra's fully owned subsidiary, NDC, are located in the Rockhampton region in my electorate of Capricornia? Minister, have you drawn to Telstra's attention the Prime Minister's Nyngan declaration, which is supposed to protect jobs and services in regional Australia? Or do you stand by your claim yesterday that the Nyngan declaration does not apply to even a partially privatised Telstra.22273Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—I thank the honourable member for her question. As usual, they try and put words in your mouth. We have canvassed these issues quite extensively in this place; we really have. As I indicated earlier, the problem is that the ALP never really had anything in the way of a customer service guarantee, for example, when they were in power. They had nothing at all when they were in power. We put that in place. They did nothing to quantify—to go out and establish—what services were available and where they were inadequate, as we have done with the Besley inquiry, as a result of which we are now moving to plug those gaps. When they were in government, what did we have? The reality is that we had no say in it; there were no sanctions for poor delivery by Telstra; there was no commitment by them to upgrading. As I say, it was not so very long ago that a lot of rural and regional Australia, when those opposite were in power, were still on the ALP's party lines where, after three minutes, you would get a polite voice interjecting and asking you whether you wanted to extend. The truth is that people do not want to live in a stagecoach age any more.83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order is on relevance. How is this faintly relevant to a question about the application of the Nyngan declaration to the loss of jobs at NDC near Rockhampton?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Have you had any emails lately?83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—He'll get his email finished soon.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—At least he uses emails and not telegrams.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman is warned! The Deputy Prime Minister was responding to a question about telecommunications and job availability—83ERipoll, Bernie, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Oxley is warned! The Deputy Prime Minister was responding to a question about telecommunication location and the impact on regional jobs, and his comments were entirely relevant to the question asked.4K4Mr ANDERSON—The fact is that the key to job opportunity expansion insofar as it involves telecommunications in rural and regional Australia is the quality of the services and the capacity to tap into world-class technology as it becomes available as soon as possible, and I think that is pretty widely acknowledged, even though the ALP does not want to acknowledge it.In relation to the 14 jobs with NDC in the Rockhampton region, I think there are a couple of points that were made yesterday that need to be reiterated. The first is that all but 12 of the 400 positions, including all positions in regional Australia, will be voluntary redundancies. The second—this is a very important point that has to be made that reinforces what I am saying and undercuts the ALP's outdated approach to this— is that employment growth in the communications sector has increased by over 12 per cent in the two years to December 1999. This is a very rapidly growing sector of the economy, and not only is jobs growth rapid in that sector but also it is quite evident that investment and job opportunities will depend largely on that investment in other industries as the economy changes and as the changes in the economy reach into rural and regional Australia.2227315:02:0022273May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Would the minister inform the House of how the government has made it easier for families to claim youth allowance? 22274Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—Conscious of time, I am very pleased that last night the Family and Community Services (2000 Budget and Related Measures) Bill 2000 went through, which is going to give a vast amount of new assistance, particularly to families in regional and rural Australia. The major area is for those young Australians between the ages of 16 and 25 and their families with the changes to the assets test where the percentage of the youth allowance to be disregarded will be 75 per cent. Now many more family farming families, and particularly families with businesses, will be able to access youth allowance. Youth allowance has been a terrific initiative by the coalition government—7,200 young Australians that were not eligible before will now get access to youth allowance. This is in addition to the $254 million extra that we put in a few years ago for youth allowance where 65,000 more students are eligible for youth allowance and are getting rent assistance that they never got from the Australian Labor Party. The other important element of the bill passed last night was in child care. In a more flexible arrangement, 7,700 more children will now get access to child care who could not get access before with in-home care, which is particularly important to families in regional areas which never had access to child care. The terrific thing is that 577,000 children now have access to child care—an increase of about 100,000 since the Australian Labor Party were in government. The Isolated Children's Parents Association are here today, and we welcome you in Canberra as you do your lobbying. We certainly appreciate the comments that you have made about the Howard-Anderson government for its commitment to the provision of child-care services for families in rural and remote areas. The Australian Labor Party never did anything for rural and remote Australia. We know that. When you look at youth allowance, 265,000 were eligible back then and there are over 300,000 now eligible under our government. The question has to be asked: are you going to be rolling back that provision? We know the only resonance that you have with regional and rural Australia is because of the member for Lilley, who likes cooking—cooking the books with his AWU mates in getting more people on the electoral roll.2227415:05:0022274Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Are you aware that 12 of the jobs being cut by Telstra's fully owned subsidiary NDC are located in my electorate of Bendigo? Have you drawn Telstra's attention to the Prime Minister's Nyngan declaration, which is supposed to protect jobs and services in regional Australia? Or do you stand by your claim yesterday that the Nyngan declaration does not apply to even a partially privatised Telstra?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The question seems to me to be remarkably similar to a question that has already been answered in full—ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—Another location.5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—Different electorate.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—One of the extraordinary things I find in occupying this chair is the instant judgment that comes from members. If I may be allowed to conclude my statement—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—I used to find that too.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I can understand that. I am reassured that the Chief Opposition Whip, and I would have thought the member for Cunningham, and I find this very much in common. If I may be allowed the courtesy of concluding a sentence without interruption, those on my left would have heard me say that the question is remarkably similar to a question I would have regarded as answered in full but for the fact that it refers to a different telecom location. I will allow it to stand. I call the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services.22274Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The ALP spent 13 years rolling back the delivery of services in rural, regional and remote Australia. By any standard, we have been doing a very good job indeed in rolling out a whole new range—in a whole new depth of quality and variety—of services that governments can help deliver in rural and regional areas. 2227515:07:0022275Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Because cotton is such an important commodity in many parts of Australia, especially in Bourke, Warren and Narromine in my electorate of Parkes, would the minister comment on the state of the cotton industry in Australia? Would the minister outline to the House the level of exports that this industry is achieving and how it is managing to adapt to future trends?22275Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The world cotton committee is meeting in Cairns at the present time and the Australian government has been instrumental, actually under the initiative of the Deputy Prime Minister when he was agriculture minister, in attracting this important event to Australia. There are 400 delegates present. The cotton industry is one of Australia's most successful rural industries, as the honourable member has just mentioned, and they were able to announce at this conference that Australia's projected crop next year will be 3.38 million bales, the fourth year in a row that our production will exceed three million bales. We are the third largest exporter in the world, with 90 per cent of our cotton going overseas. This industry is indeed a buoyant one that is doing exceptionally well.Mr Prime Minister, you will be interested to know that they are especially supportive of your initiative announced on Friday in relation to salinity and water quality. It is an industry that is very dependent upon reliable supplies of irrigation water and they are very keen that the states and the communities work together to achieve those objectives. On the other hand, they are very critical of the New South Wales and Queensland Labor governments, which have failed to honour their commitments to the COAG agreement signed in 1994 to give water licence holders secure long-term and compensatible property rights. It is unfortunate that those state governments do not recognise how important the cotton industry is to their economy and to rural and regional Australia. This is one of the success stories and it is important that governments and communities work together to build on their achievements to guarantee their export income for the future.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice22275222752227515:10:0022275Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I seek to add to two answers, the first regarding the WA government. The WA government have informed my office there is no such proposal as the member for Jagajaga alleges. There is in fact a proposal to make gaps less and thus promote private health insurance, for which they should be commended.The second thing is that I did say I had seen figures on Medicare benefits recovered by the Health Insurance Commission from state hospitals over the 12 years of Labor. It averaged $35,800. That is in 1999-2000 dollars. Over the four years I have been minister it has averaged $228,000, a 636 per cent increase. Labor's figures were brought down by a disastrous three-year period between 1990 and 1993 when they recovered only $81 a year on average from state hospitals—and of course I would not blame Brian Howe for that. In this sort of job you rely on your advisers and people should reflect on who was advising Brian Howe when they only got $81 a year recovered.Personal Explanations2227515:11:0022275Mr SWAN,MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?2V5Mr SWAN,MPMr SWAN—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.2V5Mr SWAN,MPMr SWAN—During question time the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation said that my newsletter said that families would be worse off. The lead paragraph says:Local families and pensioners are reeling from the impact of ... daily rises in the prices of petrol. Secondly, he sought to misrepresent the prices in supermarkets in my electorate and those in Petrie again. If I could just quote from the newsletter, it says: Since the introduction of GST—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—No, the member for Lilley has indicated where he has been misrepresented. He cannot advance an argument.2V5Mr SWAN,MPMr SWAN—Mr Speaker, he said—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—He has indicated—2V5Mr SWAN,MPMr SWAN—that of the 19 items the ACCC predicted—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lilley will resume his seat. He has the right to indicate where he is misrepresented, not to advance an argument.Documents2227622276Reith, 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.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I think it would suit the convenience of the House if the chair were to be resumed at 3.40 p.m.Sitting suspended from 3.12 p.m. to 3.40 p.m.Matters of Public Importance222762227610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Paterson proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The need for the government to stop taking a city-centric view of regional development policy.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—15:40:0022276Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—If we ever needed a measure of the arrogance of this government, it was at question time today when the Deputy Prime Minister ridiculed the opposition because we had the audacity to move a motion related to regional development on the day of the Melbourne Cup. He said that no-one would be listening.People out in the country areas of Australia have been listening for four years to this government as it keeps throwing out the rhetoric and telling the people of Australia what they are going to do—but never doing it. This is a government that offers to all of rural and regional Australia great promises about lifestyle, jobs and services, but it never seems to get there. We do not have to go too far to find references; they are easy to come by. The Prime Minister, in his Nyngan address on 31 January this year, said:I don't want to see any further services, government services levels withdrawn from or taken away from the bush.Remember: that was the prelude to the red light statement—the red light flashing in his office. He went on:... we seek to preserve the social infrastructure of rural communities because they are part and parcel of what it is and has always been to be an Australian, and to imagine the Australia that I grew up in without those rural communities as viable economic and social entities is really to think the unthinkable.We could go to comments made by the Deputy Prime Minister when he addressed the National Farmers Federation on 16 May this year. I quote:... the special focus on transport taxes in our new tax system will mean that the transport costs embedded in all products will fall, particularly for regional Australians who rely so heavily on road and rail transport.He went on to say:Alternative fuels will also attract grants that maintain their price relativity to diesel ... We also made a commitment that petrol prices would not need to rise under the GST—that famous quote. The Hon. Richard Alston, Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, proud of his service delivery to rural and regional Australia, issued a press release on 12 October this year entitled `Australia's telecommunications services comparable to the best in the world.' He states:However ... some consumers in rural and remote Australia still have concerns about some key aspects of the telecommunications services available to them ... I could go on selecting statements, carefully chosen from what the Prime Minister and his ministers have said when they have professed care for rural and regional Australia, but all we find is rhetoric, and it is not put into practice—not one jot. Yesterday, the opposition learned that Network Design and Construction Limited—a wholly owned subsidiary of Telstra—is about to lay off 400 workers on the eve of Christmas. Where will the job losses be? Virtually every one of them will be in rural and regional Australia—from towns like Albury, Armidale, Mildura, Bunbury, Maryborough and Roma, where you would expect that it would be very difficult for a person who lost their job on the eve of Christmas to find a replacement job. In my own regional city of Maitland—in an area that already has the misfortune to have well above average unemployment—30 jobs will go.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr Hawker—Unemployment is coming down.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Unemployment is certainly not coming down. I am talking about the city of National Textiles. You may remember that because it was earlier this year. So much for rural communities being part and parcel of Australia. So much for communities in rural Australia being the viable economic and social entities that the Prime Minister so lovingly talked about back in January. This government makes bold and visionary promises—whether those promises are about fuel, jobs or telecommunications—to rural and regional Australia and then does exactly the opposite. It is rural communities that are suffering. Let us consider what this government has done to rural communities. How long has it been since one of the coalition ministers visited a dairying region just to see the effect of dairy deregulation?4G4Downer, Alexander, MPUU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Great! Have you been home lately? Or are you too busy overseas? I can tell you about the dairy farmers. Mr Speaker, I wonder whether the minister has been there.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson is inviting the Minister for Foreign Affairs to interject. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will not respond to the invitation.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I was talking to a dairy farmer last Thursday evening. Despite the fact that I was visiting the area for reasons other than dairying, he took me aside and asked, `Are you aware of what this has done to our community? Is the minister aware that, in a town like Dungog, $14 million will be lost annually because he sought to deregulate the dairy industry?' How long has it been since the Deputy Prime Minister talked to the contractors who are paying in the order of $1.10 per litre for their diesel? They certainly do not get the 24c a litre rebate. How long is it since the minister went out there and spoke to people who committed a couple of thousand dollars to convert their petrol vehicles to LP gas because they were told that alternative fuels would be treated favourably under the new tax system? They are now paying between 55c and 60c for LP gas—a fuel that is sourced right here in Australia but for which we have to pay world parity prices.How long is it since the Hon. Richard Alston went out to a remote community where they do not have access to mobile phone services; where virtually every phone call in some areas is an STD call; where access to the Internet is difficult, if it is available at all; where breakdowns are common because cables are laid over the ground, simply because they have to wait for a trenching machine to come in maybe once a year? I am pleased to see that a regional member for Queensland, Mrs De-Anne Kelly, is here. She knows very well that it may take 12 months to get a new service. That is what has happened to telecommunications in Australia under this government.How long has it been since the Minister for Health and Aged Care visited a small community in rural Australia where access to medical services is severely restricted? There are small communities in my electorate. In one small community in particular—it is hardly remote; it is half an hour from Newcastle—one of the local GPs closed his doors only last week. He had been advertising for three years to get a partner to come in. He could not do so, and he has closed his doors because of ill health. That community is now without the services of a doctor. The government continually parades as a government that serves the people of rural and regional Australia. How long has it been since the Minister for Aged Care visited a small community where aged people requiring constant nursing care have to leave their homes and families to get aged care services and therefore have to spend the remaining weeks of their lives apart from loved ones? I dare say it has been a long time, if ever. Perhaps I should ask how long it has been since the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business visited a mining community to see how they are thriving and to convince them that the 4,000 jobs and the $247 million in wages the industry lost in the last 12 months—minus six per cent—was good for the communities in which they live? Yet he will come in here and he will continue to parade before this parliament and tell us how good things really are for this country.Dare I ask how long it has been since the Prime Minister or his minister for education visited a small town where there is only one secondary school, which is probably losing enrolment because the town is losing population? It will, therefore, under this system, be losing funds because of the EBA. Could the Prime Minister and the minister for education go to that town and convince those people that their education policy is good for that town because it gives them choice? A choice of what? There is only one school in the town. The only choice they have is whether they send their child to that school or not at all because, undoubtedly, with declining incomes in rural Australia those people could not afford to send their children to King's or Grammar.It does not matter how you measure up the performance of the Howard-Anderson government. I like the way the Minister for Community Services, the member for Richmond, has named this the `Howard-Anderson government'. It certainly gives the National Party a bit of responsibility for what this government is not doing for rural and regional Australia. The Howard-Anderson government is ignoring the needs of rural Australia. It is overseeing a constant and devastating decline in jobs and quality of life in rural Australia. Its policies are creating hardship and are reducing the competitiveness for small business people in rural Australia. But, above all, this government can be identified as a government that is controlled by city based ministers and bureaucrats and is completely out of touch with rural dwellers.The Deputy Prime Minister stood up here yesterday and claimed that the Prime Minister's Nyngan declaration was about the delivery of services, not about the delivery of jobs. If the Deputy Prime Minister cared to go back to rural and regional Australia he would realise that there will be no need for services in rural Australia because, if the policies of this government continue, there will be no people. That is what it is about. This government are overseeing the depopulation of major regional towns and communities—towns about which in his Nyngan declaration the Prime Minister said that to think of them being removed from the fabric of Australian society was unthinkable. This cabinet, this Prime Minister, this Deputy Prime Minister, this coalition, need to get out there and communicate with rural and regional Australia. They need to understand the hardship that they are bringing unnecessarily by their legislation and their lack of empathy with rural people.I live in a rural electorate. I represent rural people. It does not matter where I go, I hear of the increasing tales of hardship. I hear of the lack of access and the lack of ability to get to a hospital or to a doctor, of the lack of choice that children have at the local school, of the high cost of services and food and of the inability to access the Internet. These are the things that I hear on a daily basis as I move around the electorate. People ask me what the Howard government are doing about it and, unfortunately, the answer is always the same: they are ignoring it.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr Hawker—That's okay; you can sit down now.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—I will sit down. I am happy to sit down because of the message I have delivered. But I will be happy to repeat this message often if this government continue to ignore the people of Australia who live outside metropolitan areas. I can assure you that the people of Australia will remember the actions of this government at the next election. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Tell us about petrol prices.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman might be aware of his status in the House following question time.15:55:0022279Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—Firstly, could I congratulate the jockey who rode Brew in the Melbourne Cup—a nice young fellow. The first thing he did was to thank mum, dad and nanna. Isn't that Australian? Isn't that country? A nice young fellow on one of his first rides and he won. And wasn't he gracious—a real Australian. So congratulations to the jockey and to Brew. It was a great race well won.Opposition members interjecting—FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Funnily enough, that was from the shadow minister for agriculture. Horses do not run on fuel; they actually eat hay. But you expect these silly comments from people who could not even dredge up the shadow minister for regional services and transport to speak. Is he speaking? I do not think so. We heard the member for Paterson, for whom I do have some regard. It must be difficult for the member for Paterson to have to defend 13 years of Labor and a policy-free zone on regional development from the opposition. But let us talk now about—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Petrol.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—We will get to that. Don't worry: we are going to do you on petrol, as we have already. IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for the Northern Territory might remember that the status that was placed on him at question time applies for the day.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—We are going to do you on petrol, but let us have a little talk about this book. It is about 62 pages longer than the ALP's policy for rural and regional Australia. It is not full of blank pages. In fact, we actually have a policy. It is called Regional Australia: making a difference. It was presented by the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, who actually does respond to questions. Where is your shadow minister? I do not see him here. He is probably too busy in Melbourne. He does not spend a lot of time in regional Australia. I have not seen him in my area—for which I am quite grateful, I might add. But we have had Bowser Bob from Paterson, and it was very good to have him leading the debate.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—It is not Bowser Bob; it is foghorn10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister for Foreign Affairs, the member for Dawson has the call and will refer to members by their electorate.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Mr Speaker, I apologise for that. When you look through the appendix of the book, which is a table of the government's new budget measures for regional Australia, you find that in 2000-01 the total expenditure will be $326 million. In 2001-02 it will be $440 million. These are additional measures—not the total sum; additional measures. In 2002-03 it will be $507 million and in 2003-04 there will be an additional $553 million. The total of that leading up to the year 2004 is $1.8 billion—$1.8 billion of additional measures for rural and regional Australia.Let us have a quick little look—it will not take long—at what the Labor Party did in their last four years. Did they spend a billion? No, they did not. Did they send half a billion? No, they did not. They spent $40 million on regional services per year over four years. The numbers tell the story—it is always the numbers. You can give a big, loud hot-air address, but you did not deliver. You did not have the money. I think the member for Paterson is well intentioned. It must be so embarrassing to come from regional Australia, as the member for Paterson does, and to have to say, `We didn't do it when we were in government. We spent $40 million a year. We know you are going to spend $1.8 billion over four years.' It must be embarrassing for him to have to do this. Well, we are going to make you suffer a bit more.I do not even see the shadow Minister for Transport and Regional Services in the chamber. He is not here for the debate. The debate is so unimportant that he is not here. He is obviously busy looking at the Melbourne Cup results, because he comes from Melbourne. Again, it is an embarrassment for the member for Paterson. It is so hard to be city-centric and try to run a debate like that. It must be embarrassing to claim that the government is city-centric when your shadow minister, who comes from the heart of Melbourne, cannot be bothered to come in for the debate. It is a bit self-defeating, isn't it? 0K6Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr Bartlett—Where is he?FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—He is busy with Melbourne so he will not be here. On our side, we have a lot of very capable people who come from rural and regional Australia. I am surrounded by them here. We do not have to look far when we look for somebody to run transport and regional services. We have the member for Gwydir who lives in the heart of rural and regional Australia. He actually does come into the chamber for debates.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—He lives at Red Hill.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—He is responsible for the $1.8 billion, in total, over four years, which does not compare with your $40 million a year.UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson knows he has been granted a great deal of latitude, and he will exercise some more restraint.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Yes, he has. There is not a lot of money by the Labor Party but a great deal of latitude by the Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dawson, I hope, was not reflecting on the chair.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Indeed not, Mr Speaker. I have the greatest respect for the position of Speaker. Let me quote the member for Paterson in some of his freer moments. The other side likes to mention fuel. I refer to the second reading debate of the Diesel and Alternative Fuels Grants Scheme (Administration and Compliance) Bill 1999. Remember: this is the one that delivered cuts of the order of $2 billion to rural and regional Australia. The member for Paterson did not support the bill. The member for Paterson said—and this is the classic; this is where we went back and redressed the damage that Labor had done on fuel because fuel excise went up 5c a litre every year under Labor:This is an ineffective piece of legislation. It does not move towards either a more certain future for the transport industry—it did actually: about $2 billion worth—or a more environmentally friendly industry. It does not guarantee any reduced costs.In my electorate it does. The poor man cannot count. It gets better. What did the shadow Assistant Treasurer say about the very same bill? Another big representative from rural and regional Australia—the shadow Assistant Treasurer—said, `Put simply, the bill is a farce.' City-centric?—you guys have got to line up to take the prize. The bill delivers for our people $32 billion in fuel excise and reduced costs in regional transport, as those opposite well know. I feel very sorry for the member for Paterson. I say to the member for Paterson: you are so embarrassed. You have a frontbench that cannot turn up for the debate and you have a shadow Minister for Transport and Regional Services, who comes from the heart of Melbourne, who is not here. You are doing your best but you just do not have the support. You don't have seats in rural and regional Australia. Your record is appalling. We are delivering $1.8 billion over four years and what did you manage to find?—$160 million. When speaking to the bills that delivered for rural and regional Australia, that redressed the damage of the Hawke years, your shadow Assistant Treasurer said, `The bill is a farce.'I feel sorry for the member for Paterson. He is well intentioned but he has been let down by his party and by his shadow ministers. It is hard in Paterson. It must be hard to walk down the street saying, `Hey, I represent regional Australia, maybe not for much longer'—although I do not wish that on the member for Paterson and I will not get personal—`but we have a policy for rural and regional Australia. We haven't found it yet. In fact, we haven't found the shadow minister yet because he wasn't there for the debate.' It must be hard to say, `The government are delivering $1.8 billion over the next four years. They have done things like establishing the Regional Solutions Program.' It must be hard to say, `They spent 90 per cent of their roads budget in non-urban areas, they are really city-centric, but don't look at our shadow frontbench.' UU5Horne, Bob, MPFK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Yes, they did. Let me tell you about some of the things you didn't do in my electorate when you were in government over 13 years. There was the Ron Camm bridge, the upgraded Elliott River bridge, bypasses and works. What about black spots? What do you say when people say to you, `What about black spots?'10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Actually, the occupant of the chair is supportive of the Black Spots program, but you should address your remarks through the chair.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. I know you are a great supporter of the Black Spots program, which has addressed 1,490 deadly black spots Australia-wide. The Labor Party abolished the program—a real lifesaver, looking at deadly situations where there has been loss of life, and they abolished it. That does not sound too city-centric to me. We are going to put $41 million into the Black Spots program, just one of all of the programs in the book before me. The opposition go on and on. We have put in $1.8 billion worth. There is no doubt that the government have the numbers in terms of dollars spent on rural and regional Australia. We actually have a minister who comes from rural and regional Australia, who turns up for debates, unlike the shadow Minister for Transport and Regional Services, who has probably gone outside. He is not here. He did not leave the debate. He has a policy free zone.Let me quickly run through some of the initiatives. I cannot run through them all in the remaining five minutes, but I will try my best. There is the Regional Solutions Program, $90 million, and the National Action Plan for Salinity and Water Quality, $700 million.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—Plus $700 million from the states.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—That is right. There is $240 million for the stronger families and community strategy, $562 million for the More Doctors Better Services package and a $38 million extension in the full Medicare to GP services. We are looking at a $309 million extension of the Agriculture—Advancing Australia scheme and $2 million for the Year of the Outback. They are both very worthy initiatives. There is $20.7 million for the Community Development Employment Program and $45 million for the dairy adjustment package. I would remind the member for Paterson, who talks about dairying, that the deregulation of the dairy industry was driven by a state government in Victoria where the shadow minister for regional services and transport comes from. It was the Commonwealth that in fact came up with the compensation package. And for my own area—I could not let the mighty seat of Dawson and the sugar industry pass—there is $83 million for the sugar assistance package. And I am greatly appreciative, as my farmers are, to the Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson, for the work he put in and for the support of the Prime Minister on this. They are not city-centric; they recognise the importance of rural and regional Australia and the sugar industry. When you add up these initiatives, they come to $2.84 billion. I think the figures speak for themselves.There is an absence of support, unfortunately, on the opposition benches. And the fact that the shadow minister could not be here speaks for itself. It is busy in Melbourne today and he could not be here to speak about rural and regional Australia. He left it to his well-intentioned parliamentary secretary, who I think must be vastly embarrassed by the figures, the lack of policy and the fact that he is a deputy to a shadow minister who cannot even turn up for the debates. We are going to continue. We have some great plans to 2004 for rural and regional Australia. The government are going to be there to deliver on them. We know who is city-centric. As I said, I think the member for Paterson must be vastly embarrassed. It must be so difficult to have to defend the opposition when they never delivered over 13 years. They obviously do not care for rural and regional Australia. The factions won the day and it went to the member for Batman. The government are doing a good job for rural and regional Australia and are going to continue to do it. We have delivered on every issue and we will continue to do that. 16:10:0022282Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I noticed when I came into the chamber this afternoon that there was a paper aeroplane on the desk of my friend the member for Corangamite. I remember thinking to myself, `My God, he must have been bored before I got here,' and then I realised that it was probably one of his speeches that could not fly because it was pretty flat! I participate in this MPI debate on the need for the government to stop taking a city-centric view of regional development policy and to talk about the Howard government's treatment of rural and regional Australia—in particular, that famous flashing red light in the Prime Minister's office.There are three main streams to this government's regional development policy: (1) slug everybody with a GST, (2) make it easier for employers to sack people and (3) make workers in regional Australia work for less than their city counterparts. These are the three cornerstones of Australian coalition philosophy for regional and rural Australia. Remember the famous Nyngan address back in January this year? I am sure members do, but I will refresh their memories by quoting it again. The Prime Minister said: I don't want to see any further services, government services levels withdrawn from or taken away from the bush. I indicated yesterday and again this morning in Bourke that one of the things that I've asked all of my Ministers to do—and I'm in the process of writing to each of them—and I gave instructions for that this morning when I spoke to my office in Canberra, that in any future Government decisions that, in effect, a red light flashes if that Government decision involves a reduction in the delivery of an existing Commonwealth service.Telstra yesterday announced 400 jobs to be axed from its subsidiary, NDC. Most of these 400 jobs will come from regional Australia. When the Howard government came to office, there were almost 800 full-time Telstra jobs in central Victoria. Now the figure is around 200, and I understand there are more jobs still to be axed. Yesterday's announcement comes hard on the heels of the findings a month ago by the government's own Besley inquiry into telecommunications services that Telstra's rural services just were not up to scratch. Yet Telstra steps on the privatisation accelerator and rushes to unload more jobs and more services. This is in spite of Telstra's record profit of $3.7 billion announced recently. Yet, in that very same week, the Telstra contractor Enetech scrapped 100 jobs in regional Victoria, mainly from Albury-Wodonga, Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong. Only Telstra would be so callous to announce record profits in the same week as causing 100 regional workers to lose their jobs—and this government sits back and applauds. There are many other examples of the Prime Minister's red light being on the blink. In fact, this Prime Minister has been through that many red lights that he should have lost his licence 10 years ago.One of the ugly side effects of the GST is the costs of paying off university fees. Of course, we had the promise in the election that the GST would not increase the cost of education. In reality, it made the cost of education dearer, especially in rural and regional Australia where it added heavily to the cost of repaying HECS. The GST fuelled—and I use the word loosely—inflation that added 5.4 per cent to the cost of repaying HECS. The result has been that nearly one million students, past and present, are worse off. The government rakes off an extra $323 million in the present financial year because of this. According to the National Union of Students, the GST raises the HECS debt of an arts student by $433, an architecture student by $616 and a law student by $720. This extra HECS burden caused by the GST victimises country students because more country students are unable to afford up-front fees and have to resort to paying off fees later. In the case of La Trobe University, 76 per cent of its country students find it necessary to use HECS to defer payments. This figure is 10 per cent higher than the proportion of the university's city students paying HECS. In other words, more students at university in Bendigo are paying HECS and, therefore, are picking up the extra burden of the GST-fuelled inflation on their repayments. Regional tourism plays a vital role in this country's regional development, and this industry is also being crippled under the weight of fuel prices and the GST. The Australian Tourist Commission's figures show that regional tourism provides 430,000 jobs and attracts 68 per cent of domestic travellers, not to mention 28 per cent of international travellers. Indeed, in August the House was applauding the $12 million the Australian Tourist Commission was investing over four years to maximise regional tourism in the Olympic and post-Olympic period. The national retail and commercial food services market is worth some $18 billion annually and the restaurant and cafe business is responsible for some $6 billion of the market, with the regional sector making up a substantial part of this industry. Australians spend just under $1,000 per head on eating out each year, so you can see it is a vitally important industry. This industry is hit hardest in regional and rural Australia by coalition fuel, communications and GST policies. There is no better example of this government's treatment of rural and regional Australia than the outrageous costs of GST on fuel. Australians, on average, use 50.6 million litres of leaded and unleaded petrol, 36.3 million litres of diesel and 5.2 million litres of auto gas every day. Basic calculations using these figures show that motorists in each Liberal, Labor and National Party federal electorate are paying $60,000 a day or almost $20 million a year in GST just for their fuel. An average of today's fuel prices divided by the number of federal electorates in Australia produces these startling figures.Country people are hit hardest by the GST rip-off. They use public transport less than city people, they travel longer distances, they have to pay freight for goods in and out of the country and they pay more for their fuel. On top of all that, like all other motorists, they cop double taxation—a tax on a tax. As I have said in this House before, if any government was to set out a deliberate strategy to cripple regional Australia, the best way of doing so would be to ensure that fuel prices are kept at the highest possible levels—and that is precisely what this government is doing. This is what the Prime Minister said in Hamilton, Victoria, on 2 August 1999:... there are a lot of benefits in that tax reform for people in rural Australia. To start with, fuel is going to be dramatically cheaper ... we have decided that there will be a few principles that are going to guide the making of our decisions and one of those principles will be that we don't intend to make changes that are going to in any way erode the competitiveness of farmers or in any way hurt people who live in rural Australia.Well, what a joke. Fuel, both diesel and petrol, roads and communications are the lifeblood of almost every aspect of rural life. The government would have us believe that high world prices of crude oil are the sole reason for the increased price of petrol in regional Australia. High crude prices of course are a contributing factor but, as the RACV has pointed out, the Howard government has it within its power to reduce the at the pump price by almost 3c per litre immediately. In February, the CPI could result in a another 3c per litre increase if the government refuses to give ground. Another 3c per litre petrol increase would sound the death knell for regional Australia. The Howard-Anderson government has presided over the highest country fuel prices since the invention of the motor vehicle, the worst performance in communications and a complete lack of understanding of the importance of our regional roads network. Is it any wonder that the Liberal and National parties are held in such low regard in regional Australia? We have seen stories in the media of very nervous Liberal and National backbenchers from both city and country expressing absolute fear as to the results of the next election if the government does not give ground and reduce the excise by some 3c per litre.I sometimes sit in amazement in this House listening to National Party MPs making absolutely courageous speeches extolling the virtues of a fully privatised Telstra and the government's commitment to road funding, when they know deep inside their hearts—and they do have them, unlike some of their coalition partners—that these very issues will cause their demise at the next election. As I have said before, if we all sit very still and very quietly, we will sense a very slight vibration through this building; that is the National Party MPs quivering in their gumboots. They know what is going to happen at the next election. We do not hear much from them on fuel prices, but I do not blame them. Some of them argue that the windfall should be spent on improving roads throughout regional Australia but, as I have said before, this argument falls on deaf ears. The coalition refuses to honour its commitment to jointly funding the Calder Highway road of national importance. Is it any wonder the government is on the nose in regional Australia? Whether it is problems in Telstra, road funding, tourism and food industries, small business, GST compliance or fuel prices, the people of rural and regional Australia are deserting the coalition in very large numbers. But the most damaging aspect for country Australia is the current fuel prices. The coalition GST on fuel is nothing short of highway robbery. The Howard and Costello gang are just spineless bushrangers hiding behind the petrol bowser to bail up and rob regional and rural Australia blind. At least Ned and the boys had the nerve to face their victims while they robbed them. Regional Australia will ensure that Kim Beazley and his team of traps will round up the Howard and Costello gang at the next election and put them away for 10 years or more. 16:20:0022284Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I must admit I was utterly amazed when I saw the matter of public importance put up by the member for Paterson. It really is quite extraordinary. It is what I would call a nonsense motion and, as we discovered, what he had to say had nonsense content and I think one could even go so far as to say it was a nonsense performance. Clearly, the member for Paterson was having great difficulty in trying to find anything to say, and he should have realised why he should not have put this up. I suppose he has chosen this particular day or maybe was asked to do it on this particular day because it was assumed that this is a no news day, that the Cup was going to dominate the media today and tomorrow and therefore it did not really matter what the member for Paterson had to say—and he took that quite literally. It is also fairly obvious that he is a desperate man. As my colleague the member for Dawson was saying, he might be a decent fellow but he is a desperate man. He was clearly looking backwards. He realises that what happened in 1993 is about to happen again.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—No; I got elected in 1993.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—Sorry, in 1996. Bob Baldwin is just waiting, getting ready. Listening to the member for Paterson, most of the things he had to say were clearly looking backwards. His whole idea was to talk about old things, looking backwards: `Let's go back to whatever the good old days were.' But remember the good old days were 13 years of Labor, 13 years of Labor when the country was neglected—and the people in the country have remembered that and they will not forget it. As the member for Dawson has pointed out, the shadow minister comes from Melbourne—city-centric. And what is this motion? Something about the government being city-centric? The majority of country members in this parliament are on this side, and that is no accident. It has happened because people in the country recognise that Labor is never their friend.Let us look at the situation with Labor after all these years. We still have this wonderful situation. For example, the member for Batman in March said that Labor needed to be more responsive to a variety of regional needs, that they could not afford to slip into a comfort zone and that they needed sound policy that could help our region. That was said in March, but, like everything else with the Labor Party, we still have a policy free zone. We do not know what they think. The people in the country do not know what they stand for. You can rest assured that the people in the country are not going to be fooled by that. It is pretty amazing that 23 months after the election Labor have still not bothered to get down and do a bit of work for policies. We are seeing this sort of nonsense motion coming through. Clearly, what the member for Paterson had to say could be described as `content inversely proportional to the volume with which he delivered it'. It is very easy for Labor to come in with this cheap rhetoric and make these statements that are never supported by the facts, but this government does have the runs on the board. Let us start with some of the major things. Let us start with interest rates. This government has presided over a reduction of interest rates that has seen housing interest rates and interest rates for small business come down in some cases to their lowest level in 30 years. That is delivering. That is what government is all about. Let us look at the unemployment rates. Labor had them up in double figures—double-digit unemployment. We have now got them down to the low sixes. That is delivering. I find it extraordinary that the member for Paterson and the member for Bendigo try to make little selective statements but overlook what is happening. People are getting jobs. That is why the unemployment rate is coming down. UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Part-time, casual.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—The member for Paterson was a schoolteacher; he knows the logic of it. If the unemployment rate is coming down, people are getting jobs. 6K6Elson, Kay, MPMrs Elson—He doesn't know anything about rural Australia.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—As my colleague the member for Forde says, he does not know anything about rural Australia. We now look at what the government is delivering on. The member for Dawson pointed to the $2.8 billion, and we could go on. I will just highlight a few of those things. There is the package that the Prime Minister announced on Friday with the Deputy Prime Minister—the salinity package. This is something that will benefit Australia for decades. Labor just squibbed this package on salinity. What did we have? Bob Hawke ran around and planted a tree—which somehow seemed to die just after he planted it, so it did not get very far. Unfortunately, Labor just talked about it but never delivered. We are delivering. Look at the Natural Heritage Trust funding. That is putting money into the country. That is not city-centric policy. That is dealing with the problem on the spot. Let us look at health. You would be hard-pressed to find since Federation a minister that has done more than the current Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon. Michael Wooldridge, has done. Let us look at what he has done for the country. He has put in $562 million over four years. Let us look at what he has done for incentive payments for doctors in the country and at the fact that he is setting up university departments of rural health. I am very proud to say that one has been set up in my electorate this year. That shows a real commitment to the country. Let us look at the threefold increase in support for funding in the country. Let us look at the visiting specialist program, where specialists are being given incentives to come to the country. Let us look at the rural scholarships for students from the country to study medicine. All the member for Paterson can do is make some snide comment asking `How long will that take?' Well, we are starting. We have money to get doctors out there now and we have money going into making sure that we will have future doctors out there. Labor did nothing when the member for Fremantle was the minister. All she ever did was have another summit or another meeting or produce another report. We just had one after another and never had anything useful delivered.Let us look at the communications area. There has been major funding for Networking the Nation. Let us look at the Rural Telecommunications Infrastructure Fund. This is addressing the problem with dollars. This is putting new communications systems out in the country—something that Labor would not do. The gall of some people on that side just seems extraordinary. They come into this place and try to criticise a government that is doing these things. Let us go to education. A whole host of things have been done in education. I will just single out one, which I was particularly pleased about because I have worked very hard to see it happen. That was the changing of the assets tests for farmers, recognising the difficulties the farming community has been facing, particularly in having to send students away—because in most cases, as you would all know, the farming community in particular, and others in many regional areas, have no choice but to send their student children away to do tertiary study. We changed that assets test to recognise the difficulties farmers are facing. Then we get onto this question of fuel. The gall of the Labor Party really amazes me; it amazes me when they talk about fuel when we see what has been done. There is 24c a litre off diesel for heavy transport, and you have the gall to suggest that nothing has been done. Twenty-four cents a litre off. What could be more beneficial for people in the country than to get the cost of transport down? Also, as my good friend the member for Farrer points out, diesel fuel excise is completely off for fuel for trains. We could go on and on talking about these things. Another area that shows that we are very different from the Labor Party is recognising regional transport in the case of air charters. Essendon Airport happens to be in Melbourne, yes, but the major users of Essendon Airport are people in the country. 83XGibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons—We saved it.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—It was this side that saved it. I was very proud of the fact that I could point out to my electorate that I had heavily lobbied the Minister for Finance and Administration on the whole question of Essendon and that it is staying open. That is despite the Bracks government trying to get it sold off and trying to close it down. That shows you the sort of commitment that Labor has. That shows Labor's true colours. I want to talk about the rural transaction centres. We could talk about the developments for banking in the country, with giroPost being extended to business banking. I think this is a nonsense motion. I think the member for Paterson ought to crawl back into his burrow over this. He would be embarrassed about what he has really said here. Frankly, it is Labor that is the guilty party when we talk about being city-centric. People in the coalition are very proud of what we have achieved in our time in government, and what we will continue to achieve as we go forward to look after people in rural and regional Australia.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Miscellaneous2228610000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 8 November 2000, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous22286Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Farm Household Support Amendment Bill 2000National Crime Authority Amendment Bill 2000International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000Bills22286The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2000Parliamentary Zone2228622286Motion (by Dr Stone, on behalf of Mr Anderson) agreed to:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for works in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 31 October 2000, namely: Garbage hopper enclosure at West Block.Bills22287R112922287Consideration resumed from 31 October.Senate's amendments— (1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 22 (line 27), omit “The Minister”, substitute “Subject to subsections (4) and (5), the Minister”.(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (after line 2), at the end of section 11C, add: (4) After making the first 2 determinations under subsection (1), the Minister may not make a further determination unless the Minister has received a comprehensive report, following a public inquiry by the ACA, on whether a net public benefit has accrued from the operation, for a period of not less than 12 months, of the standard contestability arrangements set out in Division 6 in each of the areas covered by the first 2 determinations. (5) The Minister must cause a copy of any report received under subsection (4) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report.(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 28 (after line 17), at the end of Subdivision B of Division 5, add:12EA Exclusive access to universal service subsidy (1) If a person is a primary universal service provider for a universal service area in respect of a service obligation because of subsection 12E(2): (a) the Minister must not determine any other person to be a primary universal service provider; and (b) the ACA must not approve any other person as a competing universal service provider;for that area in respect of that service obligation. (2) Subsection (1) applies while the agreement referred to in subsection 12E(2) remains in force in relation to that area but no longer than 3 years after the commencement date for the area. (3) This section applies despite anything else in this Part.(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 34 (line 12), omit “may be”.(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 34 (line 15), omit “may”, substitute “must”.(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 34 (after line 23), at the end of section 12S, add: (2) Subsection (1) applies only if a draft ATS marketing plan is materially different from an ATS marketing plan previously approved by the ACA.(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 35 (after line 10), after paragraph (e), insert: (ea) the draft includes a requirement that, before entering into an agreement to supply a person with alternative telecommunications services, the provider must give to the person information about the substantive differences between: (i) what is to be supplied under the draft in fulfilment of the service obligation concerned, so far as it relates to the area concerned; and (ii) what would be supplied under the provider's draft standard marketing plan or approved standard marketing plan in fulfilment of the same service obligation, so far as it relates to the same area; and(8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 35 (line 14), at the end of subsection 12T(2), add: ; and (g) the requirements of section 12S have been met.(9) Schedule 1, item 1, page 48 (line 19), omit “may be”.(10) Schedule 1, item 1, page 48 (line 22), omit “may”, substitute “must”.(11) Schedule 1, item 1, page 48 (after line 30), at the end of section 13P, add: (2) Subsection (1) applies only if a draft ATS marketing plan is materially different from an ATS marketing plan previously approved by the ACA.(12) Schedule 1, item 1, page 49 (after line 20), after paragraph (e), insert: (ea) the draft includes a requirement that, before entering into an agreement to supply a person with alternative telecommunications services, the provider must give to the person information about the substantive differences between: (i) what is to be supplied under the draft in fulfilment of the service obligation concerned, so far as it relates to the area concerned; and (ii) what would be supplied under the approved standard marketing plan of the relevant primary universal service provider in fulfilment of the same service obligation, so far as it relates to the same area; and(13) Schedule 1, item 1, page 49 (line 28), at the end of subsection (2), add: ; and (g) the requirements of section 13P have been met.(14) Schedule 2, page 98 (after line 23), after item 6, insert:6A ACA advice under section 16AIf, before 31 December 2000, the ACA has given an advice relating to universal service subsidies to the Minister, the advice is taken to have been given to the Minister in accordance with section 16A.(15) Schedule 3, item 15, page 107 (after line 26), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) The review must include an opportunity for the public to make written submissions.(16) Schedule 3, item 15, page 107 (after line 31), after paragraph (b), insert: (ba) whether the contestability regime, and the ability of providers to offer alternative telecommunications services, has resulted in an improvement in technologies and services available to people in rural and remote Australia compared with what is on offer to people in metropolitan Australia; and16:32:0022288Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I move:That Senate amendments Nos 1 and 2 be disagreed to.The Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 and the Telecommunications (Universal Service Levy) Amendment Bill 2000 were passed by the Senate on 30 October 2000. A number of amendments were made to the bill by the government and other parties. Two opposition amendments, namely amendments Nos 1 and 2 of sheet 1964 to proposed section 11C, passed by the Senate are, in the government's view, technically flawed. They cause significant difficulties for the conduct of the contestability pilots which form an important part of the government's universal service policy reforms. The government therefore must disagree with these amendments. For universal service obligation contestability to be effectively trialled, there must be scope to differentiate subsidies according to underlying costs and to ensure service areas are manageable for incoming competitors. The bill achieves this by enabling universal service areas to be designated. The USO contestability is then introduced by the minister determining all or part of the USO to be contestable in a universal service area under proposed section 11C. Each contestable service obligation determination relates to a specific universal service area. A different subsidy may need to be set for each universal service area.The Senate amendments aim to restrict the expansion of contestability beyond these two pilot areas. They seek to do this by restricting the minister to making only two contestable service obligation determinations under proposed section 11C of the bill until a report has been tabled in parliament reviewing the arrangements. In practice, the Senate amendments would restrict the minister to establishing only two contestable universal service areas, say, one for each pilot. Therefore, the pilots would be restricted to two subsidy levels at any one time, with no scope for differentiation of subsidies within those areas; for example, to reflect variations in cost. These restrictions would seriously compromise the pilot process in a number of ways. The pilot areas were selected to contain a number of different population densities and service characteristics. It was envisaged that within these pilots the minister would determine a number of universal service areas with different subsidy levels. For example, a lesser subsidy would be needed in an area with a higher population density and lower infrastructure costs. Furthermore, it was anticipated that new universal service areas could be needed within the boundaries of the pilot areas as experience was gained and it became apparent, for example, that further differentiation in subsidies was appropriate. This flexibility is considered essential in order to be able to refine the operation of the pilots. Consequently, the government does not agree to the Senate amendments Nos 1 and 2. 16:35:0022289Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The government is not proposing to accept opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2 which were passed in the Senate to the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 but has flagged replacement amendments. The government is keen to have this legislation pass through the parliament before the parliament adjourns at the end of this week so as to ensure that there is a certain legislative base for the consideration of the $150 million tender for the extension of local call zones to the outer extended zone or remote area. The opposition has been doing what it can to ensure that there is that legislative framework certainty. Consistent with that, in recent days since the Senate adopted the opposition amendments there have been discussions between my office and the office of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, and I am satisfied that the substantive objective of the opposition amendments is met by the government's proposed replacement amendments. They are different in nature but the primary and substantive concern of the opposition is met by that which the government is proposing. I accept that the technical issues that the government is raising are valid. My understanding is that there is no intention on the part of the government, even if these amendments open up the prospect of changing or altering or extending the actual pilot projects to project areas, which is not how I read the amendments, to do that. On that basis, we are happy to proceed in the way which the government is flagging.Question resolved in the affirmative. 16:37:0022289Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I move:That the following amendments be made in place of the Senate amendments disagreed to:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 22 (line 30), omit “Note:”, substitute “Note 1:”.(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 22 (after line 32), at the end of subsection (1), add:Note 2: The Minister can make determinations under this section initially only in relation to pilot areas (see section 11F).(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (after line 20), at the end of Division 4, add:11F Section 11C temporarily limited to pilot areas (1) Until the Minister has done both of the following, the Minister can make determinations under section 11C only in relation to pilot areas (as defined in subsection (2)): (a) received a comprehensive report, following a public inquiry by the ACA, on whether a net benefit has accrued from the operation, for a period not less than 12 months, of the standard contestability arrangements in each of the pilot areas; (b) caused the report to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 10 sitting days of that House after the Minister receives the report. (2) A pilot area is an area determined in writing by the Minister for the purposes of this section. The Minister may determine a maximum of 2 pilot areas and cannot later change the boundaries of a pilot area. (3) Before the Minister can make any determination under section 11C in relation to a pilot area, the Minister must have determined under section 9G one or more universal service areas that cover the whole of the pilot area. (4) A copy of a determination under subsection (2) must be published in the Gazette.The government is aware of the concerns of the opposition and Democrats about early expansion of the universal service obligations contestability beyond the pilots. The government announced its intended areas in a press release of 23 August 2000 and has no intention of moving away from that announcement. Its intention is to conduct two pilots in circumscribed areas in central-west and south-west Victoria, south-east South Australia, north-east New South Wales and inland south-east Queensland. The amendments the government is now proposing reflect those it originally proposed to move in the Senate. They will have the effect of restricting universal obligation contestability to the pilot areas until it is reviewed and reported on but will also allow sufficient flexibility within those areas to ensure the pilots are conducted effectively. The Senate's amendments included a number of specific elements, namely, that the inquiry will be public and be conducted by the ACA, a judgment must be made about whether the pilots have accrued a net public benefit compared with standard arrangements, the comprehensive report may not be tabled for at least 12 months from the operation of the arrangements and the minister must table the report within 10 sitting days of receiving it. The government has incorporated these elements into these proposed amendments. The proposed government amendments will restrict the government from expanding the pilots before a comprehensive public review and report to the parliament. They will also ensure the pilots function as they should by allowing the government to take a flexible approach to their conduct.16:39:0022290Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—On the basis of prior discussions with the office of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, the opposition does not oppose the replacement amendments as circulated.Question resolved in the affirmative. 16:40:0022290Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I move:That Senate amendments Nos 3 to 16 be agreed to.In general, these amendments are reasonable refinements to the bill and are acceptable to the government. These amendments provide for the primary universal service provider in the extended zones to have exclusive access to the annual USO subsidies in the extended zones for a period of three years. This reflects the need to provide the primary universal service provider in these extended zones with certainty of access to the ongoing subsidy for the area, given the level of investment required. They require mandatory public consultation on marketing plans for the provision of alternative telecommunication services, or ATS, where the marketing plan is materially different from an ATS marketing plan previously approved by the Australian Communications Authority, the ACA.They require ATS providers to give customers information about the substantive differences between ATS and standard USO services before the provider enters into an agreement with a customer for the ATS. They deem that advice given to the minister by the ACA before 31 December 2000 in relation to the setting of USO subsidies is taken to be advice given to the minister in accordance with the proposed act and they require the proposed review of the USO arrangements after three years to consider whether contestability and the ATS arrangements have resulted in an improvement in technologies and services available to people in rural and remote Australia compared to what is on offer to people in metropolitan Australia. I commend these amendments.16:41:0022290Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The opposition supports the Senate amendments, but I might take the opportunity of just indicating to the House what the Senate did not agree to, which is in my view a fundamental flaw of this telecommunications legislation. As those in the advisers box would know, we have had this conversation before, and I have not yet received an appropriate or a sensible answer from the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, or the Minister for Trade, who was subsequently at the table. Now we have the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage at the table. I hope I have better luck on this occasion.This legislative package does two things. It establishes the universal service obligation contestability pilot projects in two discrete areas, which sets the scene for competitive tendering of the universal service obligation on a local, regional and niche basis. We have previously stated our position on that. It also sets the scene for the $150 million tender for the extension of local call zones in outer remote areas. In respect of the pilot project areas, the government policy, as reflected by the legislation, is that Telstra is required to remain in operation in those marketplaces as the provider of last resort as a safety net. But, in the case of the $150 million tender, which is for the extension of call zones to the outer extended zone or remote areas, some 80 per cent of the Australian land mass covering about 40,000 to 50,000 universal service obligation customers, the government policy reflected by its legislation, despite two separate attempts by the opposition in the Senate to remedy this defect, is that Telstra is not required to remain in the outer extended zone or remote areas as the universal service obligation provider of last resort. So the winner of the tender automatically becomes the universal service obligation provider for that area, 80 per cent of the Australian landmass. Given that the government is sensibly proceeding on a cautious basis so far as the pilot projects are concerned—that sensible, cautious policy basis is not reflected by its rhetoric, but that is by the by and, on Melbourne Cup day, I will not bore the House with it—I am still waiting for an answer to the question: why is there a qualitative difference between the approach that the government is taking, so far as the $150 million tender is concerned, as compared with the competitive tendering for the pilot project areas? I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary might be able to be more helpful than the minister representing the minister for communications and the Minister for Trade, given that she is working off such a low threshold.16:44:0022291Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—In response to the member for Perth—I do not know whether my threshold is that low—let me say that the minister must in fact ensure that there is a primary universal service provider in every area of Australia for each service obligation at all times. So the role of this PUSP should be filled by the carrier or service provider best suited to fulfilling the role in any area. Under the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, Telstra is the default primary universal service provider until it is replaced by another carrier or carriage service provider in any area. In the areas outside the extended zones, it is proposed that Telstra continue to fulfil this obligation on the basis that it is best suited to do so. While there is always scope for improvement, Telstra's service provision in the 20 per cent of Australia outside of the extended zones is generally satisfactory. This being the case and because USO customers are already connected to the Telstra network, it is not necessary to raise the possibility of requiring those customers to use a new primary universal service provider. However, that does not mean that Telstra should not be subject to competitive pressure in relation to the services provided. The government believes that allowing the entry of competing universal service providers will drive improvements in Telstra's service levels. Very different circumstances exist in the extended zones, which mean it is not the correct approach simply to designate Telstra to be the primary universal service provider. In the extended zones, services and infrastructure levels are not on par with those in other parts of Australia. Most importantly, there are no untimed local calls. In this context, the parliament set aside $150 million to fund a major upgrade of remote telecommunications infrastructure to provide untimed local calls to people in these areas and put their service levels on a par with those of other Australians. We are very committed to doing that. Competing telecommunications companies have made credible claims about their ability to provide the USO in remote Australia. A tender is therefore the best means of testing carrier capabilities and ensuring that the best possible outcome for remote Australia is achieved. A public tender is also appropriate from the perspective of equity in the allocation of public moneys. As a result of the allocation of the $150 million, the successful tender will have new or significantly upgraded infrastructure and be in the best position to fulfil the USO on an ongoing basis. This is why the successful tenderer is to become the primary universal service provider in these extended zones. If a carrier other than Telstra wins a tender, customers would need to change their primary universal service provider. This should not, however, cause practical difficulties because of the small number of services involved. It should not be an issue for customers because they will be gaining access to a superior service package. The reliability and quality of service in Australia's remote telecommunications network should improve considerably as a result of the tender. It is not realistic to propose that Telstra remains the universal service provider in the extended zones if it does not win the tender. Telstra would not be able to compete without matching the service levels required of the successful tenderer. It is unlikely to divert the necessary resources to do so from other priority areas, nor would the government like to see investment in other priority areas like rural Australia suffer. It would potentially require a wasteful duplication of infrastructure. The tender process will ensure the best carrier for the role of primary universal service provider in the extended zone is chosen. If that is Telstra, that will be confirmed by the tender process. I can assure the member for Perth that our primary concern is to make sure that there is reasonable and comparable access for all Australians to telecommunications. If he wishes to have a further briefing on that, I can arrange for the minister to provide that to him.16:49:0022292Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Let me ask the question from the other end. If the government's argument is that Telstra is not required to be the universal service obligation provider of last resort in the extended zone for the $150 million tender, what is the government's rationale for Telstra remaining as the safety net provider in the pilot project areas?16:49:0022292Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I will repeat for the member for Perth that we certainly are prepared to give him a thorough briefing of what is intended for the pilot areas.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPEM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONE—No. I think there has been a thorough explanation of what is intended for pilot regions in the last 10 minutes or so of debate and on the issue of extended zones and the primary universal service provider.16:49:0022292Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—In her last but one contribution, the parliamentary secretary referred to practical difficulties and the government not expecting any practical difficulties so far as the 40,000 USO customers in the extended zone are concerned if a provider other than Telstra becomes the universal service obligation provider. Speaking of practical difficulties—and we have seen in recent times, both in Australia and internationally, the telecommunications industry going through a period of consolidation with different players thriving and growing stronger but some other players falling over and going under—if one proceeds on the basis that a provider other than Telstra is awarded the $150 million tender and a new provider runs into practical difficulties, which is not unique in the telecommunications industry, and, for example, it is taken over by new owners who do not have the same priorities, or it simply falls under because of competitive forces, how does the government see those customers being catered for with Telstra absent from the marketplace and the new provider—the winner of the tender—going under?16:51:0022292Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—Obviously, wherever there is any service provider for a service which the government has tendered out, there are always concerns that that provider may or may not fulfil their contract on the basis of their going under or otherwise. This is no different from any other government tender, and I repeat that in the areas outside the extended zones it is proposed that Telstra continue to fulfil the obligations on the basis that it is best suited to do so.16:51:0022292Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—With respect, that is precisely the point. If, in the pilot project areas, the new competitors fall into difficulties, thereby causing difficulties for the universal service obligation customers, Telstra is in the marketplace as the provider of last resort to ensure that the experiment that the government has embarked upon is not a complete catastrophe. On the other hand, for a much wider area of the Australian landmass—some 80 per cent of it, with 40,000 customers—that same insurance of the safety net provider of last resort for the government's experiment on the $150 million tender does not apply. So I return to my original point, which has never been answered successfully—or indeed in any way—by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts in the Senate, by the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation in this House, by the Minister for Trade in this House or by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage. What is the government's rationale for the qualitative difference in approach? If the government wanted to reverse its emphasis and have Telstra remain in the marketplace as the provider of last resort for the $150 million tender, which covers 80 per cent of the Australian landmass, it might at least be prosecuting less potential damage to the framework. But the government has refused on two pieces of legislation—the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, which the House dealt with prior to the winter recess, and again on this bill, the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000—to state the basis for the qualitative difference in the government's approach. 16:53:0022293Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—In response to the member for Perth's ongoing concern, the difference is that one is a pilot, and we want to make sure that any difficulties for the future in understanding what is needed in universal service provision are ironed out, while the other deals with an ongoing service provision that will be tendered out. All I can do is repeat to the member for Perth that the choice of the primary universal service provider has been worked out very carefully to make sure that we have the service provider best suited to fulfilling that role in any area, and that is, therefore, a contestable situation. That is what we intend, to make sure that rural Australians get the very best service possible. Those living in remote areas of Australia continue to experience a disparity between regions. The tyranny of distance continues because of the quality of telecommunications service that is offered to remote Australians. I repeat that the member for Perth is very welcome to have more detailed information extended to him but, if he goes back and reads Hansard and looks at the explanation I have already provided for the choice of a primary universal service provider in an extended zone, I think he will see that the explanation—I do not wish to repeat it onto the record—is very much to do with getting the very best and most suited service provider into remote regions. We believe that the entry of competing universal service providers would drive improvements in the Telstra service levels, even if they were not successful in winning the tender bid.16:55:0022293Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—With respect and without in any way wishing to appear overcritical, it may well be that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage is in greater need of a detailed briefing than I am—but that is by the by. Not having received a substantive response on this occasion or previously as to the qualitative difference in approach, I ask the parliamentary secretary what the government's response is to the Telstra in-confidence memorandum which came into the public domain yesterday in respect of the reduction of NDC staff, confirmed at 400 with 315 from rural and regional Australia, and with advice to NDC and Telstra staff that 650 more will follow, with 100 of those from Victoria. As I said yesterday, I would be very happy if Telstra were able to confirm that that was not the case, but, as I understand it, Telstra is refusing to either confirm or deny those figures. As a lapsed lawyer, I can say that when I was a practitioner that was generally known in the trade as being guilty as charged. In the Telstra in-confidence memorandum, there is a comment on NDC and Telstra's activity in the outer extended zone. In a suggested answer to a possible question, the Telstra in-confidence memorandum says:Q: Are there delays in rolling out projects as a result of the Extended Zone Tender?With the imminent release by the Government of $150 million Extended Zone Tender, Telstra considers it commercially responsible to await an outcome rather than to start on projects not yet commenced in the field.In other words, because of the way in which the government has structured the legislation and the $150 million tender, Telstra is now essentially on an investment strike so far as the extended zone tender is concerned. My question to the parliamentary secretary is: what advice, if any, has the majority shareholder, the government, received from Telstra in respect of Telstra's investment strike in the outer extended zone area—some 80 per cent of the Australian land mass—pending a determination by the government of the $150 million tender? And what advice, if any, has the majority shareholder, the government, received in respect of Telstra's future investment intentions if Telstra is not the winner of the $150 million tender and if Telstra is not the primary universal service obligation provider for that area?16:58:0022294Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I think we are straying way off our current debate.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPEM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONE—I do not think so. I think what you are getting close to is a concern for the employees of Telstra, many of whom have memberships which are very near to your heart. In terms of the suggestion that Telstra froze their drive to provide the very best possible services to rural and metropolitan Australians, let me assure you that we are very grateful in rural and regional Australia for the efforts that Telstra has been making in recent times. I refer to its local call zone inquiry, which is soon to be released, and I am looking forward very much to it changing a 1960s pricing policy which did in the past discriminate against rural users. We are very much looking forward to its announcement of the exchanges that are going to be upgraded in the near future—a multimillion dollar exercise. Telstra is taking its commitments, its obligations and its charter very seriously indeed, and I think it is appalling to suggest that it is in any shape or form on a `go slow' in driving forward to offer Australians a list of very excellent telecommunications services. I am sure that would be Telstra's response if your proposition was put to it.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The question is that Senate amendments Nos. 3 to 16 be agreed to. Before calling the honourable member for Perth, the chair is probably in need of some advice about the intent of this policy as well. Having looked at the amendments I see they are fairly specific, but I took it from the comments of the honourable member for Perth that he was relating his comments in his last five minutes to those amendments. I caution him in that way without making any determination either way.17:00:0022294Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, the legislation goes to the introduction of competitive tendering for the USO and for the legislative framework for a tender of $150 million for the outer extended zones, and they have been precisely the focus of my contributions and questions. The problem for the parliamentary secretary is that my last question went right to the very heart of the matter. The Telstra in-confidence memorandum I refer to came into the public domain yesterday. It said, and I repeat: Q: Are there delays in rolling out projects as a result of the Extended Zone Tender?With the imminent release by the Government of $150 Extended Zone Tender, Telstra considers it commercially responsible to await an outcome rather than to start on projects not yet commenced in the field.If the parliamentary secretary needs that to be illuminated for her in any way whatsoever, I simply refer her to another Telstra in-confidence memorandum which came into the public domain shortly before the government's presentation of the Besley report. In that memorandum, which is signed by Telstra's head of government and regulatory matters, under a paragraph entitled `Suggested Response'—this is proposed advice to Dr Switkowski, the Chief Executive Officer of Telstra, and other senior Telstra officers as to a suggested framework response to the Besley report—the senior Telstra officer said: We need to increase awareness of: 1) The fact that investment in CAN—that is, the customer access network—and in uneconomic services in rural Australia cannot be assumed. The new USO arrangements has increased the capital risk of investment in USO areas and Telstra needs to explore ways of reducing this risk.And that is precisely a reference to an earlier comment in the memorandum that talks about the pressure to get the OEZ tender under way. What these two Telstra memorandums show is the fact that investment in the network `cannot be assumed' and that `the new USO arrangements have increased the capital risk of investment in USO areas and Telstra needs to explore ways of reducing this risk'. In other words, the policy approach of the government is now having the practical effect of Telstra determining on a commercial basis not to make an investment in 80 per cent of the Australian landmass, covering 40 per cent of the universal service obligation customers. That is the effect of the government's policy.The practical effect of the government's policy of having a $150 million tender to extend the local call zones to the outer extended area, or the remote areas of Australia, that is, 80 per cent of the landmass and 40,000 USO customers—which the government, the Liberal Party and the National Party have resisted on two occasions in this parliament, and which the Democrats have supported—is that Telstra is not investing in those areas of Australia where communication needs are highest. The only possible consequence of the government continuing to go down this road is that, if the $150 million tender is awarded to a provider other than Telstra, you can proceed on the basis that Telstra will make a commercial decision as to its investment in the remote areas, and that investment will not occur. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary might again seek to explain the qualitative difference in the government's approach as far as the pilot projects are concerned and 80 per cent of the Australian landmass. We do not see Telstra secretly confiding these same concerns so far as the smaller pilot project areas are concerned.17:04:0022295Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I think it is a nonsense to suggest that there is in some secret memorandum, which obviously I do not have a copy of and that I have not seen before—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Come on! Answer his question.EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONE—Obviously you think you have a secret memorandum from Telstra; perhaps that is something you are referring to but it is not something on the public record. If you are suggesting that Telstra is somehow withdrawing from wanting to offer improved services to its customer base, that is certainly not the experience of those of us who represent regional Australia and those of us who are in constant contact with Australians in remote areas who are enjoying for the first time better access to telecommunications than they ever saw under Labor, who did not know what happened beyond the tram tracks.You are alleging today that Telstra was on some sort of go-slow hold on investment and I think that is rather appalling. That would not do their relationship with their customers much good at all. If they do not wish to tender for the new extended zone service—we are calling it the new universal service obligation provision in extended zones—that is up to them. It is a $150-million tender. They may or may not choose to put their hand up for that. I think you will find, though, that rural and regional Australians have found an amazing drop in their charges since there has been contestability in the system. They look forward to the new era when they are going to have even more telcos competing for their business.In my electorate of Murray, where we have had Networking the Nation moneys to specifically pursue a regional telecommunications provider who will be targeting the food bowl of Australia, we have had an extraordinary level of application and interest in tendering for that specific new service provision, and that includes interest from Telstra. So I think it is rather unfortunate that today, on the one hand, you are suggesting that you are championing the interests of Telstra employees and the company itself and, on the other hand, you are suggesting that they have a go-slow, not interested, sitting on their hands approach right now. I think that is most unfortunate and it is certainly not the experience of rural and regional Australians in relation to Telstra's efforts. 10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Whilst the chair recognises that both the parliamentary secretary and the member for Perth have been entering into this debate, this is not necessarily an opportunity to reopen a second reading debate; it is akin to those matters that can be before the chair in a consideration in detail. I remind the chamber that the question before the chair is that Senate amendments Nos 3 to 16 be agreed to.17:07:0022296Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—For the edification of the parliamentary secretary, the second Telstra memorandum to which I have referred, signed by Deena Schiff in advance of the Besley committee, was a secret Telstra advice to the CEO which became public some months ago. I am surprised you dozed off and missed it.The first Telstra document that I referred to came into the public domain yesterday. I am pleased, in some respects, that the parliamentary secretary has acknowledged that the effect of the government's attitude as the majority shareholder for Telstra is to put into place a legislative framework and an executive attitude which has the effect of leaving these things to Telstra's discretion. If that is the basis upon which the government wants to proceed now, imagine how Telstra would be making purely and only commercial decisions if Telstra were fully privatised, which is the policy of those opposite. Just to edify the parliamentary secretary, I seek leave to table the two memorandums that I have referred her to.Leave not granted. 17:09:0022296Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I recommend to you that you put amendments Nos 3 to 16, because I believe this debate has strayed away from its original intention. This is a debate about the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees22296222962229622296Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Selection Committee relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 27 November 2000.The report read as follows—Report relating to the consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 27 November 2000Pursuant to standing order 331, the Selection Committee has determined the order of precedence and times to be allotted for consideration of committee and delegation reports and private members business on Monday, 27 November 2000. The order of precedence and the allotments of time determined by the Committee are shown in the list.COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTSPresentation and statements1 AUSTRALIAN PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION TO THE 21ST AIPO GENERAL ASSEMBLY: Report of the Parliamentary Delegation to the 21st AIPO General Assembly, Singapore, 10 - 15 September 2000.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — statements to conclude by 12.40 p.m.Speech time limits —First Member speaking — 10 minutes.[Proposed Member speaking = 1 x 10 mins]2 Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—JOINT STANDING COMMITTEE: Conviction with compassion: A report on freedom of religion and belief.The Committee determined that statements on the report may be made — statements to conclude by 1.10 p.m.Speech time limits —First Member speaking — 10 minutes.Other Members — 5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 1 x 10 mins, 4 x 5 mins]PRIVATE MEMBERS BUSINESSOrder of precedenceNotices1Mr Beazley: To present a bill for an Act to establish the office of Auditor of Parliamentary Allowances and Entitlements, and for related purposes. (Auditor of Parliamentary Allowances and Entitlements Bill 2000 — Notice given 31 October 2000.)Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 15 minutes — pursuant to sessional order 104A.2Mrs Gallus: To move—That this House:(1) recognises the contribution to Australia's export earnings of the Australian horticultural industry and its potential for future growth;(2) notes that recent shortfalls in horticultural labour has caused delays in harvesting crops and, in some cases, spoilage of the harvest;(3) acknowledges the need for the horticultural industry to have access to an adequate labour force;(4) promotes recognition of the National Harvest Trail to encourage Australians to take on harvest work in different regions throughout the year;(5) facilitates promotion of the Harvest Trail in domestic and international publications;(6) commends the report by the National Harvest Trail Working Group entitled “Harvesting Australian”; and(7) calls on the Government to take up the recommendations of the report. (Notice given 31 October 2000.)Time allotted — private members business time prior to 1.45 p.m.Speech time limits —Mover of motion —5 minutes.Other Members — 5 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins]The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.3MR sawford: To move—That this House acknowledges the grave dangers inherent in the dramatic rise of precarious casual employment in Australia. (Notice given 6 November 2000.)Time allotted — 30 minutes.Speech time limits —Mover of motion — 10 minutes.Other Members — 10 minutes each.[Proposed Members speaking = 3 x 10 mins)The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.4Mr st clair: To move—That this House:(1) recognises the importance of an efficient and well networked rail system to the Australian economy;(2) urges private and government capital investment to ensure more freight is carried by rail to reduce the extent of road transport as an issue of public road safety; and(3) applauds the initiative of the Government in the abolition of diesel fuel excise for rail use as a significant element in the reduction of rail freight cost thereby encouraging greater use of rail. (Notice given 2 November 2000.)Time allotted — remaining private members business time.Speech time limits —Mover of motion — 5 minutes.Other Members — 5 minutes.[Proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 mins)The Committee determined that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day.Bills22297R104922297Debate resumed from 6 November, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.17:10:0022297McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—This is a continuation of the debate from last night. The point I was making last night is that this area is far too complex and far too important to leave substantially to self-regulation—which is the government's approach, despite the fact that they call it coregulation. Privacy is not only a human right but also a fundamental economic imperative, and I say that because of the significance of privacy concerns and, in particular, the fact that it has such a retarding effect on the development of electronic commerce. That has been shown in a special report by Ernst and Young on Internet shopping of January 2000. Those figures were picked up by the National Office for the Information Economy in the Current state of play report of July 2000. Both of those reports indicated that privacy concerns are a significant impediment to Australians engaging in Internet commerce. Indeed, Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that while 43 per cent of Australian adults enjoy access to the Internet, only five per cent buy online. Again, privacy fears are high on the list of concerns as to why they are not prepared to engage in a greater degree of economic commerce through the Internet. That is of significant concern to the Australian economy. In an article in the Australian today, the Australian Computer Society refers to research by Forrester which shows that, while Internet commerce is worth something like $657 billion in 2000, it is estimated that by the year 2004 it will accelerate to $6.8 trillion. That of course is going to cross not only state boundaries but also national boundaries. It will well and truly be in the realm of international commerce through the Internet.Australia's concerns are that unless we have a privacy system that is equivalent to, or even better than, world's best practice, we are going to miss out on that action. We are not going to get our rightly deserved piece of that action, given the extent of Internet take-up that we already have. We are going to miss out on international customers for our Internet businesses that operate from Australia. The pessimism was reported earlier this year, on 13 April, by the Financial Review. The article stated:Predictions for Internet shopping appear to be even gloomier in Australia ... Australians would spend less than 2c in the dollar excluding travel services in online shopping by 2005.As I said, it is not only a human rights issue, it is an economic imperative. Increasingly, businesses are realising that; hence it is the business community that has driven the need for legislation and, increasingly, it is the business community that is developing the need for legislation that has real teeth and real substance—and that is not what this legislation has. Interestingly, the United States experience—which has substantially been one of self-regulation and a degree of coregulation—is that that system has been inadequate. For instance, the United States Federal Trade Commission has been studying online privacy since 1995 and has been tracking the progress of self-regulation in the United States. In its 1999 report to Congress, the commission recommended that self-regulation be given more time, but it called for more industry efforts to implement privacy principles. But in this year's report to Congress, in May 2000, the commission reached a very different conclusion based on disappointing findings that industry had not been up to scratch in putting in place proper privacy protections. The Arthur Andersen material to which I referred last night shows that that situation is certainly replicated in Australia. The commission recommended:Industry efforts alone have not been sufficient. Because self-regulatory initiatives to date fall far short of broad based implementation of effective self-regulatory programs, the Commission has concluded that such efforts alone cannot ensure that the online market place as a whole will emulate the standards adopted by industry leaders. While there will continue to be a major role for industry self-regulation in the future, the Commission recommends that Congress enact legislation that, in conjunction with continuing self-regulatory programs, will ensure adequate protection of consumer privacy on line.For the reasons that I have outlined, there are not the adequate protections in this legislation. The best we have is in those `unself-regulated' areas. The Privacy Commissioner can recommend appropriate compensation, as can the privacy adjudicators in the self-regulatory areas. What this legislation does not do is prevent the misuse of information contained in databases that already exist. It does not enable consumers to access and correct information held in databases that already exist. A good example is the controversial CrimTrac database. Australians who have been misrepresented in that database will not have the ability to insist that it be rectified, because it is an existing database outside the scope of the legislation. The enforcement and penalty structures are far too weak. This legislation is tokenistic at best. It is not good enough for Australians, and it is certainly not good enough to reassure the rest of the world that Australia is up to the game in this area of privacy, which is so vital to the future development of economic commerce. Accordingly, Labor will move a number of amendments to give more grunt to the legislation. We will put a particular emphasis on the role of the Internet in terms of families. In particular, we will introduce new privacy principles that will give parents greater supervision over what information their children obtain and give online. I am sure that anyone who has young children—as I do, and I have seen what they get up to on the Internet—will say that these principles are desired. In the consideration in detail stage, Labor will move a number of very significant amendments. I put it to the government that these amendments are designed with good will to give more force—more grunt—to what is very inadequate legislation.17:18:0022299Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I rise to speak on the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000. The social contract that operates in Australia provides that every Australian has a reasonable expectation that their privacy be sacrosanct. We tend to take a very dim view of our individual privacy being compromised. The proliferation of the Internet and e-commerce has challenged our traditional notions of privacy regulation. Statistical and anecdotal evidence suggests that Australians are reluctant to embrace e-commerce until such time that they feel their privacy is sufficiently protected. An excellent article by Australian Financial Review correspondent Dorothy Kennedy canvassed many of these themes. A recent report from the Australian Bureau of Statistics shows that 43 per cent of Australian adults accessed the Internet in the 12 months to February 2000 but, by way of contrast, only five per cent purchased products online in the same period.A report on Internet privacy, published by Australian law firm Freehill Hollingdale and Page, claims that Internet users not only are sceptical about the security of their personal information online but are uncertain about how their information will be used and worried about being inundated with advertising material that they do not want. Clearly consumer behaviour and consumption patterns are being influenced by a lack of consumer confidence in the protection of individual privacy on the Internet. If we can overcome this by introducing more effective privacy provisions, Australian business and Internet businesses will benefit. There is a precedent for this claim. Late last year, Internet advertising company DoubleClick announced it was acquiring a direct marketing company, Abacus Direct. It was the intention of DoubleClick to link the personal data from Abacus Direct with its own marketing information, obtained by tracking customers' online movements. What DoubleClick had not counted on was the enormous public and media backlash that ensued. In announcing the company's backdown from the plan, DoubleClick's Chief Executive Officer, Kevin O'Connor, explained that he was mistaken to attempt to implement the database in the absence of government and industry privacy standards. In a recently released book entitled The End of Privacy: How Total Surveillance is Becoming a Reality, the author, Professor Reg Whittaker, writes about what he terms `dataveillance', which he describes as the new phenomenon of data collection and storage.This brings us to the bill before the House, the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000. This bill creates a new benchmark for national standards for the handling of personal information by the private sector. The legislation offers Australians the confidence that information held about them by private sector organisations will be stored, used and disclosed in a fair and appropriate way. Importantly, this bill gives Australians the right to gain access to that information and a right to correct it if it is wrong.The provisions of this bill deliver market confidence to Australian consumers, the Australian business community and international interests that personal information sent to Australia will be stored safely and handled appropriately. The bill relies on the 1980 OECD Guidelines for the Protection of Privacy and Transborder Flows of Personal Data, which represent a consensus among our major trading partners on the basic principles that should be incorporated into privacy regulation. The measures contained in this bill also implement certain obligations under article 17 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. But the cornerstone of this legislation is the National Principles for the Fair Handling of Personal Information. The Privacy Commissioner developed these principles following extensive consultation with business, consumers and other stakeholders. The national principles are a set of guidelines for the collection, holding, use, disclosure and transfer of personal information. When an organisation or industry fails to put a privacy code in operation, the national privacy principles will apply. The national principles also serve as the yardstick for industry codes. The Privacy Commissioner cannot approve a code until he or she is satisfied that it provides at least the same level of protection as the national principles. An important feature of this bill is that it delivers to consumers the right to access information collected on them and to allow individuals to have the information corrected if it is shown to be erroneous. This bill also ensures that mechanisms are in place to deal with consumer complaints and breaches of privacy regulations. The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission recently reported that 75 per cent of the e-commerce web sites examined by international protection agencies, including the ACCC, had no privacy policy or statement of how consumers' personal details would be handled. There is clearly a void in the e-commerce industry to be filled by corporations that offer their clients privacy protection. The European Union has already attempted to stake its own claim by announcing earlier this year that companies holding data on European citizens must comply with European data privacy laws. However, some commentators believe that the rules put in place by the European Union are unwieldy and unworkable. The provisions of this bill will help establish international consumer confidence in Australian e-commerce web sites and give Australian e-commerce a competitive advantage over its international competition.But there are already new emerging challenges for government with regard to privacy protection and the private sector. New media, in particular, is spawning a fresh range of problems for government, as legislation throughout the world struggles to keep pace with technology. The emergence of the CrimeNet web site and the proposed `wanted world wide' web site are cases in point. CrimeNet is the self-styled world first Internet based crime information service. With offices in Victoria and Western Australia, the CrimeNet web site catalogues an expanding database of 4,000 to 5,000 Australians who have transgressed the law in the past. The directory of names—which lumps drink-drivers alongside murderers and rapists—is available to curious web viewers at no charge. To inspect more definitive details on each person listed, it costs the viewer $6 for the initial view and $2 for each subsequent search. Although the commencement of the `wanted world wide' service has been delayed by several months, the web site intends to list criminal records as well as bad debtors, child support recovery lists and tenancy related debts. The emergence of these vigilante and voyeuristic web sites has coincided with the appearance of unwelcome problems for society in terms of privacy concerns and the justice system, with the expectation of more to follow. The foundation of our judicial system is the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Criminal proceedings are determined on the facts before the court and not on probability based on a past record. The advent of these web sites compromises the integrity of the justice system by allowing jurors to be prejudiced by viewing the criminal history of the accused. If traditional media publish the criminal record of an accused before or during a trial, the proceedings could be aborted and the media outlet cited for contempt of court. Yet here is a web site publishing people's pasts to anyone who has $6. New media outlets such as CrimeNet and `wanted world wide' need to be brought into line with the rules that regulate traditional media to protect the privacy of the individual. The Managing Director of CrimeNet, Mr Ken Schultz, makes the desperate claim that those accessing the web site now need to sign a type of cyber guarantee that they will not misuse the information. This is a superficial, unworkable and facile response. As I understand it, this `cyber guarantee' has yet to be tested in a court of law with regard to contempt of court. But, if it were to pass that test, it still fails dismally to protect the privacy of the named individuals. The appearance of these web sites also threatens to undermine the criminal rehabilitation process. If you do the crime you have to do the time. But once a person has been punished and freed by the justice system their right to privacy should not be diminished because of past mistakes. They and their families have a right to start again and should not face the threat of community ridicule and discrimination at the hands of Net cowboys. The emergence of these web sites exposes innocent people to the possibility that defamatory material may be mistakenly published about them. In response to this risk, the CrimeNet web site meekly offers:We do our best to maintain accurate records. All entries are checked by our Editor. However, if you believe the information relating to any person listed on this site, is inaccurate or incorrect, you may request a correction by sending details together with documentary evidence to—And then it gives an address. It would be a bit late—the horse will have bolted—if someone's reputation has been slandered by this web site and then they ring up and say, `By the way, it is not true that I am the rapist you were referring to in the CrimeNet web site.' This is simply an exercise in covering your back, and does nothing to protect the privacy of persons who are wrongly named. It is a ham-fisted and ineffective attempt to avoid responsibility for what could cause irreparable damage to an innocent person's character and reputation. CrimeNet's disclaimer will be cold comfort to the unintended victim of their flawed data collection process.This flawed data collection process also manifests itself in another potential problem for innocent Australians. The web site editors do not compile their databases from official records, but rather from previously published material such as newspapers. So what happens in those instances where an individual is convicted but later acquitted on appeal, or in those circumstances where information in the newspapers is inaccurately reported? As this genre of web sites evolves it may well lead to the proliferation of more privacy invasive web sites. Think of the next generation of these web sites, which may include databases of people who have experienced marital problems, mental health difficulties and financial troubles. A coordinated response, encompassing a framework of regulations, needs to be developed to prevent these sites from operating in a way that may damage the reputation of innocent people, potentially prejudice the right to a fair trial and invade the privacy of fellow Australians.Other enterprises and services that may be offered on the Internet include the storage of individuals' health records and information. Traditionally, health records kept by both private and public sectors have been vigorously protected by legislation and professional codes of conduct. But there are moves to give Australians the benefit of global and instant access to their health records. It is expected that, within a decade, four out of five Australians will have their personal medical details on a national electronic health record and be able to access them on their home computer using a unique identifier code—which I am sure is of no surprise to the member for Jagajaga, the shadow minister for health. The great benefit of this arrangement is that it will allow patients who are travelling interstate or internationally to check their medical record and details if they find themselves suddenly needing treatment. It will also enable doctors, hospitals and pharmacists to access the health records of patients they are treating who have opted into the system. In some instances it could save lives.The drawback of this system is the threat it poses to individual privacy. There is a concern in Australia—perhaps justifiably so—of just how secure the Internet is. A recent international survey by credit card company American Express shows that most consumers prefer to purchase goods in retail shops rather than over the Internet because of fears about online security and privacy. In the Australian component of the survey, just over 85 per cent of the 1,200 Australian respondents said they were concerned about security and privacy when they made online financial transactions or purchases. Nearly 80 per cent of Australian respondents said they used the Internet as a research tool to investigate products on the market before visiting the retail outlet and purchasing the product there. These trends in the Australian market were reflected in the survey's global results that included 11,000 people in 10 countries. The provisions of this bill should help address some of these concerns and provide a boost to Australian e-retailers and perhaps give them a competitive advantage over their international counterparts. Personal information collated by businesses on their clientele is generally used for marketing purposes to generate further sales. But personal information can also be abused due to corporate espionage. According to a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers in 1999, Fortune 1000 companies recorded $US45 billion in losses as a result of corporate espionage. Experts in the field believe that computer penetration is one of the most common external methods of stealing corporate information. This means that corporate clients are exposed to having their confidential information stolen and then used for unintended purposes. These are all legitimate consumer concerns. If Australia is to be a beneficiary of thriving e-commerce, it is essential that we ensure the e-commerce consumers' privacy has a reasonable level of protection from a framework of workable laws. This bill goes a long way to achieving this by helping to establish a new approach to the protection and handling of personal information in the private sector.There has been a lot of comment generated in the media and by the opposition about the mechanics of this bill. We just heard from the shadow minister, the member for Barton, on this subject. Some interested parties advocate the insertion of retrospective provisions in this legislation. This suggestion lacks any degree of pragmatism. A retrospective clause would involve enormous compliance difficulties for the private sector. In some cases it would be a quite prohibitive condition. It is also worth noting that a retrospective requirement of this nature was not considered necessary when privacy legislation for the public sector was debated in parliament. It is difficult to see how you could argue that a retrospective requirement was suitable for the private sector but not for the public sector.Another concern which has been raised is that the penalties prescribed for breach of this legislation are not sufficiently prescriptive. This is not the case. The Privacy Commissioner has the capacity to make a determination in favour of the person who makes a complaint and can order that compensation be paid, or that the offending conduct not be repeated, or that a specified amount for loss and damage be paid to the complainant individual. I understand that to date the Privacy Commissioner has been able to reach resolutions between parties based on negotiation and agreement without having to resort to heavy-handed threats.Some people have criticised this bill for making pragmatic exemptions for some small businesses. This fails to acknowledge the fact that the Attorney-General has the authority to make the provisions of this bill apply to cover small business via regulation in instances based on the recommendations of the Privacy Commissioner. It also fails to recognise that the exemption does not apply to small businesses that provide a health service and hold health information or businesses that trade personal information. The bill before the House addresses all these concerns. This bill provides a comprehensive privacy regime that will cover the private sector for the first time. This regime will protect consumers by ensuring that personal information is collected, stored and handled fairly by organisations in the private sector. It will also aid Australian small business in e-commerce by giving them a competitive advantage over their international competition that does not have sufficient privacy protection measures in place for consumers.I would like to speak more about the bill. However, as I understand it, the opposition has made available a proposed draft of amendments only this morning, which is a considerable time after the debate, which makes it difficult to analyse them at this very late stage. I am concerned at the apparent inappropriateness of this conduct and whether the amendments are proposed as a serious contribution to policy development or as some form of mischief-making by the shadow Attorney-General, who only referred to them in this House less than 30 minutes ago. If the opposition were serious about privacy protection, surely they would have given the government more time to consider the amendments they are proposing. The bill was introduced in April and the government circulated its proposed amendments on 4 September. The opposition have had ample time to consider them and to reach a position, yet the government has not been given the courtesy of seeing the opposition's proposed amendments until after the debate has already started. I understand that the Labor Party are very exercised at the moment with matters to do with the Queensland Labor Party and electoral enrolment integrity, and I accept that they may not have been able to get their minds around the necessary amendments to the bill that they are proposing. But, still, the government does feel that they could have extended us the courtesy of an earlier acknowledgment of their amendments. Even if the government were of a mind to consider some of the proposed amendments, it could not reasonably be expected to do so in the ridiculously short time provided by the opposition. The opposition should affirm their support for maintaining individual privacy by supporting the bill. This bill is a major step forward in the challenge of protecting individual privacy in an increasingly technological environment. This bill will help meet this challenge. I commend the bill to the House.17:37:0022303Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—This is a very important piece of legislation we are debating here tonight. I want to concentrate my remarks on the significant impact on the health sector that the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 will have. It is the case that the health sector was involved in the consultation that occurred while the bill was being drafted, and the feedback to me has been that many diverse groups are actually quite unhappy with the outcome. Groups as diverse as the Australian Medical Association and the Australian Consumers Association have expressed their belief that health issues should be removed from this bill and a new comprehensive national approach for health privacy developed. Health groups also made a number of submissions to the House of Representatives committee which inquired into the bill. The issues raised are explained in detail in the advisory report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I refer members to chapter 6 which goes into the question of whether the health sector should be covered by this bill at all. Chapter 7 deals with the question of patient access to medical records. I will come back to both of those issues in my remarks.It is the case that this privacy bill has taken a very long time to get into the parliament. It seems to me that public thinking and concern are much more advanced than where this bill is going to take us. There is no doubt that many people in the community are very aware of and concerned about—as the previous speaker set out—the potential impacts of new health technology on their privacy. Members might have been waiting for this debate to come on last night and, in waiting, may have seen part of the ABC program Backberner. The program included a very pertinent sketch involving an amusing interview with a scientist who had invented a device that could be implanted into a person's liver to broadcast their medical records over the Internet so that they could receive immediate medical care if they needed hospitalisation in Peru. Of course, the satirical opportunities of such an unfettered approach to new technologies in health are obvious, but the seriousness of the threat to people's personal privacy certainly needs to be recognised by much stronger legislation than that which we are debating here today.There is no doubt that privacy has always been a very big issue in the health sector. Many things are said in the privacy of a doctor's room and I am sure that members here, just like all other members of the community, would not want those conversations to go elsewhere. It is now the case that, with the introduction of new information technologies, there are a whole lot of other new issues that need to be dealt with so that patient privacy is protected. Otherwise, the very big concern is that people will not have the confidence in these new technologies that could otherwise deliver improved health. We can now have rapid and accurate communication between doctors, hospitals, pharmacists, patients and all forms of other health providers. These same technologies can, of course, also overcome the tyranny of distance that results in rural Australians facing severe disadvantage in not being able to get the health services they need. These new technologies are also central to achieving major improvements in the equality of health services delivered. I must say that the increasingly complex nature of treatment being provided means that more and more people are becoming involved in providing care. Rapid and accurate communication between these carers is a key requirement for health. We find that many errors and avoidable adverse events in hospitals have their cause in poor communication or lack of clarity about the correct procedure to be followed. So it is the case that modern information technologies can make enormous contributions to bridging these gaps, improving the quality of care and making sure that fewer mistakes are made and doing so more efficiently. The regime for privacy in the private sector being put forward in this bill is unfortunately inadequate to protect our personal health files in this information age. The information recorded about a person in a doctor's surgery or a hospital is far more private than that gathered in a supermarket or a bank. Unfortunately, this bill is treating the information collected in just the same way, with just the same proposed laws. The privacy of our health records needs to be protected by strong privacy laws which apply the same privacy requirements to both the public and the private sectors and to both state and federally funded services. For example, it is no good having a different set of rules applying to people in different states or to people who may be moved from a private to a public hospital. The privacy rules should apply equally to doctors, regardless of whether their patients are bulk-billed through Medicare or paid for by workers compensation schemes or whether people are treated in public or private hospitals.Unless there is a single national framework, the public and private hospitals will all be working to different standards and patients will find great difficulty in being treated by different doctors when they need their doctors and other health professionals working together as a team. Questions like `Who holds the records?' and `Who has access to them with the consent of the patient?' need to be crystal clear and, from our point of view, need to be the same across the country. All health consumers should know what capacity they have to control who gets access to their records and how information is transferred to other health professionals. This protection needs to be built into the system from the very beginning. Unfortunately, this bill does not achieve that protection. The bill has a broad focus on the entire private sector and adopts a weaker system for establishing standards for privacy protection than exists in the public sector. The system proposed in this bill is based on non-enforceable industry codes of practice. As other speakers for the opposition will outline, this approach has weaknesses when considering the private sector in other areas and it certainly has serious flaws when considering the health sector.As I am sure all members know, health services are provided by both the public and private sectors. Health providers operate under a complex set of overlapping regulatory rules involving both the state and federal jurisdictions. The bill fails to deal with these key characteristics of the health sector, with the following results that I am sure the public will be very concerned about. There will not be any consistency between public and private providers; it is unclear which health industry body will be responsible for the private sector health guidelines on privacy, or whether doctors, hospitals and health funds will be subject to separate codes; there is a lack of enforceability against health service providers who fail to abide by their obligations under the code; and there is no improvement in the rules for patients to gain access to their own medical records. A number of other criticisms have been made amid the general concern that information technology is bringing about new and much more complex issues in the health sector which, as I say, unfortunately are not dealt with in this bill. The pace of change is causing greatest concern for patients. The use of electronic medical records is growing rapidly and numerous systems are being trialled all around the country. I am personally a very strong supporter of electronic health records and also of a unique patient identifier that enables improved communication between hospitals, doctors and pharmacists, for example. That said, there are important questions that have to be answered first about the operation of any electronic medical records. For example, how will patients give consent for information to be recorded electronically? Who will own the record? Who will have control of the data? Will patients be able to suppress information on their records? Patients might be happy for some information to be exchanged but may not be happy for other information to go from the privacy of a particular doctor. The public has a right to know the answers to all of these questions before we see electronic health records in general use.We see the government here pushing ahead with a very unclear strategy when it comes to health privacy. The health minister has recently announced something which he has called HealthConnect, without to date explaining exactly what it means. It has been said that it is going to cost $400 million over 10 years, but we do not have any details about who will be paying the bill. We also have a series of measures travelling under the title of `Better Medication Management'. Once again, it is not clear what the government intends to do, what the role of doctors and pharmacists, for example, will be, and who is going to pay for it. The professionals have a lot of concerns about many of the unanswered questions in that area as well. The one concrete step we have seen is the legislation to be debated later today or tomorrow which will require doctors and pharmacists to record and check patient Medicare numbers on all prescriptions. This bill has a real mouthful of a title: the National Health Amendment (Improved Monitoring of Entitlements to Pharmaceutical Benefits) Bill 2000. Unfortunately, the title gives little indication that this bill is in fact the first building block in the government's scheme to link all health records through a unique patient identifier. The bill is being presented with a narrow justification of cracking down on illegal use of pharmaceutical benefits by temporary visitors or illegal residents. In reality it does not just do that; it will lock Australia into a particular outcome when it comes to unique patient identifiers, without a chance for the community to debate the broader arrangements. These new requirements to put Medicare numbers on all prescriptions are proposed to be introduced within six months without any explanation of the privacy protections that will go with them. My concern about this legislation is not that it is the first measure but rather what it might mean for the future. Is this really the de facto unique patient identifier without any of the privacy controls that are critical to make such a system work fairly and to protect patients' interests?I turn now to the HealthConnect proposal, which the health minister announced after the last health ministers council in July. As I said, unfortunately to date the public knows very little about this new program. One of the few comments made publicly was by an officer of the health department who was quoted in the Age on 22 September suggesting that within five years people would be able to access their health records on their home computer and within 10 years 80 per cent of all Australians would have their health records on a centralised database. The previous speaker in the debate also made reference to these remarks. Without strict controls on privacy, it is certainly premature to be talking in this way. There are huge dangers in suggesting that everyone's health records should be sitting on the Internet. The public certainly recognises the enormous potential for invasion of privacy under any scheme which offers Internet access to medical records. Suggesting that 80 per cent of people will have their health records on a central electronic database within 10 years is pretty scary. For most people, it conjures up the notion of Big Brother, which inevitably will turn the public off the whole concept. We should be discouraging such reckless talk about electronic health records, because it certainly will result in a backlash from the community. There are three steps which the opposition would like to see. We think they are needed so that electronic health records and a unique patient identifier can be introduced, with patients feeling secure that their personal health information is safe. First of all, we need to have a commitment to strong national health privacy legislation that will apply the same privacy requirements to public and private sector health services regardless of whether they are regulated by state or federal powers. Secondly, it is very important that this be done in a public way. We would like to see a public inquiry into the issues surrounding health records and privacy so that the public is engaged and any changes are introduced with broad community support. Thirdly, we would like to see a refocusing of the debate onto records being held in a decentralised manner in accordance with current practices. The emphasis needs to shift to patients having control about who gets access to their information and how information about them is transferred to other health professionals. The focus needs to be put back on how the new information technologies can deliver better health services without undermining the strengths of our current decentralised arrangements. Faster and more accurate communication between health care providers is an important step towards improving the quality of health services, but that has to be done alongside protecting people's privacy.We on the Labor side set out our approach to these issues at our national conference in August. We are committed to a process which brings the public along and gives them confidence that they will be the beneficiaries from the exchange of information between health professionals and that the privacy of their health records will be enhanced, not eroded, by technological change. A key plank of Labor's policy is a commitment to establish a national health privacy legislative framework which will apply the same set of standards in all jurisdictions—public and private, state and federal—and make sure that, wherever a person is treated, a common set of standards will apply to how information is collected and exchanged, the rules for patient consent over disclosure to third parties, and the rules for patients' access to their own records. We are proposing that a unique patient identifier be developed based on people's Medicare card, but that there needs to be careful discussion and attention to privacy before that is brought into play. The specific amendments that we intend to pursue in the health area go firstly to the issue of access and to correction of data. As it stands, privacy principle 6 has been drafted in a general sense with some specific inclusions covering health. This makes the section confusing and hard to interpret. We want to move some amendments to make perfectly clear the patient's right to access their medical records and make corrections or additions where that is necessary. That will then be subject to five exemptions that still have, in terms of the paramount issue, the right of consumers to access their own records. The second amendment will go to the standards allowing access to information to be denied. As I say, the important thing is that we get harmonisation of standards so that the denial of access is similar no matter where people are being treated. Given the time, I will not go through those. I just want to draw attention to the fact that these recommendations for amendments are based on the ACT health records practice. That is certainly seen to be the best practice operating here in Australia. It is true that other states are at different stages of developing access rules, but unfortunately we do not have anyone committed to the development of a national standard. That is certainly what we need, and I would like to see that here as part of this legislation so that people's rights are protected.I understand the government has indicated that it will pick up the third amendment. It is to recognise that most health providers are small businesses and that they too will be able to delay their participation in this bill, just like other small businesses. I understand that the government intends to support that change. We see this bill as a small step forward but unfortunately a large opportunity missed. There will be support for the establishment of some general rules for the private sector on privacy. Of course, that is better than nothing, but I strongly support the view expressed in the House of Representatives committee report that there is a need to have national health privacy legislation that covers both public and private sectors and both state and federal legislation. Until we get a chance to take such a comprehensive approach, this bill will have to do.17:57:0022307Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—It is my pleasure to support the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 this afternoon and to commend the Attorney-General for bringing it forward to the parliament. The bill itself has had a long period of gestation. It was introduced in the House of Representatives on 12 April this year after it was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs for their scrutiny. Their examination of the legislation led to 23 recommendations, of which it is proposed that the government accept nine in full or in principle and two in part and that it reject 12. Most of the recommendations that the government has rejected were concerned with small business and employee record exemptions. They were rejected mainly on the basis either that they could be handled under workplace relations legislation or that they would impose on the small business sector an undue and unnecessary amount of red tape in terms of compliance. There was insufficient time to deal with the amendments that have come from the opposition. While the coalition were having their party meeting, out came the shadow minister to announce the amendments that were proposed. This bill has been a long time being reviewed—some 12 months. The draft legislation has been out there for some six weeks. Those opposite wait until we are in the party room, debating legislation. They know full well that, if the government are going to endorse something, it has to go to the party meeting. They failed to give sufficient time. One can only assume that, if they were serious about the amendments, they would go through the appropriate process and have discussions with the government. They have failed to do so. One can only conclude that their real interest is political stuntmanship rather than being concerned with issues of privacy. That is a great pity, because there are many fine recommendations in this bill.There is no doubt that the increasing use of the Internet has meant incredible opportunities for businesses and organisations across Australia, but it has brought with it some concerns about privacy of individuals. Of course, privacy relates not only to the Internet but to many other areas as well. In fact, if you look at the extent of the usage of the Internet by Australians, you see that it has become extensive but that its usage for transactions is relatively small. Some five per cent of Internet usage is concerned with purchases. There is concern about using credit cards and concern about issues of privacy of the information provided. This bill goes quite a way towards ensuring the privacy of individuals who access the Internet for direct marketing purposes and protecting how that information is used in accessing questionnaires and the various procedures used in order to gain access to particular marketing information. It is clear that this information can be used in various ways, and so the protection of that by this bill is vital. There are various people who are concerned about the protection of information. I know that Brett Whitford, who has recently established a new company that is about to go to the market called e-tick, has been before the Attorney-General's committee to talk about how he proposes to have companies sign up to the e-tick system the same way as they have done in Canada. This would ensure that those people who access organisations through the Internet can be guaranteed privacy, can be guaranteed the quality of the product and can be guaranteed delivery. That is an important step as well.The government has introduced this legislation for several reasons. The first reason is to ensure that there is parity between the privacy requirements of the public and private sectors across Australia, to enact a single, consistent and clear set of standards in order to give consumers more confidence. It particularly aims to improve confidence at a time when the electronic transfer of information over the Internet is becoming very common. Various surveys have indicated that there is a high degree of concern about the security of information on the Internet. So, while full advantage must be taken of these opportunities, the actual security of the information must be safeguarded. A further reason for this legislation is to give the Australian business community the confidence that a level playing field exists in privacy. The final reason is to enable the international community to have confidence in dealing with Australian companies. Quite a number of European organisations and corporations meet privacy requirements, and when they are dealing with Australian organisations it is appropriate that similar standards exist here. The provisions of the bill encourage the private sector to develop its own codes of practice, which is part of the government's approach of self-regulation that we see as a more sensible way first to approach this. However, if a private sector organisation fails to do this, the national privacy principles, which are outlined in this legislation, will apply to that organisation. The national principles of privacy will be the benchmark that the Privacy Commissioner uses when deciding whether an industry's or individual's business code of practice fits into the national privacy regime. If a person is not satisfied with how their personal information is being treated by a business, they can first approach the company with their concerns. As part of the privacy code, businesses are given the opportunity to respond and to establish a complaint handling mechanism. It is important that individual consumers are encouraged to deal directly with an organisation in the first instance, as this is consistent with the government's desire that the legislation provide a soft touch rather than the heavy hand of government and that there be as little external government involvement as possible. If the complaint is not satisfactorily handled, they have the ability, as proposed in this legislation, to go to the Privacy Commissioner, who will mediate the dispute. Most disputes will be resolved simply without the need to go to the Privacy Commissioner but, where they are not, obviously they can go all the way through to the commissioner. The opposition's more heavy-handed approach to the responsibilities of the commissioner would undoubtedly mean excessive red tape.The national privacy principle in relation to direct marketing has been an important aspect of this legislation. The process of dispute mediation is the first part. The second relates to changes in direct marketing. I am sure that all members of the House have had some experience of names being passed on, of being on one mailing list with an organisation and suddenly finding that they are on multiple mailing lists. That can be an unnecessary intrusion, particularly in terms of direct marketing efforts when one is phoned at home and asked a range of questions. I have actually received a number of complaints recently from people in my electorate in which individuals who are very protective of their privacy have expressed great concern about how details could have been released. In one particular case, an individual who has a private phone number was being accessed on a regular basis. She came to see me to ask how this was possible. It was discovered that this information was being passed on, and we took some action in that regard. Passing information on to direct marketers, which is passed on to third parties who further sell it to other direct marketers, is part of the Australian business scene at this stage. The government is seeking to tighten the direct marketing provisions. We already have in place a provision where, when personal information is used by an organisation for a secondary purpose of direct marketing, the person must be given a clear initial opportunity to opt out of further communications. They can tell the company directly, `I don't want to be part of the passing on of information. I don't want to receive any further calls or letters from your organisation. Please desist.' Then the organisation is obliged under this legislation to desist.Some weeks ago, when I knew I would be speaking in this debate, I contacted the Australian Direct Marketing Association, ADMA, in New South Wales to seek their opinion. I thought that they might be opposed to this legislation, as it might provide some restrictions on their operation, but in fact I found that they were broadly supportive of the policy direction that the government has taken in this area. While they have some reservations about some of the requirements of reporting on all direct marketing material, they recognise that greater privacy protection is actually good for business as it improves consumer confidence, which is of course integral to their activities. There are some 650,000 people involved in direct marketing across Australia, and obviously they have a direct economic impact in Australia. According to Commercial Economic Advisory Service Australia, consumer driven growth in the direct marketing sector is currently running at around 15 per cent per year. So it is quite significant. In the last three years, privacy related inquiries relating to direct marketing have been in steep decline—from 428 in 1997 to 312 in 1998 and to 205 in 1999. In other words, they have declined by one half—50 per cent—in over two years. The Privacy Commissioner's annual report shows that direct marketing inquiries make up 2.3 per cent of the total inquiries received by it. While direct marketing can be a nuisance, it can also be a generator of jobs. It can be important for the economic growth of the country.A number of exceptions are provided in this legislation whereby organisations will not need to comply with its provisions. This is because, like all rights, the rights to privacy must be balanced against many other community interests. Firstly, there is the exception of small businesses with an annual turnover of less than $3 million. That is important. We note the opposition's comments, but we believe the provision is appropriate. It is felt that most small businesses pose little or no privacy risk. To avoid unnecessary compliance costs and red tape, they are excluded unless they hold personal health information or provide a health service. This is because the government recognises that Australians consider personal health details to be extremely personal and not to be passed on. A small business is also required to conform to the legislation if it discloses personal information about another individual to anyone else for benefit or advantage.There is also the opt-in provision. This means that, despite the fact that the organisation may have a turnover of less than $3 million a year, the company may decide to opt in as part of the legislation because of the benefits of trading internationally. This is where the company that they are dealing with operates in a country which has similar requirements and, in order to give assurances in terms of trading arrangements, they decide to opt in to the requirements of this legislation. There is also the fact that the government has removed the additional 12-month delayed application of the legislation to businesses that provide a health service, following a further recommendation to the standing committee. Of course, that has been covered amply. It is absolutely imperative, given the question of individuals' health records, that they not be passed on, as has been the tendency especially through the Internet. We see the opposition approach generally as heavy handed, unnecessary and bureaucratic and, again, enforcing Big Brother principles. The government's approach on this is more of a lighter touch in encouraging self-regulation. Only when there are clear breaches of this, where particular associations or organisations do not meet the national requirements, should the Privacy Commissioner become involved.The government has also exempted the media. Some in this House may consider that as not being appropriate but, in the overall balance of things, it is seen that, for the media to carry out their normal activities, they should be exempted from the requirements of this legislation. However, the government agrees with the standing committee that media organisations should be made to sign up to a code of practice before they get the benefit of the exemption. This has been provided for in the amendments.Employee records—that is, any personal information about an employee held by their employer on their personnel files—have been exempted from this legislation. The opposition's argument, that exemption should not be in place, does not take into account the fact that the employee's privacy is far better covered by workplace relations legislation. Even though we understand the point the opposition is making, it is important that greater dialogue exists. The opposition's unnecessary stunt in announcing the amendments when the coalition was locked up in a party meeting this morning highlights this fact. Political parties having been exempted as freedom of political communication is seen as important by all parties involved in the process. Overall, this legislation is long overdue. It provides an important balance. It provides a level playing field for business. It ensures that the privacy of individuals will be protected and that the wholesale passing on of marketing information collected by direct marketing groups or collected from other sources will not continue in the way that it has in the past. This is particularly relevant as it relates to medical records and a whole range of activities in which marketing organisations become involved. The other aspects which relate to personnel records are covered by the workplace relations provisions. There are the exemptions that are outlined for the media and small business. The ability to opt in, if this is required for trade requirements with other countries, is covered by this legislation. There are many aspects that concern individuals today, such as Crimewatch, which is a disturbing trend in the community, and I am sure we will see this piece of legislation added to in the future. It is important that we protect the rights of the individual and the privacy of individuals as much as possible. But to encourage organisations to develop their own self-regulation is also appropriate so that we do not continue to see the heavy hand of government. Where it is possible, we should encourage the private sector to develop its own standards. This legislation provides the ability for the Privacy Commissioner to step in where national standards are not met. I think that, overall, it is a significant piece of legislation. We will continue to monitor how effective it is in protecting the rights and privacy of individuals across Australia. I commend the bill to the House.18:14:0022310Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise today to bring to the House's attention the gross abuse of privacy currently occurring within the Australian real estate industry via the operation of tenancy databases. The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000, which we are debating today, does not even go close to addressing the real concerns of the tenants of Australia. Indeed, the legislation, which in the government's own words provides a `light touch' regulatory regime, does virtually nothing to protect the growing number of Australians in private rental accommodation. Article 17 of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights stipulates that:... no one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his or her privacy ...And it requires that individuals should have:the right to the protection of the law against such interference.Under the current act, government agencies and instrumentalities are regulated regarding the collection of personal information; the storage of and security surrounding such information; the notification of the existence of record systems; the ability for individuals to access their own records; the accuracy and completeness of personal information; and the use of personal information and its disclosure to third parties. But this sensible government regulation of what information can or cannot be gained and stored about individuals is regulation only applied to the government sector. The current act extends these principles into the private sector only in the very limited area of the consumer credit industry and to restrict the use of tax file number information.In March 1997, the Prime Minister announced that the government would not legislate at the national level to protect private information in the private sector. Instead, the Prime Minister wanted the Privacy Commissioner to liaise with industry bodies with a view to establishing what the government calls a `coregulatory' scheme but which in effect is nothing more than voluntary self-regulation. There are a number of reasons why the government's scheme is a gross dereliction of duty to the Australian public. First, why should private sector companies or interests be less regulated than the government sector when it comes to storing personal information about Australian citizens? Of course, the answer to that is pure ideology. Especially in the age of the Internet, the access private companies have to information about individuals is quite phenomenal. A well-known example of such a private company database is that held by the Packer--Andrew Robb consortium, Acxiom. This database contains the personal information of over 15 million Australians, gathered without permission through the merging of personal information obtained from numerous Internet sites. Why should private sector companies be given the freedom to self-regulate while government agencies follow the rules? That brings me to my second point. Self-regulation never works the way imposed government regulation works. No industry is going to set up stringent guidelines to follow, then throw the book at itself if breaches occur. It is unconscionable that, on an issue as fundamental as the right to privacy, the Prime Minister could suggest that there be one rule for government agencies and another for the private sector. Both are capable of holding large amounts of personal information about the Australian populace and both should be treated equally. However, the Prime Minister did not totally get his own way on this issue. The bill being introduced today gives limited effect to national privacy principles which will set out standards of how businesses and other private sector organisations should collect, use, disclose and maintain private information about individuals.The reason the government has labelled the legislation `soft touch' legislation is that the bill still allows individual businesses to set up their own privacy codes. These codes need to be approved by the Privacy Commissioner and have at least as much privacy protection as the national principles dictate. The issue I am most concerned about in my capacity as Labor's parliamentary secretary for housing is that of tenancy databases. This bill utterly fails the private tenants of Australia. Currently in New South Wales alone, there are five tenancy databases operating. The two largest—Tenancy Information Australasia Holdings Pty Ltd, TICA, and Rentcheck—between them claim to have over half a million tenants on their databases. Just think about that figure—half a million tenants. The fact that they are able to collect such large listings is partly to do with the myth making that pervades the real estate industry about the numbers of `high risk' tenants in the community who need to be guarded against at all costs. If one compares the numbers of tenants listed on New South Wales databases to the numbers of landlords who claim to have had a big problem with a tenant in the last year, the discrepancy is huge.According to research undertaken by the Department of Fair Trading in New South Wales, on average 27,500 landlords claimed that they were experiencing a significant problem regarding their tenants each year. Why this means that it is necessary for tenancy databases to keep tabs on over half a million private citizens is anyone's guess. The other point to be made here is that, of the complaints between tenants and landlords that do come before the Residential Tribunal in New South Wales, 95 per cent are solved by either conciliation or a simple hearing. Landlords overestimate the need for tenancy databases to police bad tenants. Most orders from the tribunal are complied with. Indeed it is harder to get ordered moneys from a landlord than it is from a tenant as, unlike tenants, landlords post no bond. There is no objective evidence of significant levels of default by tenants who have losses sustained by landlords. But, of course, tenancy databases, by their very existence, have a built-in incentive to maximise the number of so-called bad tenants. If they say everyone is a good tenant, they go out of business. So you have a built-in profit motive to exaggerate the need for these databases and to include as many citizens as possible. As the Tenants Union of New South Wales stated in its submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs inquiry into this bill:... what the figures do demonstrate, is that landlords have more than equitable access to the residential tribunal and that the vast majority of problems are easily resolved, by consent or order. Database listing is unlikely to be justified in more than a thousand instances a year—nothing like the hundreds of thousands currently adversely listed. The reason tenancy databases so desperately need to be regulated is that the self-regulation of the industry has allowed for some very questionable practices regarding what exactly constitutes the criteria for black-listing a tenant. When does someone become a bad tenant, and in whose opinion? Is it a subjective or an objective test? There are no safeguards to ensure that tenants are not listed simply for trivial or malicious reasons. There are no requirements that the allegation be backed up by evidence or that the tenant have a right of reply to his or her adverse listing. The listing is made at the complete discretion of the landlord or real estate agent. This means that the tenant's fear of being black-listed can become a significant weapon in a landlord's armoury. Tenants may avoid raising issues or seeking remedies for disputes for fear of being black-listed.Tenancy database organisations are now also becoming involved in the policing of tenancy arrears. The Tenants Union of New South Wales is increasingly getting inquiries from tenants who have been sent threatening letters on the 15th day of being overdue with their rent. In all situations there was no courtesy call or inquiry as to the reason why the rent was late. One standard letter, issued by TICA, is particularly severe. It says:It is with regret that we are forced to advise you that due to your debt your default has been recorded on our national default tenancy database.Due to your actions you may now find difficulties in freely obtaining rental accommodation due to the large membership of TICA throughout Australia and New Zealand.We advise that your debt will now be reported to TICA members advising them of your breach and the date it occurred. We will also advise them of the details of your managing agent.As a direct result of your actions our member may also commence recovery proceedings which may result in a garnisheeing of your income, thus involving your employer. The matter could then be brought to the attention of the Credit Reference Association of Australia (CRAA). A listing with CRAA would have an effect on your ability to obtain future credit.A default recorded against your rental history and your credit history is not something which should be taken lightly or disregarded. Your tenancy history and credit history is your responsibility to promote.We advise that until such time as your debt is cleared your details will remain on the database.We trust you will appreciate the position in which you have placed yourself. Should you wish to discuss this matter further you can call TICA on the number below.This letter directly threatens the tenant's ability to find rental accommodation in the future, it threatens to involve the tenant's employer in recovery proceedings and it threatens the tenant's ability to obtain future credit. But that is not the worst aspect of the letter. The number that the tenant is asked to call if they want to discuss the matter further or perhaps defend themselves against false allegations is charged at a rate of $4.95 per minute. A five-minute conversation would cost a tenant $25—$25 to clear your name of a false allegation, $25 to explain that you had been out of town but would be paying double the rent this week. These letters are automatically triggered and are sent to people that are 15 days late in paying their rent.However, there is some light at the end of the tunnel, courtesy of the ACCC. In September this year, the ACCC found that a Cairns based real estate agency using letters very similar to the one I have just described had engaged in `false or misleading representations and may have engaged in undue harassment or coercion in relation to the payment for goods and services'. The real estate agency was forced to provide court -enforceable undertakings that admitted its harassing conduct and admitted that in sending the letters the agency was likely to have breached the Trade Practices Act 1974. The agency was then required to make a commitment that it would not repeat the misrepresentations. It had to agree to the implementation of a trade practices compliance program and was forced to send corrective letters of apology to the two tenants concerned. The ACCC findings demonstrate more than ever why it is so important that the federal government regulate tenancy databases. State governments have tenancy tribunals and laws to ensure that bad or defaulting tenants are evicted or forced to pay their arrears. There is strong legal protection for the owners of rental property. Although no-one is disputing a landlord's right to check out the credentials of prospective tenants, that does not give landlords a right to put on a database, without regulation and with impunity, private information about individuals. For the first time in Australia's history, home ownership has fallen below 70 per cent. More and more Australians rely upon the private rental market for both their short-term and, increasingly, their long-term accommodation needs. As the Tenants Union of New South Wales said in its submission:... where the satisfaction of the human right and need for housing is at stake, competent and authoritative regulation is needed, to protect individuals from unwarranted discrimination and to protect our community from the adverse impacts of increased housing hardship and the social costs of dislocation and homelessness.The union therefore believes that the principles applied to tenancy databases should ensure that: tenants are only listed in justifiable and verified circumstances; tenants are informed that they have been listed and why they have been listed; tenants are able to easily and freely correct wrong information; standards of security of information are developed; there is accessible legal redress available to tenants wrongly listed; and suitable penalties apply to database operators to ensure compliance with privacy guidelines.The government's bill today addresses none of these concerns. Labor has therefore moved amendments to ensure that tenancy databases are more effectively covered by this bill. Labor, unlike the government, believes that the growing numbers of residential tenants in Australia deserve to have their privacy protected. Labor does not believe the rhetoric of a minority of extremists in the real estate industry that private renters are all potential criminals who need to have their lives and pay packets closely monitored at all times. Labor believes that tenants must be able to access the same privacy protection procedures as any other citizen. Labor defines tenancy information as `information or an opinion about an individual collected in connection with the provision of residential accommodation to the individual that is also personal information'. Labor's amendments ensure, therefore, that tenancy databases do not come under the small business exemption. The small business exemption allows the bill not to apply to small business for 12 months after the legislation commences. It also allows certain small businesses to continue to be exempt from the legislation unless they maintain certain sorts of information, as defined by the act.Sitting suspended from 6.30 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESE—Labor's amendments to the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 ensure that this exemption does not apply to operators of tenancy databases. Under the bill, if a small business disclosed `personal information about another individual to third parties for a benefit, service or advantage', or if a small business collects `personal information about another individual from third parties by providing a benefit, service or advantage', then a small business is not exempt from the operation of the act. If Labor's amendments are successful, operators of tenancy databases will be amongst those small businesses that are forced to comply with the act. However, this compliance may not be too taxing as this bill as presently drafted has no effective application to existing databases. Section 16C excludes the application of privacy principle 2, which relates to the use and disclosure of personal information to existing databases. The same section provides that privacy principle 6, which relates to access and correction of personal information, will also not apply to existing databases. This means that any tenant who suffers damage as a result of inaccurate information currently held on them will be unable to do anything about it. This bill allows for the perpetuation of inaccurate and prejudicial information already collected. It seems bizarre that the bill draws the line so arbitrarily between personal information collected before and personal information collected after the commencement of the act. Surely all personal information, no matter when it was collected, should be subject to the same privacy regulation and laws. The law should be about consistency across the board, not chronological discrepancy as allowed for in this bill. Labor has therefore moved amendments that ensure that privacy principles 2 and 6 will immediately apply to existing data, with an exception where it is administratively impossible for the organisation to provide such access. This exception is unlikely to apply to tenancy databases as their business depends on the ready and speedy provision of tenancy database information. Labor's amendments, if passed, will mean that people will be able to seek access to and correct existing tenancy database information. Labor's commitment to fairness for the private tenants of Australia is not restricted to moving amendments to this bill. At the ALP national conference in Hobart this year, Labor included as part of its national housing strategy the introduction of national tenancy standards. This inclusion is the first time that Labor's platform has committed us to such a measure. It states:National tenancy standards that will provide for security of tenure and consumer safeguards for tenants including caravan park residents and boarders and lodgers. As a condition of funding under the CSHA, state and territory governments will be required to comply with national tenancy standards designed to protect tenants' rights. These standards will ensure that tenants' rights are protected in relation to matters such as eviction, unfair rents, repairs and maintenance, quality of rental accommodation, appeals and bond security.The platform also pledges Labor to:. the development of a national rental housing standards code in consultation with non-government tenancy organisations. This code will outline best practice legislative standards required by the Commonwealth;. ensuring that all states and territories have independent review mechanisms for resolving tenancy disputes; and . supporting the regulation of tenant databases through stronger privacy protection including independent monitoring of compliance and access to affordable dispute resolution processes.This bill represents a wasted opportunity. In the era of information technology and the World Wide Web, government needs to ensure that, more than ever, the privacy of its citizens is protected. This bill allows the private sector to be treated with a softer touch than government agencies and allows current tenancy databases to continue unregulated and unchecked. This bill fails the growing number of private tenants in Australia. I urge the government to support Labor's amendments. (Time expired)20:04:0022314Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I have just listened to quite an interesting speech on the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 from the honourable member for Grayndler. He probably recognises that Labor, for 13 years in government, did nothing about private sector privacy. They did not touch it. They did not look at it. They did not even consider it. Over the period that Labor were in office, I was present at a number of hearings of committees of the parliament. The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs did an inquiry into and a report on the protection of confidential, personal and commercial information held by the Commonwealth. So protecting material held by government was the previous government's first priority, and it was a proper priority. Unless this is approached in a rational and measured manner, the whole concept of privacy will not bear the fruit that it needs to for protection of individuals and information that should remain confidential. This has been a matter of concern for me for almost as long as I have been in the parliament. There have been many scandalous instances of people disclosing information for benefit and sometimes for gain. The personal privacy an individual is entitled to when dealing with government departments or agencies of government is paramount, in my opinion. There have been instances of disclosures from the then Department of Social Security that led to deaths or suicides. I know of one instance where Telstra did not hesitate to say before the committee that they eavesdropped on their clients, and they had no sense of remorse or conscience about listening in to private conversations without advising their customers that they were doing that. In the whole of the government sector, there has been an increasing awareness that information gained in private should be retained in private; that information of a personal nature applying to an individual should be privileged information and used only for the purposes for which it was gained, whether it be to acquire a benefit from the Commonwealth, to seek an eligibility for a benefit, or to come within the framework of a program where government requirements insist upon a person meeting certain criteria. All of those things are proper processes of government, where people need to meet certain standards before they become eligible for government assistance.When collected in databases, that information can be a very powerful instrument. At one hearing of the investigation into confidential and personal information held by the Commonwealth, it was revealed that tax and social welfare departments often maintained data-matching databases of 10,000 or 12,000 names for months. They had many such databases available in a crossmatching process without proper protection for individuals. The data match back in 1995 was one reason why the government of that day introduced very strong provisions to protect private information in relation to government. It relates to income, to health, to marital or personal relationships—all of that sort of information is significant when it applies to individuals and their eligibility for government benefits.During that same period, the Audit Office followed up with examinations of what exactly was happening to data matching and how these huge databases of crossmatched material containing information about thousands of Australians was available to anybody who wanted to browse through them. The committee heard evidence of one case of the disclosure, at a social occasion, of a delicate medical condition. A woman who worked for a medical agency disclosed that she was aware of the reason why another young woman at that party was unable to have a baby. That was a traumatic experience for everybody involved at that social occasion, and it was something that the young woman had great difficulty overcoming. That is improper use of information. It was casual, I do not think it was meant to be malicious, but it turned out to be malicious.The Australian National Audit Office has been following through the application and systems applying to databases. Attached to the whole process of freedom of privacy is the freedom of information legislation. To what extent should a citizen gain information from the government? What rights do we have to learn of background information being used to form government decisions? We have had a number of discussion papers over the last five years on freedom of information. There have been discussion papers put out by the Australian Law Reform Commission on what is privacy and what is freedom of information. There is a clash where governments want to hide material and where it is essential that individuals feel they have the protection and privacy they require.The Privacy Commissioner, an appointment of the parliament, is a person who supervises the procedures adopted by government departments to ensure that they are appropriate and that they do not exceed the law, whether it be in relation to surveys done by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, information regarding the Australian Business Number, or information sought by the Australian Taxation Office. During this last period, the tax office came under question and the Privacy Commission was involved in making an assessment of whether the tax office had exceeded its authority and was seeking information it should not be gaining. In fact, the tax office was gaining information and disclosing information in a way that was damaging to individuals. Having settled that process, it was up to the incoming government of John Howard and to the Attorney-General, Mr Daryl Williams, to examine the area of privacy as it applies to private companies. This is a difficult area for a government that is a private enterprise government, so there is a lot of courage and determination in the processes that are before the House tonight. Not only has there been a rigorous process of government with the development of the legislation but there has also been the determination to see that it is applied. There is also the wish of the Attorney-General that a broad range of opinion be sought, so he referred the legislation to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. That was an interesting inquiry, and some of the information gained by the committee has proved to be invaluable in assessing where the real barriers to privacy and information lie. The bill provides for national privacy principles as the default rules for privacy protection in the private sector. The legislation rules will not apply to any organisation that agrees to be bound by a privacy code which has been approved by the Privacy Commissioner. That was an innovative thought from the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. To be approved, a privacy code must incorporate protections equivalent to those contained in the national privacy principles. So the voluntary process is one that was devised by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and I consider it to be a real innovation. The bill establishes, in the words of the Attorney, a light touch, but it is not a soft touch. It is a process that goes in there and, for the sake of individuals, seeks to protect information about them that is held by private organisations.Private organisations generally gain information about individuals in the process of commerce, trade and other activity. Individuals know jolly well, when they supply names, addresses, telephone numbers and other information to private organisations, that those organisations become the holder of the information and individuals can be mailed, telephoned and followed up by those organisations. In this day and age, the business of communications extends beyond that point. For business it becomes a matter of, `We've got saleable information about a person or people who have bought particular commodities. These are their addresses and telephone numbers, fax numbers and emails. There is a way of communicating with them that might be advantageous in a commercial sense.' The protection of the information held by corporations and businesses is something that we are dealing with in this legislation tonight. Where privacy breaches have occurred, the bill gives the Privacy Commissioner or the approved adjudicator the power to address the breach. This power may include directing the organisation to refrain from the conduct found to be a privacy breach, or declaring that the organisation redress the loss or damage suffered, or that compensation is payable for any loss or damage suffered. The bill provides for some exemptions. The Australian Labor Party has said tonight that it objects to some of the exemptions the government has applied. The exemptions are for very small businesses. This is a commonsense approach adopted by the government. Small businesses normally hold records in a very informal manner—not necessarily an insecure manner but an informal manner. To apply to them the rigid conditions that apply to medium or large corporations is completely inappropriate. So small business at this point has an exemption, which I think is appropriate. We need to see how the larger corporations apply it. There is a cost to all of this—a procedure needs to be developed, which does add to the cost of running a corporation. By imposing this legislation on business, it does add to the ultimate price we pay for goods and services. The cost may not be great in many cases, but there is a cost. It is the government's view that employee records are best dealt with through the workplace relations process.83KRoxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon—So when is the government going to do that?SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—I think the government has adopted a very sensible approach. I know that other views are held. I believe that we have a very active and committed Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—one of the best I have ever seen in this House. I know that he is not always appreciated by committed unionists, but I think he is really endorsed by those people who want the freedom to work, the freedom to earn and the freedom to associate. So the establishment of the basic freedoms in the union movement, where they have not existed before, is one of the strengths of the minister for workplace relations, and I think he will continue that fine record and he will look carefully at this. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business is a man of compassion and thoughtfulness. He knows that employee records need to be handled with care. The media and political parties also have an exemption. The committee looked long and hard at both of them. We concluded that the government was probably right, even though we were of two minds about the government's approach to the media and political parties and the privacy factors that the bill covers. Small businesses with a turnover of $3 million or less are dealt with in the legislation. I argued that $3 million was a rough measure, but I could not convince my colleagues. A $3 million company may employ only a tiny number of people but, if it is a manufacturing business, it can employ a substantial number. I would have preferred to have seen both the number of employees and the turnover figure in the qualifications for exemption for small businesses.I am pleased that the exemption does not apply to health services. It does not apply to things such as medical practices, pharmacies or health clubs. Very significantly in my own electorate, a tremendous row has been going on over the last few months between a couple of medical practices. A new practice arrived, and the new group convinced a number of doctors who were part of the established practice to move out. The doctors who decided not to move had all of their medical records dumped and left behind—strewn around the offices. These medical records are confidential notes and contain information about the conditions of patients and their medication. It was a complete disregard for privacy. In another instance, all of the records of some of the doctors were taken—whether by mistake or whether on purpose—from the original site of the practice to the new site, even though the doctors themselves were not moving. They could not gain access to the information on their own patients. The patients themselves could not get access to their own records. There was some weird argument that there was a proprietary claim on copyright and that, somehow or other, it had been purchased by the management or the owner of the practice.It was most improper, in my opinion, that patients could not gain information about their own condition for continuing treatment. Certainly a doctor may have made notes but included amongst those notes would be a strict record of the prescriptions that the patient was receiving, a description of the diagnosed condition, an assessment of the level of medication and the response to varying levels of medication. Nothing could be more significant to a person's health. Yet in this instance, right in the middle of Castle Hill, I regret to say there was a claim that these medical records were not in any way related to the wellbeing of the patient, were not the personal property of the patient and were not accessible by the patient; they belonged to someone who was purely a manager of a medical practice and who was not even a doctor. I find that quite disgusting. I am most pleased and delighted that these changes to privacy legislation have been made.The bill also allows the Attorney-General to prescribe areas of privacy if he so desires. That means that, despite the exemption that exists on small businesses, the Attorney-General can move in and declare a certain area of interest to him, but he has to consult the Privacy Commissioner and make a public declaration of why he is declaring an area no longer exempt. The application of the legislation to small businesses is going to be delayed for 12 months. I think that is a proper process. Let them get ready. They are coping with enough at the moment with the introduction of the new tax system. I think, as we work through these next few months, that will settle down and the privacy issues will come to the fore.Despite the fact that the exemption is limited to the collection, use and disclosure of employee records where they relate directly to the employment relationship, it precludes an employer selling personal information contained in an employee record to a direct marketer, for example. So that information about employees held by employers is secure. I think this is a great step forward. It will need to be watched and assessed carefully. I trust that the Privacy Commissioner will be alert, as the Attorney-General and members of this House will be, to see whether it works properly. (Time expired)20:24:0022318Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—It is a great pleasure to be following the member for Mitchell in this debate on the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000, because both he and I worked on a committee which reviewed this very bill. It is interesting, however, to hear the views that the member for Mitchell has on the government's response to our committee's report. I would like to pick up the example he used of the medical practice in Castle Hill. All of us, along with the rest of the community, would share some horror in knowing that people's most personal information—their health records—could be treated in that way, that those people could not have access to those records and that those people could not stop their records being referred to a new medical practitioner or some such thing. I think the member for Mitchell's concern is genuine—I am sure it is in respect of the people whose records were treated improperly—however, if the government's bill becomes legislation it would still not give the people who have had that abuse inflicted upon them any effective action, recourse or capacity to be able to complain in any way which might effectively prevent the manager of that medical practice from treating material in that way again in the future. One of the great complaints I have with the bill as it currently stands is that there is no real enforcement available for individuals and there is no real enforcement if some systematic abuse were to occur. Whereas many people may be decent and reasonable in the way they handle information, unfortunately some may not. We are often in the position in this House of wanting to pass legislation that does deal with the lowest common denominator and does give people some effective remedy and recourse in situations where their rights have been abused. Unfortunately, despite the member for Mitchell's concern, his government is not going to be taking up that issue. That is one of the great criticisms we have with the bill as it currently stands.This bill does deal with the key issue of privacy. I think it is probably not an understatement to say that this could well be the next big rights movement, if you like, in our country, not just for individual rights but for the development of community rights, because it is going to set new standards for handling information and new standards for dealing with people within the community, not just in the business community but it will particularly apply in that area. As a number of other speakers have already said before me in this debate, because of the boom in technology and the widespread and ever increasing use of computers and databases to manage all sorts of information—and this covers areas such as health, your capacity to earn an income, your dealings with government, marketing, all of your personal affairs, banking and everything else—people are becoming increasingly concerned about the way their private information is handled. We have in the community an increased awareness of security—what sort of protection we might want for using and passing on our personal information, who is actually receiving it when it is passed on and what happens if that information is incorrectly stored, if it is misused or if you would like to withdraw that information. So I do not think it is an understatement to say that it could be the next big rights movement, because people are realising the power that the new technology gives to people if they seek to use it as a way of storing information about people. It is incredibly effective if it is used well and correctly, but it also has the capacity to be very damaging if it is used improperly.Given the importance that the community has already identified—and even members of the government who have already spoken on this bill have I think shared that view—it staggers me to see the government get it so wrong when you look at the sort of emphasis it wants to put on this area. It is staggering to see that the government is prepared to say we take a light touch here and do not think that that is inconsistent with the community's desires. I think the community is well ahead of the government on this issue and would be very surprised—in fact, I think greatly concerned—to find that their private information is not protected in a number of ways and, even when the bill is passed and becomes legislation, will remain unprotected in a large number of areas. I think that is particularly concerning to us. The member for Barton, who is our shadow Attorney-General and obviously has the main carriage of this bill for us, has already said—and I think these were the words he used—that the legislation needs a bit more grunt; that the government was designing a car but not providing an engine. That is a very good way of describing what this piece of legislation is doing. It is moving us forward in the area of privacy. It is proposing to introduce protection where it has not previously existed. But it is incredibly late, by the community's standards, and it does not go far enough. The example that the member for Mitchell gave us is a very good one to highlight—the sorts of things that the community expect in the treatment of their private information but do not get.The member for Jagajaga, our spokesperson on health, dealt specifically with the concerns in relation to the treatment of medical records and other health information. The member for Grayndler dealt with tenancy issues. These are two major issues where the government has not picked up on the recommendations made by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. It is a great shame that it has not done that. They are areas of particular concern in the community and they require some special treatment. It is very disappointing that the government has not seen fit to pick up on those recommendations. Hopefully, it will have cause for further reflection, once the member for Barton moves his proposed amendments, and will change its mind and see fit to accept our recommendations.Although people can understand that the government wants to take a light touch approach and wishes to phase in this new change to the business world, I think that already there has been a large amount of warning and a lot of notice that these new privacy standards will inevitably come in some time and there has been an opportunity for most business operators in particular, because it seems that the government is most concerned with them, to get their affairs in order. It seems that allowing an enormous number of exemptions and delaying the introduction of the effect of this just extends the time much further than is needed, again letting down the community in an area where they already feel that they should have protection. They are not going to get it, even when this bill becomes law. Even after the bill has been passed by this House there will be a very long delay before it comes into effect. When it does come into effect people will still not be able to take action to enforce their rights under the legislation. It seems that, in a number of areas, it is just too soft. It is quite disappointing because of that.The member for Barton will move some amendments dealing with the date of enforcement, which would mean the community would have protection sooner than the government wishes them to have it. We are also seeking to move amendments which will provide individuals with appropriate redress and give the Privacy Commissioner the means to monitor and prevent systematic abuse, which in some ways is the greatest concern because we are seeking to change the culture of a number of organisations—business and community organisations—that handle vast amounts of personal information about large numbers of people. We will be seeking to move some amendments that deal with effective enforcement and we hope that a range of exemptions that the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has recommended be tightened, and a number of others, will be picked up.When the report into this bill was tabled in the House I said that most members of the community do have an expectation that they already have the right to privacy, that there are some rules out there that somehow protect them against unreasonable use of their personal information. Whilst this might already apply for government, sadly it is not accurate in all other walks of life. Whilst decent and reasonable standards might be generally applied, this is only due to the decency and reasonableness of most organisations and businesses handling personal information—it is not by virtue of the requirements of any law. As I have already said, sadly we cannot just rely on the decency and reasonableness of the whole community and every member of the community in protecting the most vulnerable. Often we seek to regulate the worst performers and the lowest common denominator when we pass legislation in this place. Given the fact that the community do believe they are already entitled to expect that their privacy will be protected, in this context the government has made a grave error of judgment. I know that members of this House and people listening to the debate would share with me a surprise that the standards that will be introduced are quite basic ones. The national privacy principles that are set out in the bill basically set out some fairly broad and fairly generous guidelines on the way that information can be collected about people, on the way that it can be used and disclosed, on the quality of the data—if you are going to record and store information about people, you should take reasonable steps to ensure that it is correct—and on the security of that information so that the data is protected and not destroyed, or is destroyed at an appropriate time.One of the most important areas that the privacy principles covers is the access and correction principle which allows a member of the public who has some information stored on a database or stored by an organisation or business to check what information is stored there, to check that it is accurate, to ask for it to be removed or corrected if it is inaccurate, and to require an organisation to give a reason why they would not provide that information. These things are fairly basic and I think most businesses would say that they would like to run their businesses in a way where they could always provide to individual consumers information about themselves. But, unfortunately, the government seems to believe that this would impose an extremely onerous burden on businesses. It believes it would somehow stop the commercial activity of the nation if it were to apply to businesses, particularly small business.Interestingly, the member for Mitchell said in his speech that people know full well when they give information to people these days that it is going to be recorded and used by that organisation. That is interesting because in a lot of circumstances, as we all know, you do not have the choice about whether you give people information about yourself. It is for that very reason that I am very concerned that one of the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs has not been picked up—that is, the recommendation that deals with employee records. I know the government have indicated that they believe this issue is most appropriately dealt with under the workplace relations legislation. But, sadly, I must inform the House that the officers of the relevant department, when appearing before the committee, had absolutely no instructions and no advice that there was any intention that the department would take any action to introduce appropriate privacy standards to the treatment of employee records.I should be specific so that everyone understands what is being discussed. Employee records do not just mean basic information such as this person was employed by this company for X amount of time. It could also include all sorts of personal information about an employee. As we know, shiftworkers and many other people who work varying hours often have to provide their home phone number so that they can be called in to work. They usually have to tell their employer about their family arrangements because that may affect what shifts they can work. They may provide information about their partners; they may provide information about their home loan. There are a whole range of things they may need to provide to an employer. I do not think people object to providing that information because, normally, to have a proper relationship with your employer you need to give them information which enables that relationship to work. However, if you do not have a choice and if you are then not able to control or prevent the employer from passing that information on to other people, that should be something of grave concern. There is absolutely no reason that a worker or an employee at a business should have fewer rights than people in the rest of the community. In fact, in an employment situation, you have less flexibility to say, `I am not prepared to give you this information; I will go somewhere else.' You might be able to do that with a bank, you might be able to do that at the supermarket and you might be able to do that when you are looking around for an insurance company. But you cannot so easily choose not to give information to an employer. If you are prepared to give the employer the information, you would want to be confident that it cannot be passed on to everybody else in the community, to all of your workmates, to your neighbours or to your next employer. It really seems to me that there is no justification for the government ignoring this, other than its ideology. Government members seemed quite prepared in dealing with this legislation in a considered way to make a unanimous recommendation about how employee records should be treated, but the Attorney-General does not seem to have the strength to persuade the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business that this would be an appropriate way to deal with information. In discussing this issue, it seems extraordinary that the member for Mitchell would say in this House that the minister for workplace relations knows about the importance of record-keeping! That would have to go down as the major understatement of all time. I would not like to suggest that he was misleading the House, but it seems that that actually would be a generous interpretation. The difficulties for the minister seem to come from his not appreciating at all the importance of record-keeping. I am sure that he would have a strong view about his right to privacy in this area, although others might have a strong view about the right of the public to know a lot more than they already do. That is just one area where we are seeking to encourage the government to tighten the exemptions.We are already concerned that the form of the legislation that the government proposes is too `light touch'. There is a whole list of exemptions that the government are not tightening in the way that the community expects. There is a media exemption, which obviously must be in place for us to have freedom of the press and proper debate on issues covered in our media—an exchange of information needs to be able to occur—but there should be some guidelines for that. There was criticism that the initial definition of journalismwhich was going to be protected by this exemptionincluded the word `information' and that anybody in the community could seek to claim that they were a journalist by virtue of this very broad definition. So, instead of the government trying to narrow that definition and explain it a little better to people, they have just deleted it altogether and said `We will rely on the common law description of journalism and we just hope everyone will understand what that means.' I do not think that that gives the community any more confidence in the way our information, and private information, is going to be handled.Again, in the way that small business is treated, I think that everybody agrees that a small organisation that is not holding the same scale of information as others should be treated slightly differently. But we were much more concerned to look at the type of information that a small business might have. If a small business is dealing with very sensitive information, there is no reason that they should not be required to handle that in an appropriate way. Obviously, we do not want every butcher who has been paid by credit card to have some strict requirements apply just for that normal transaction. But, if they seek to pass that information on to other people, there seems to me to be no reason that consumers should not be protected in those circumstances. Extraordinarily, even in the area of what standards should apply to political parties and their organisations, members of parliament and others, although there needs to be an exemption so that the right to communicate about political matters is freely available to political parties and members of parliament, a recommendation that people should not be able to use that exemption to then sell or disclose that information to other people has also been ignored or declined or refused by the government. They do not seem to think that there is any need to have that. I have a contrary view to that of the government. I do not believe that politicians and political parties should be above the law. There are appropriate reasons why we should have standards that make sure that our political activities and our communications with our constituents can occur freely, but really there is no reason that that information should be able to be sold or disclosed to others. That is a very concerning issue as well. The treatment of existing databases is also something that a number of other members have already spoken on and one that is of great concern because there is a lot of information already stored about people. If that information cannot, over a period of time, be brought under this net so that the privacy principles apply, again people will be getting only some piecemeal or patchwork protection from this privacy legislation rather than having community standards that will apply across the board. That does not seem to be a very constructive way of going. Finally, in the short time remaining to me, I want to concentrate a little on the issue of enforcement. This seems to be at the core of the government's view that this legislation should have a light touch. It seems to me that having a light touch is fine if you are actually going to be able to ensure that at some point in the future these standards will apply, that they will be enforceable, that you will be able to make a complaint about it if you have been mistreated and that you will be able to get that information corrected, or paid some compensation if that is appropriate. We will be moving amendments to strengthen the position of the Privacy Commissioner by giving the Privacy Commissioner a lot more power so that they may issue a breach notice. If a person issued with a breach notice is not able to or does not correct that breach within a specified period of time—which might be 12 months; it might be a lengthy period of time—they will be guilty of an offence. We will be seeking to introduce an offence into this legislation so that penalties can be sued for by the commissioner or by a person affected. I think this is the only way that we can ultimately move community standards, and I commend those changes to the House. (Time expired)20:44:0022322Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—The notion of privacy involves sensitive individual values and, more importantly, how different societies perceive themselves. It stirs deep concerns in the community. The right to privacy is invoked commonly in modern Australia. The member for Gellibrand spoke of privacy as the next movement in the quest for rights. In a nation where we do not have a constitutional or legislative bill of rights, is it correct to make such an invocation? The Bill of Rights in the United States does not explicitly recognise such a right in the Fourth Amendment. It was in 1928 that Justice Louis Brandeis of the United States Supreme Court advocated in that famous dissenting judgment in Olmstead v. the United States that there did exist a right to be left alone. Since then, the United States Supreme Court has moved to find an implicit right to privacy within the American Constitution. Many countries in the world now recognise privacy as a fundamental human right. The more recent constitutions specify rights to access and control of one's personal information. To many Australians, the turning point of their estimation of the value of a right to privacy can be traced to the Australia Card debate of the 1980s. Ironically, it was the combination of the overwhelming public opposition to that scheme with the regulatory groundwork laid by the proposers of the scheme that brought forth the Privacy Act 1988. That act was conceived for the purposes of regulating the activities of the Commonwealth government and its agencies in relation to the collection, storage and use of information. Today, that act, combined with the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and various state and territory privacy legislation, serves to protect the privacy interests of citizens in their dealings with government. Even before the advent of the Internet, the OECD in 1980 promulgated the Guidelines on the protection of privacy in transport of flows of personal data to embody established principles of fair information practice. In Australia, our detailed information privacy principles were modelled on the OECD guidelines to regulate the handling of personal information by the federal and territory governments and their agencies, including issues such as disclosure to third parties, accuracy and completeness of information held, storage, security, collection, access and notice.The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 before the House today represents the most significant privacy reform since the passage of that act in 1988, and has been prompted by the coalition's commitment to extend the principles of privacy protection to the private sector, by international requirements and by the needs of Australian business in the 21st century. In a world of communications and computing, assurance of the fair and appropriate handling of personal information and other data is paramount. With the benefits of the Internet and e-commerce comes the challenge of how to manage personal information. E-commerce in particular creates information trails allowing transaction information to be tracked, collected and compiled, providing vast amounts of information about personal details. Personal information has of course been tracked for many years through barcode scanners, credit cards and the like, but what is fundamentally different today is the ease with which data can not only be gathered and compiled electronically but manipulated and used. People are concerned. Witness the experience in the US in 1999 of the DoubleClick imbroglio, when the US firm DoubleClick, which was the biggest supplier of online advertising, acquired Abacus Direct Corp., a database firm with information on millions of consumers gathered through direct mail marketers, somewhat in the vein of PBL Ltd and Acxiom Corp. here in Australia. As policy makers we face a difficult challenge as we consider how best to balance the benefits of the Internet and e-commerce against the concerns that the global marketplace will undermine national regulations and standards, in the areas not only of privacy and protection of personal information but also of professional licensing and intellectual property. Government policies influence how consumers and business interact on the Internet and in e-commerce. For e-commerce to thrive, there must be a trusted environment underpinned by a clear and predictable legal environment for the sale and purchase of products and services online. The treatment of electronic contracts, verification and assurance of information privacy and consumer protection affect how much economic activity and information exchange takes place over the Internet. If consumers fear that the information they provide online may be used inappropriately, they will hesitate to participate, thereby slowing the growth of e-commerce and limiting the many benefits of its full realisation.A recent publication, Global electronic commerce, published in July 2000 by the Institute for International Economics in Washington, observed that policy making today takes place in an environment where technological innovation and diffusion are happening at an incredible pace. Networks and information demand effective and synergistic infrastructures; government jurisdictions and policy issues overlap; and the need for human skills and flexibility have never been greater. But, because of the pace of technology, government intervention to support social objectives such as adequate privacy on the Internet must preserve the private incentives to find technologically appropriate solutions. Companies that protect the rights and interests of their customers have a competitive advantage over those who do not respect those rights and interests. This new private sector privacy framework offers those companies the means of demonstrating that they meet stated requirements and acceptable standards. This is extremely important for those involved in e-commerce who must bolster public confidence in the use of the Internet for commercial and personal transactions.One of the most impressive aspects of these reforms is the willingness to embrace self-regulation. Self-regulation is almost invariably preferable to imposition and government directive. This is an issue that entirely escapes the opposition's understanding of good privacy policy. Given an enabling legal environment, the private sector should be free to innovate and lead the way in developing the Internet and e-commerce. In the fast paced, technology driven environment, the number and nimbleness of private sector firms is a great advantage.Technology is dynamic. Government policy tends to be static. Consequently, while government can and should set objectives, private initiative and innovation should be allowed in order to achieve society's objectives. Relying on market mechanisms and self-regulation and emphasising private sector leadership and minimal government intervention have garnered support not only in Australia but also in Japan and in the United States. There is an alternative approach—the more regulated model, the mandate approach. It does find some favour in the European Union, with its tradition of comprehensive legislation; it has approached e-commerce with a more regulatory stance and with a series of directives addressing specific issues. Labor, it seems, wants to go further than any other country in its heavy-handed approach to privacy legislation. There has already been agreement between the European Union and countries following the Australian and even the US line—a data privacy accord that recognises the now universal expectation that acceptable privacy standards need to be met by the private sector. We have a shared vision with a number of our international partners with endorsed policy principles to foster the growth of global e-commerce. The passage of this bill will ensure that Australia is not disadvantaged in the global information market and that international trade is facilitated. This is particularly pertinent with regard to the European Union, because, since 1995, the EU has restricted the transfer of personal information to non-European Union countries where privacy standards are inadequate. The legislation before the House will provide that assurance. Despite the opposition's rhetoric about our approach to this legislation, there is no one right answer regarding each and every aspect of the role of every government in the electronic world, because resources, as well as societal values and priorities, differ. Matters such as consumer protection and content, as well as privacy, are issues where governments are coming to different conclusions as to what combination of self-regulation and government intervention is best for their constituents. What we have here is best for Australia. It is right for Australia.Speaking of what is best for constituents reminds me that I cannot let the opportunity pass to comment on what is quite extraordinary behaviour by the opposition in producing today, after debate on this bill has begun, a series of proposed amendments to the bill—some 25 proposed amendments. The opposition produced their draft proposed amendments after the debate had begun, almost 12 months after the key provisions of the bill were first circulated by the government. The bill was introduced in April this year. It has been considered in detail by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, of which I am a member. The amendments were circulated by the government on 4 September. I think we are entitled, on behalf of constituents, to ask of the opposition, `What have you been doing?' The Australian people, our constituents, are entitled to say to the opposition, `If you were serious about privacy, if you were serious about getting the best legislative outcome on this important issue of privacy, you could have circulated any proposals for amendments in time for them to be considered.' But no, the opposition sneak in their draft amendments after the debate has begun, nearly 12 months after the key provisions were circulated. The Labor Party are not paying attention to policy matters or legislation. Just what are they doing? The Labor Party never seem to miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.In the time available, I have had a look at the opposition's amendments. Predictably, they err on the side of a clumsy, heavy-handed overregulated approach, displaying a distinct lack of appreciation of what good privacy practice is all about in the world of e-commerce and the Internet. The federal government, in contrast, has taken a very sensible approach to the issue of privacy, which we take seriously. Across the board our approach has been a coregulation model to restrict the government's use of personal information, together with issue-specific legislation to protect certain areas or restrict certain practices such as in financial services, and self-regulation where companies and industry bodies establish codes of conduct.Under the reforms, the creation of industry codes of practice will be encouraged. Where codes of practice are not developed, the national privacy principles, which are detailed in this bill, will apply. The new laws will also provide a benchmark for industry codes. The Privacy Commissioner will endorse such codes only where at least the same level of protection is afforded by the code as by the national principles. Likewise, the complaints mechanism adopted under codes must meet standards of fairness, of accessibility and of transparency. Mediation will be encouraged as the mechanism for resolving complaints, whether the mediation is conducted by an adjudicator appointed under the industry code or by the Privacy Commissioner. There will also be judicial oversight of the system through determinations reviewable under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act and ultimately enforceable by the Federal Court or the Federal Magistrates Court. It is expected that industry practice and self-regulation will continue to improve, to the benefit of both consumers and businesses. In trying to produce better tailored products, industry values highly the collection of information and does not wish to scare away users and thus reduce the network benefits. These reforms will have a number of significant effects on particular industries, and therefore the government has made a number of exemptions that will better allow for the protection of privacy rights and the smooth operation of the system. The telecommunications and e-commerce industries will be particularly affected by these reforms and there will be an expectation that web site operators will take reasonable steps to notify Internet users of information collection, use, storage and disclosure. There will also be an expectation of the appropriate security of data. Individuals often want to limit the collection, combination and sale of their personal data. The challenge will be on firms collecting information to satisfy individuals' privacy demands. If there is a market failure, it might lead to individuals who are concerned about the use of their information on the Internet refusing to log on. The value of the network would be diminished and that would not improve the outcome for either the firm or the user. Both would lose the benefits that come from network participation. As the Attorney-General has noted so rightly, good privacy is good for business. Perhaps the industry of most concern to the public in relation to privacy protection is the health sector. Medical records are often the most private records available, and the public consultation that preceded the drafting of this bill clearly indicated that the public overwhelmingly supported higher standards of privacy when dealing with medical records. The government had achieved this higher standard of protection by identifying personal information and sensitive information. Stricter limits are placed on how sensitive information is handled by private sector organisations. The reforms will ensure that Australians will for the first time be able to access their own medical records held by private doctors and that appropriate guidelines are established for disclosure of records to family members and for research purposes. The bill also addresses the important issues associated with the media and with public political debate. The treatment of these issues will ensure that the free flow of information and comment that is so crucial in the workings of a democracy are not inadvertently compromised. The reforms recognise that the cause of privacy protection has to be balanced where they might harm small business through excessive compliance costs and regulatory burdens. For this reason the measures in this bill will not apply to small business for a period of 12 months following royal assent. At the end of that period small businesses—that is, businesses with less than $3 million in annual turnover—will continue to be exempt, provided they are not a health service, are not providing personal information to third parties for benefit, service or advantage, are not collecting personal information from third parties by providing a benefit, service or advantage, are not a service contracted by the Commonwealth, are not prescribed by regulation as being subject to the laws and are not related to a large business.The important role of employee personnel records is also recognised under the proposed laws. There are appropriate provisions to assure small businesses that they will not be disadvantaged by the adoption of privacy protection in the private sector. The new laws will protect consumers by ensuring that their personal information is handled, stored and collected in a fair manner by corporations and other private organisations. The right to privacy in Australia will be so much the better for the legislation proposed by the government. Privacy protection represents probably one of the most contentious policy issues facing governments as they seek to balance the objectives of promoting e-commerce and the like with the desire of citizens for privacy. The protections previously provided to citizens will be extended to consumers. The expectations of fairness and transparency that are incumbent upon governments will now be incumbent upon corporations. I guess it goes without saying, but not all social and technological trends are destructive of privacy. In the modern world we actually enjoy many benefits of privacy that were not accorded previously. In a small village there was no right to privacy, but in a big, sometimes anonymous city choices are largely ours. Even the Internet revolution, in part the catalyst for this legislation, has given many people the opportunity to avoid public attention, to work from home in the circumstances they desire and to create personas free from stereotype or judgment. Technology is both the cause of the concern about privacy and an important way to ameliorate it. The opposition seem to be pleading a one-size-fits-all policy approach in their hastily drafted amendments, but as that July 2000 publication I referred to previously, Global Electronic Commerce, stated so succinctly:Governments seeking to improve the environment for e-commerce would be wise to limit their intervention by pursuing an approach that combines instruments including legislation, government-private sector partnerships, industry self-regulation (with monitoring and enforcement) and the promotion of privacy enhancing technology.The government has that mix right in the reforms that have been introduced with this privacy bill. I commend the bill to the House.21:03:0022326Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 seeks to extend privacy principles that have now been fairly well established in the public sector into the private sector. A number of factors make this task a pressing one. The development of information technology and data communication has increased community awareness of the threats to privacy and the interference this represents to basic human rights. Techniques such as collection and analysis of electronic footprints and devices that give web site operators access to Internet users' habits, called cookies, have heightened community awareness of the threat to people's fundamental rights that this development in technology represents. In addition to this most fundamental of principles in a democratic society, there are also important economic and trade pressures for proceeding with this legislation. Recent research by the Roy Morgan group indicates that Australian consumers are in fact reluctant to make full use of electronic commerce because of a lack of confidence in the security and confidentiality of e-commerce technology. I think we in this House all recognise the importance to Australia's international competitiveness of the further development of electronic commerce, and absolutely fundamental to that is community confidence. If in fact there is inadequate community confidence because of concerns about privacy related issues of use, that is the important consideration that underpins the need for such legislation.Secondly, in relation to trade, the importance of an adequate regime of privacy protection in the private sector is indicated by, for example, the European Union's data protection directive which places constraints on the transfer of personal information out of Europe to countries without similar protections to those of citizens of the European Union. At the present time, this undoubtedly disadvantages Australia, with its inadequate regime, compared to other countries, such as New Zealand, which already have a privacy regime in place.In response to these sorts of pressures, the government has introduced what it calls a `light touch' approach to legislation. I think the government is selling itself a bit short there—I think the term `feather touch' would be somewhat more appropriate. Whilst the opposition agrees with the importance of legislation in this important area, we take the view that the approach is, frankly, far too light and that there are a number of significant holes in it. The bill requires private sector organisations to be bound by national privacy principles unless they develop their own code approved by the Privacy Commissioner. However, as I said a moment ago, there are some very significant gaps in the approach the government is taking. There is no effective application of privacy principles to existing databases, for example. Enforcement provisions of the legislation are exceptionally weak. In the most important social area, the legislation does little in our electronic age to protect families. Talking firstly about existing databases, privacy principle 2 relates to the use and disclosure of personal information. Under this legislation, that particular principle will not apply to existing databases. For example, the legislation would not affect the use of information in a massive database presently held by a consortium known as Acxiom, which contains personal information on some 15 million Australians. Privacy principle 6, regarding access and correction of personal information, will not apply to existing databases. For example, inaccurate information contained on one of those databases about someone's financial affairs could well represent a very significant infringement of such a person's access to finance—perhaps for a tenancy agreement. But, as we understand the legislation, with data that is stored on an existing database at the present time, when the legislation comes into effect there is no right for the affected person to correct that information or to gain access to it. A very controversial database known as CrimeNet exists, and under this legislation, as I understand it, that would not be subject to correction, even though not so long ago the Supreme Court in Victoria had to abort a murder trial because the judge concerned—I believe it was Mr Justice Hampel—feared that the trial would be prejudiced by information that had been published on CrimeNet.Information may be out of date. For example, if a person has been convicted of a criminal offence and that has been reported in the media but on appeal that conviction has been overturned and that overturning may not have been reported in the media, anyone accessing that database may well find that their reputation has been unfairly and severely damaged incorrectly and inaccurately. What is required here, rather than a blanket exemption, however, for existing databases, is a transition period of, say, 12 months to enable existing databases to be updated in the light of people being able to get access to the information and correcting it in an appropriate way. So the opposition would argue that the existing provisions of the bill are simply not fair and not adequate in relation to existing databases.A related issue is non-regulation of the use of public registers. The Communications Law Centre indicates that technology can now enable third parties to reconfigure and process information in ways that would exceed the purposes for which the data that was in a public register was originally collected. New South Wales and New Zealand, I am advised, are two jurisdictions which contain specific provisions in their privacy code or privacy regimes for the use of data on public registers. However, under this legislation, as I understand it, there is not a suitable and comparative provision.A second basic concern about this legislation is the weakness of enforcement. Whilst the Privacy Commissioner has power to recover compensation for breaches, no provision is provided in the bill for civil penalties to be available to punish corporations that engage in serious breaches. If experience to date from the operation of privacy administration in the public sector is any guide, we can anticipate that any recommendations for compensation are likely to be very conservative. Where there have been most intrusive and systematic breaches involving great public importance, there are inadequate enforcement provisions in the legislation. For example, I have seen reports that in the United States this year hackers have extracted subscriber phone numbers and log in names directly off an Internet service provider's service which they intended to use for their own commercial purposes. For that sort of systematic and most intrusive invasion of people's privacy, we would argue that there ought to be considerably more severe penalties than are in fact provided in this legislation as a deterrent to organised abuses of privacy. I also refer to the absence in this legislation of comparative provisions to those in the United States for the protection of families and children. In the United States there is legislation called the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act, which requires that operators of commercial web sites and online services directed towards children meet a number of important criteria. They need, for example, to provide parents with notice of their information collection practices. They need to obtain parental consent about collecting, using or disclosing personal information about a child. Under the US regime, they need to obtain new consent from parents when information practices change in a material way. They need to allow parents to review personal information collected from their children. They make provision for parents to revoke consent and to delete information collected from their children on request. They cannot require a child to provide more information than is reasonably necessary to participate in an activity. They are required to maintain the confidentiality, security and integrity of information collected from children. I would argue that is a most worthwhile initiative, which, as I said, is in practice in the United States by statute. One would have hoped that the government would have picked it up for implementation in this particular legislation.There are other areas of concern with the legislation. For example, the definition of small business in the legislation is a business of up to $3 million in turnover. According to the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, this will cover some 99 per cent of businesses categorised as small business, according to Australian Bureau of Statistics data. The government's rationale for excluding such a massive percentage of small business is to reduce compliance costs for those businesses. But evidence from elsewhere—and in that respect I draw members' attention to the excellent document prepared by the Parliamentary Library on this legislation—argues that this question of compliance costs is not a problem for small business, based on experience in New Zealand, the UK and Canada. In fact, the evidence would seem to suggest that the complexity of calculating and determining where an organisation might fit in relation to the $3 million cut-off may be as great a burden as any costs associated with the business complying with the requirements of the privacy code itself. The federal Privacy Commissioner, I understand, made a point along those lines in the evidence he gave.The key purpose of the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 is to engender trust and confidence in things such as electronic commerce. Frankly, a great many small businesses are likely to benefit substantially, given the predominance of small businesses in the IT area and the Internet area particularly. Businesses which fall under that $3 million cut-off are likely to benefit substantially by being seen by their consumers as fitting within the code. I simply suggest that, along with more authoritative sources than I, including the federal Privacy Commissioner, the compliance costs the government sees as being associated with meeting the guidelines by many small businesses are not there in reality.In all, this legislation does not reflect best practice. It does not achieve the appropriate balance between individual rights to privacy and other rights such as those of business. I believe that the opposition amendments ought to be supported in order to improve the legislation, because it is most important legislation for the reasons I have stated. It is important for Australia's competitiveness, for trade and because of fundamental human rights in relation to privacy, but the government simply does not have the balance correct.21:17:0022328Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I rise to applaud the Attorney-General on the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000. However, from the outset, I would like to express my most serious objection to the inappropriate tactics of the opposition in producing late amendments and expecting us to consider them or, indeed, to take them seriously. If the opposition were so serious about privacy and about the amendments they are proposing, they would have given us more time to consider them. The fact that adequate care and concern was not paid to this issue by the opposition is so very obvious. Even if the government were mindful to consider some of the proposed amendments, it could not do so in the ridiculously short time provided by the opposition. The bill was introduced in April and the government circulated its proposed amendments on 4 September. The opposition have had ample time to consider them, to research them and to reach a position. Yet the government were not given the courtesy of seeing the opposition's proposed amendments until this morning, after this debate had already started. The opposition have treated this legislation with absolute disdain and, to this end, should not be given any courtesy of consideration for the amendments they have now put forward in a disorganised and completely unprofessional manner. One of the issues associated with this bill is e-commerce. Electronic commerce represents a challenge for government. On one side, there is a consumer who naturally wishes to retain control of as much of their personal information as possible and is resentful of businesses that collect information without their knowledge. Meanwhile, businesses, both big and small, have a strong desire to collect information with an aim to know their customers and to target consumers with products they may be interested in. If Australia is going to be a competitive player in e-commerce, then businesses need to be able to market their products effectively. But, most importantly, the consumer and their personal details need to be strictly protected. I believe the privacy amendment bill allows an opportunity for business to operate but secures the privacy of online consumers.One of the most important requirements for the privacy amendment billis the wider need to build trust in e-commerce. It is important that industry voluntarily seeks best practice in e-commerce not only in the vital area of privacy but also in security and consumer protection. I commend the Attorney-General and the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts for this year launching voluntary industry standards for security, privacy and customer service. Australian standards development organisations have provided world leadership in these areas and have produced high quality guidelines that government and private sector organisations can use to demonstrate a commitment to best practice in privacy, security and customer service for e-commerce. It would be advantageous if such standards were to be voluntarily adopted by organisations seeking to build trust in online transactions and the wider, new economy. Surprisingly, legislation which handles personal information and Internet transactions has lagged behind in both Australia and the United States. Once enacted, this bill will ensure that Australia is up to date with Internet practices. Many consumers are reluctant to provide their details on the Internet. A recent survey revealed that 50 per cent of consumers surveyed in Germany, the United Kingdom and the USA have refused to give information on web sites because of privacy concerns. In addition, between 30 and 54 per cent had decided not to purchase online because of privacy concerns. If we are serious about allowing Australian business to take advantage of the commercial possibilities that e-commerce provides, then it is vital that we ensure privacy is recognised as the major issue for the consumer. This bill will assist and develop a sense of trust about purchasing online. However, business also need to work to ensure that customers feel comfortable purchasing from their web sites. They must be able to demonstrate that they not only abide by legislation but also adopt an industry standard of their own which will build a strong trust relationship.Since 1996 the coalition has been committed to world's best privacy legislation covering the private sector. With this bill, the government has adopted a framework that is based on international practices, together with OECD guidelines, and encompasses the national principle which binds private sectors to them. The bill will ensure that the collection of personal information is done only when it is necessary to the business's activity. That personal information will not be disclosed unless that person has consented. Information collected by organisations should be protected from misuse. Organisations that collect information should be open in their practices, and organisations must give people access to their personal information to allow them the opportunity to correct or explain any problems that they may have. Whilst it is the government that is establishing this piece of legislation, I call on all business to also take responsibility. Some companies in Australia and overseas have adopted a seal which is displayed on their web sites, informing the consumer that the sites abide by legislation and that they have adopted an industry standard. At present, the seals are in the early stages of development, but over time these seals will provide acceptable and enforceable privacy protection across a number of jurisdictions. Standards organisations will be able to handle consumer complaints about web sites that are not abiding by the industry standard, and they will have recourse to a dispute handling mechanism. Standards organisations will also be able to assist businesses entering into e-commerce and to advise them on privacy implications for their customers. For example, a business of any size would be able to make contact with consumer and privacy groups through the standards organisation. They would be able to work together to identify and address potential problems or issues in the early stages of establishing an e-commerce business or when seeking to extend their trade into electronic commerce.Privacy is no longer simply an issue for civil libertarians. It is part of an economy that is based on exchanging personal information. Without this bill, legal protection for the public will lag behind their expectations. E-commerce providers not only need to be aware of their legal obligations but also need to consider the way they intend to handle sensitive personal information and to meet what the consumer expects of them in terms of privacy. If businesses adopt a higher privacy standard than they are legally required to do, then they will be less likely to need to change the way that they manage personal information when government changes the legal protection for personal privacy into the future.In short, this bill is a foundation to ensure consumer privacy. As we are all aware, computer and Internet technology is changing at a frightening pace. Without doubt, technologies in this area change more quickly than the government can legislate. Therefore, it is very important that industry also takes a major role in establishing a common standard of practice by constantly updating itself to meet the changes. While the government can and should continue to provide fundamental protection for online consumers, industry must be encouraged to create and adopt a standard of its own which goes beyond the basics and which reassures consumers that the Internet is a safe place to do business.The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 establishes national standards for the handling of personal information by the private sector. The bill will amend the existing Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988, which currently regulates the handling of personal information by the public sector. The aim of this bill is to encourage private sector organisations and industries which handle personal information to develop privacy codes of practice. Where an organisation or an industry does not put a privacy code in place, the national privacy principles will apply.Privacy first became an issue of national significance in the late 1980s, with the proposed introduction of the Australia Card. Whilst that proposal failed, the notion of privacy protection was carried on. For the first time, we can be confident that information held by the private sector will be stored, used and disclosed in a fair and appropriate way, and for the first time we will have the right to gain access to that information and to be able to correct it if it is wrong. Organisations that collect personal information will not generally be able to sell or transfer our information to a third party without our consent. Essentially, companies will not be able to sell lists without the consent of the people on those lists. Similarly, organisations that use an existing database of personal information for direct marketing will be required to allow customers to choose whether they wish to participate. Some businesses are putting in place codes of practice which commit them to handling personal information in a fair and responsible way. However, these good business practices are not consistent across Australia. This bill provides a national, consistent set of standards to encourage and support good privacy practices. The bill goes part way to ensuring that full advantage is taken of the opportunities presented by electronic commerce and the information economy for both business and consumers. The security of personal information when doing business over the Internet is of concern and, if not addressed, has the potential to significantly influence consumer choices about whether or not to participate in electronic commerce. Our constituents rightfully want to know who has their name, who has their address, who has their telephone number, who has their credit card details and who has any other information that they impart as they surf the web. They also want to know how that information will be used into the future. Web site operators who collect personal information will have to take reasonable steps to ensure that Internet users know who is collecting their information and how it will be used, stored and disclosed. Organisations will have to protect people from unauthorised access and disclosure of personal information that they hold and also make public their policy on privacy. In this way, businesses that demonstrate that they are committed to protecting the privacy of their customers may gain a competitive advantage. The ease by which trade can be facilitated on the Internet requires an assurance that information will be given appropriate protection. This bill will ensure that Australia is in a position to meet international obligations and concerns and that we are not disadvantaged in the global information market. The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 also allows people to make a complaint if they feel that their personal information has been handled inappropriately. The processes are designed to ensure most complaints can be resolved through conciliation and mediation rather than through the courts. The bill makes a distinction between personal information and sensitive information. It recognises that people are protective of their sensitive personal details, such as their religious and political beliefs, their sexual preferences and their health information. The legislation gives greater protection to such information by placing tighter restrictions on how this information is collected and handled by private sector organisations. Specifically, it bans the use of sensitive information, such as health information, for direct marketing purposes. We will be able to access our own medical records held by private doctors unless providing access would pose a serious threat to the life or health of any individual. The Privacy Commissioner, in consultation with health consumers and professionals, will set guidelines for access to such information.The bill recognises that health professionals take seriously their obligations to keep their patients' information confidential. However, there are clearly times when health information about a person needs to be shared either amongst the treating team of health professionals or with the patient's family, except if the patient has voiced a wish to the contrary. Where a patient is unable to give consent to the disclosure of health information, doctors may provide the patient's family with information to help to provide care or treatment for compassionate reasons. Health professionals will be permitted to share health information about a person where it is necessary to assist treatment and in order to better care for them. In most cases, private organisations will not be able to collect sensitive information without consent. However, health information may be used for research or the compilation or analysis of statistics that are relevant to public health, public safety or the management, funding or monitoring of a health service. Importantly, research will not be able to be published until it has had any identifying features removed.Another area where special issues arise is where the government services involving personal information are outsourced to the private sector. In these circumstances, it is important to ensure that personal information is given the same level of protection it would receive if it were held by the government and that, in specified circumstances, the contracting government agency remains ultimately responsible for the acts and practices of its contractors. The legislation requires that private organisations that hold existing databases of personal information take reasonable steps to ensure this data is accurate, complete and securely held. The organisation will also be required to be open to consumers about what information it already holds and how it collects, holds and proposes to use or disclose such information. After the legislation takes effect, organisations have to comply with all aspects of the bill when they update information. This bill intends to establish a single, comprehensive national scheme for the protection of personal information by the private sector. However, state and territory laws will continue to operate to the extent that they are not directly inconsistent with the terms of this bill. The national privacy principles will recognise the operation of state and territory legislation and common law. The individual's right to privacy is balanced against a range of other community and public interests. The objects clause of the bill highlights this need for a balanced approach. The structure and principles underlying the legislation, as well as a limited range of express exemptions, ensure that the bill represents an appropriate and workable balance.While protecting privacy is important, it must be balanced against the need to avoid unnecessary costs on small business. For this reason, only small businesses that pose a high risk to privacy will be required to comply with this legislation. Small business is defined in the legislation as a business with an annual turnover of $3 million or less. Such businesses will be exempt unless they hold personal health information and provide a health service, trade in personal information, are a Commonwealth contracted service provider or are prescribed by regulation. In addition, small businesses will not be subject to the legislation for a period of 12 months after it comes into force, as they may still be occupied implementing the new tax system. The bill also includes an exemption for employee records. It should be noted, however, that the exemption is limited to collection, use or disclosure of employee records where this directly relates to the employment relationship. This is designed to preclude an employer selling to a direct marketer personal information contained in an employee record.The media in Australia have a unique and important role in keeping the Australian public informed. The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 aims to balance the public interest in allowing a free flow of information to the public through the media and a person's right to privacy. The bill exempts acts and practices of media organisations in the course of journalism. It is not an offence under the bill for a journalist to refuse to give information, answer a question or produce a document or record which is sought where this would tend to reveal the journalist's confidential source. In developing this legislation the government has drawn extensively on consultation with and feedback provided by Australian business, consumers and privacy advocates. As a result, the bill will establish a scheme which is responsive to both business and consumer needs and which implements privacy protection in a realistic, balanced and workable way. It will help to ensure that business and consumers are in a position to take advantage of the future in the rapidly developing information economy. We will have greater confidence in doing business with organisations that want to know all about us. It will also give organisations a competitive edge, because good privacy is good for business.21:37:0022332Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 is concerned with privacy: the appropriate collection, holding, use, correction, disclosure and transfer of personal information. In today's world of cyberconnectivity, breaches of privacy have criminal ramifications also. Cybercrime—basically any crime which involves or uses computers, digital technology, the Internet, communications systems and networks—poses a very significant threat to the Australian community. It also poses a very significant threat to Australia's national interests. The information technology revolution has radically altered the way we do business—both government and private—the way we communicate and maybe even the way we think. It is almost too obvious to say that computers are now essential for the operation of government and business. Government departments, businesses and individuals routinely use computers and the Internet to store and transmit economic, personal, social and political information. Our water, electricity, gas and telephone systems all rely on computer networks, as do banking and financial institutions, emergency services, air traffic control, hospitals, police and the Defence Force. As computers become smaller, more powerful and less expensive, having a computer in your home is becoming within the reach of more Australians each year. Staggeringly, a computer with the equivalent power of today's average household personal computer, worth about $1,000, would have cost about $10 million in 1975. As household ownership of computers increases, so does household use of the Internet. Australia has the third highest per capita usage of the Internet, after Finland and the United States of America. A 1999 Australian Bureau of Statistics study indicated that 3.2 million Australian households had access to the Internet and nearly 5.5 million adults had accessed the Internet in the preceding 12 months. The Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts estimates that about half of all adult Australians will use the Internet, either at home or in the office, by the year 2001. At the end of 2000, an estimated 900 million people worldwide are using the Internet. The information technology revolution has improved the speed and quality of communication and information sharing between workplaces and individuals. The Internet and the personal computer have, almost single-handedly, made the world shrink and are, alongside Nike and McDonald's, some of the most recognised icons of globalisation.The Internet has become more than an information superhighway. It is a global marketplace where you can buy or access almost any commodity you can imagine—legal or illegal. Industry analysts predict that e-commerce, which involved transactions of $7 billion during 1998, is expected to grow to $300 billion globally by the year 2002. The Internet is clearly the vehicle of a new information economy which can bring great benefit and wealth to individuals and communities, but it is also a new and fertile environment for crime. Cybercrime will become the big issue for law enforcement in the 21st century. At this year's Australian Police Commissioners Conference, all the commissioners recognised that in order for law enforcement to meet the needs of government and the community, police agencies need to acquire new skills, tools, authorities and effective strategic partnerships to combat electronic crime.The advent of the Internet and widespread use of information technology has given criminals a new forum and new tools for the commission of traditional crimes, and it has also spawned a whole new generation of criminal activity. Although there are no formal Australian crime statistics kept on electronic crime occurrences, recent estimates put the cost of cybercrime in Australia in the range of $4 billion to $14 billion per annum. Accurate statistics about cybercrime are almost impossible to obtain, as cybercrimes include such diverse activities as fraudulent investment scams, copyright infringements, denial of service attacks, sale of illicit goods, unauthorised hacking into systems, cyberstalking and theft of data. In addition, electronic transfers have seriously increased the illegal laundering of money worldwide, and digital technology has allowed forgery of documents such as passports, currency and correspondence, to an almost perfect standard.The possibilities for committing fraud on the Internet or over email are limited only by criminals' ingenuity. The sham investment opportunities being offered on the webpages are boundless—coconut farming, lotteries and non-existent companies, to name a few. In addition, with more and more purchases being made via credit cards online, illegal access to and use of credit card numbers is a growing concern. According to information provided by US Information Infrastructure Task Force, each year losses of between $US15 billion and $US17 billion are sustained by industry by reason of copyright infringement. The Software Publishers Association estimates that $2 billion worth of software was stolen from the Internet in 1993 alone. It must be much more now. There is evidence of telecommunications equipment and the Internet having been used to facilitate organised drug trafficking, gambling, prostitution, money laundering, child pornography and trade in weapons. Society's reliance on information technology has also caused new and previously unbelievable crimes to become prevalent. For example, the US Public Interest Research Group has publicly estimated that 40,000 people a year have their identities stolen. The kind of crime which created the plot for the Hollywood film The Net about five years ago—where Sandra Bullock found that someone had appropriated her social security number and credit card, changed all her official records of address, obtained a false passport, and effectively stole her official identity—is now the fastest-growing crime in the United States. It is being taken very seriously by US law enforcement and government, and presidential candidate Al Gore has pledged that, if elected, he will make identity theft a federal offence. These cybercrimes which I have briefly identified are often isolated offences committed against individuals or profit making organised activities undertaken by criminal syndicates. In addition to these types of crimes, cyberconnectivity has also rendered any organisation that relies on a computer network vulnerable to targeted and distributed attacks from a wide range of possible offenders such as hackers, disgruntled employees, cyberterrorists, organised crime groups, individuals and groups involved in criminal espionage, issue motivated groups and bored teenagers. This vulnerability was demonstrated clearly earlier this year by denial of service attacks and maliciously distributed viruses. Yahoo, e-Bay and other major Internet players were effectively shut down for substantial periods of time by hackers. The love bug virus, or `I love you' worm, disrupted computer systems all over the world. It is estimated that this one virus, spread through email, cost $US15 billion, or the equivalent of $A25 billion worldwide.AusCERT—the Australian Computer Emergency Response Team, Australia's peak agency in the prevention of computer based attacks—has confirmed that Australia has seen a dramatic rise in the number of reported incidents. During 1999 a total of 1,800 incidences were reported to AusCERT. In comparison, the figure had already reached 2,200 by the end of April this year. Denial of service attacks, sabotage and hijacking of private web sites or company computer networks are serious matters, but even more confronting is the realisation that almost all of Australia's critical infrastructure—all our government services and essential services—are reliant upon computer networks and are therefore vulnerable to cyberattack.Phrases such as cyberterrorism and information warfare are now common parlance in law enforcement circles. They must also become common parlance for governments and policy makers in Australia. Cybercrime is a real issue which is here now. It will only increase in the future. At conference after conference, paper after paper, police commissioners, criminologists, security experts, industry representatives and foreign policy makers urge us to introduce legal and political frameworks which will protect society and individuals from cybercrime without hampering the development of the information economy. The most appropriate strategies for the control of computer related crime will involve a mixture of law enforcement, technological and market based solutions.Governments will have to work together with law enforcement agencies and industry groups to reduce opportunities for criminal activity and to enhance guardianship of computers and computer networks. It is also important that Australian law enforcement agencies have the requisite capacity to pursue cybercrime and that legislation is in place which establishes appropriate offences and addresses jurisdictional difficulties. The Howard government has been negligently slow in responding to these issues. Even when it has acknowledged the need for some form of action, the response has been dangerously underwhelming. In the law enforcement area, the messages are coming in loud and clear—the government must do more than acknowledge that cybercrime needs to become a priority. On page 112 of the recent Australasian Centre for Policing Research report, The virtual horizon: meeting the law enforcement challenges. Developing an Australasian law enforcement strategy for dealing with electronic crime, it states:It is necessary to take steps now to ensure that law enforcement will be able to respond appropriately to the various manifestations of this ubiquitous and challenging crime. This is particularly so in light of the lead-up time that is required to ensure funding, establish necessary infrastructure and achieve significant legislative reform. There is much to be done if Australasia's state of readiness is to be compared with that of the US or even the UK.It is not enough for the Minister for Justice and Customs, Senator Vanstone, to issue a ministerial directive to the Australian Federal Police which simply says:Special attention should be directed at the investigation of economic crime, in all its forms, transnational crime and crime involving information technology and communications (including electronic commerce).The government must give the AFP the resources to enable them to follow this directive. Currently the Australian Federal Police, responsible for all crimes against the Commonwealth, have only 13 positions available in their cybercrime unit. Out of a staff of about 2,800, there are only 13 personnel dedicated to investigating all crimes against the Commonwealth that have an information technology element and occur anywhere in Australia or that occur anywhere in the world and have an impact on Australia.In May this year, the Australian Federal Police Association produced a report on the operational capacity of the AFP. The conclusions that this report reaches about the AFP's capacity to counter cybercrime are disturbing. I quote:The Association continues to receive submissions from members of the Police Technical Teams and the Police Surveillance Teams stating that the majority of their equipment is obsolete and that the AFP has not kept pace with technological advances. Members ... believe that the entire system requires a large injection of funds just to bring the equipment up to an acceptable level. There is an edict that “As the criminals update their countersurveillance equipment the AFP buys their trade-ins”.The AFP also reports that members of the police computer crime teams and proceeds of crime teams are concerned that the AFP is not keeping pace with computer crime technology, including e-commerce fraud, Internet crime, electronic banking offences and money laundering offences. This situation cannot be allowed to continue. Senator Vanstone must take action to ensure that the AFP has the resources and the personnel it so desperately needs. There is a serious shortage of long-term vision and strategy in the way this government is handling Australian law enforcement and matters of national security. It is not good enough, and it must be rectified.Federal legislation is also woefully inadequate to deal with cybercrime. In February this year the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee produced a report on damages and computer offences. The committee suggested the introduction of offences which will cover unauthorised access or modification to data in a computer, or impairment of electronic communications from a computer with intention to commit a serious offence; unauthorised modification or impairment of data to cause impairment; unauthorised impairment of electronic communication; and unauthorised access to or modification of restricted data. This report was released eight months ago. In the interval, we had the `love bug' virus. There has been a meeting of the Group of Eight countries, which focused on cybercrime and Internet crime; a workshop on crimes related to the computer network at the 10th United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime; and the Australian Police Commissioners Conference, all of which emphasised the potential to commit crimes using computers and other IT tools as being one of the greatest law enforcement problems of our time. Yet we still have not seen any federal legislation on computer crimes. The minister has talked about this serious issue but has failed to take the next step, which is to introduce criminal laws for which she has portfolio responsibility. The other clear failure of the government is to acknowledge that an effective framework for the regulation of Internet and information technology related crimes requires an ongoing strategic partnership between government, law enforcement agencies and the private sector. Quoting again the Australasian Centre for Policing Research:Clearly, policing must work closely with the private sector to fully appreciate the business environment and financial imperatives in order to ensure that business is facilitated, that any regulation is sensible and practical and that compliance costs are kept to a minimum. Strategic and effective partnerships will be critical to any successful law enforcement strategy. Such partnerships must be genuine, mutual and cooperative.The truth is that computer crime is often beyond the capacity of our law enforcement agencies to control. We cannot rely on legislation or police action in isolation from ensuring that computer networks are set up with the same level of security as we now expect from our physical networks. In the private sector, one of the largest growth industries of today is computer security. The International Chamber of Commerce has opened a division to assist 7,000 member companies around the world to protect themselves against computer related crime. This cybercrime unit is developing a database on criminal activities in cyberspace, to facilitate information exchange between the private sector and law enforcement. It is resources such as this which governments must tap into and support.Whilst it is important that industry take some responsibility for protecting essential computer networks, this should not have to be in isolation from government policy and law enforcement activity. We are living in times and under a government where the disturbing trend is that matters which have been traditionally viewed as the responsibility of the public sector have been handed over to the private sector. In many areas, instead of forging real cooperative partnerships with private service providers and industry groups, the Howard government has abrogated its responsibility to the Australian people. This should not be allowed to happen in the realm of cybercrime and e-commerce. Because it is a new area of commerce, communications and criminal activity, governments and the legislature are always reacting to problems after they have arisen. It is the private industry which is developing the technology and self-regulation to try to stop illegal activities before they occur. We need to have that partnership between policy makers, industry leaders and law enforcement agencies so that regulation, crime prevention and criminal prosecutions are interlinked and strategic. The government's primary attempt to engage with the private sector in this area has been through the protection of the national infrastructure policy, which was announced in this year's budget. The Attorney-General's press release had a lot of words about establishing a consultative industry forum. It stated it involved:... developing cooperative arrangements between the public and private sectors, integrating electronic and physical protective security and response arrangements, encouraging further development of a response capability in both the private and public sector, building a threats and vulnerability data base and developing review arrangements.But the truth is that the protection of the national infrastructure program is a paltry one-year $2 million program that will just not be capable of achieving these objectives. The money is a one-off allocation spread across the AFP, ASIO, the Defence Signals Directorate and the Attorney-General's Department. It is hardly enough to conduct a thorough review of the elements of the national information infrastructure which are in public ownership, let alone establish an ongoing public-private partnership. It is just not good enough. There are a number of working groups and action committees across public sector organisations, but to date there has been not much action. What is necessary is ongoing cooperation between the public and the private sectors so that crime prevention, regulation and prosecution of illegal activity are both effective and consistent with the needs of industry. I would like to finish with another quote from the Australasian Centre for Policing Research report. At page 113, it states:Law enforcement should not have to wait for the next global IT `disaster' to get the attention of Government. It must be recognised that technology is becoming pervasive and that computers and the Internet will increasingly feature in many of the more traditional, local, but serious crimes ...Before I conclude, I have one final matter. The member for Riverina in her address was critical of the opposition for not tabling the amendments that we will be proceeding with in relation to this privacy bill. I suggest, on behalf of the opposition, that really this is an instance where one should respond: physician heal thyself. We are still awaiting the government's proposed amendments in relation to the Sex Discrimination Act which the Attorney-General indicated would be before us. Once we get more cooperative arrangements in place, it will be better for all sides of the parliament.21:57:0022337Gallus, Christine, MPMrs GALLUSCU4HindmarshLP10—I will address the remarks of the member for Denison, in particular his concluding remarks. What better time to address the amendments than when the shadow minister is at the table. The member for Denison has said, `Look, we have not given them to you yet.' I find it quite extraordinary that the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 was tabled in April this yearit is now Novemberand the opposition have had all that time to look at the legislation, to suggest amendments, to give them to the Attorney-General and to let us have a look at them so that we could incorporate them in the legislation. However, at this late time—even after their first speaker had spoken on this privacy bill—they have foreshadowed that there will be amendments. On entering the chamber I asked for a copy of these amendments and was told that they have not yet been circulated. As far as I know, I am the last government speaker, except for the minister or the minister's representative. So we have come to the ridiculous position in the debate where the last government speaker has not seen the foreshadowed amendments. I think under those circumstances the opposition would not be the least surprised to find out that there is little hope that those amendments will get up. I suggest that, if they were serious about them, they would not have waited until this time to bring them before the parliament.Society is changing, and I venture to say it is changing faster than it ever has before. Technology has opened possibilities not even dreamt of even as recently as 10 years ago. While many of us make use of technology, a lot of people out there are also very concerned about it and are quite afraid of it. More and more constituents come to me fearful of what is changing in their lives. I hear complaints about the radiation that they believe is coming out of the mobile phone towers which are becoming more obvious in our electorates than they ever were in the past. I hear fears about genetic engineering and the spread of private information about individuals. Australians would probably agree with Asimov's hero in Foundation's Edge who said that the advance of civilisation is nothing but an exercise in the limiting of privacy. We hope not.All our surveys to date would back this up. The surveys have been alluded to previously in the debate. The Morgan survey has been mentioned quite regularly in this place. That survey found that 56 per cent of people agreed that they were worried about their invasion of privacy through the new technology. Others have mentioned that the interesting part of this was that the lowest registered fear was amongst the youngest age group. This suggests to me that what we might be seeing is that those who are more familiar with the Net and the operations of the Net and are using computers are less afraid and have less concern. That was backed up by other parts of the survey. I am not sure what it means when it says that One Nation had the highest fear of the Internet. I would not want to read too much into that. Certainly, professional managers showed less concern than did, for instance, farm owners. Seventy-seven per cent of farm owners showed concern, as did 50 per cent of professional managers. Similarly, those with tertiary education showed less concern—although still a high degree of concern—than those who did not have tertiary education. I was almost developing a theory that this fear came from people who were not familiar with the technology, but then I had a look at some other surveys and discovered that the Harris survey in 1998 found that computer and Net users registered the most intense concern about their privacy, with 86 per cent of people who use the Net to buy products and services being concerned about their privacy. I found that a very interesting statistic. Similarly, a college of computing in Georgia in the USA—an institute of technology—surveyed 5,000 Internet users and found that 77.5 per cent valued privacy over convenience. We have enough statistical evidence to indicate that there is a concern held by not only by those who are ignorant of the technology but also those using the technology.I pay respect at this stage to one of the radio hosts in Adelaide, Leon Byner—he is on 5AA—because he has been doing a lot to take on board the concerns of his listeners on this issue. From his listeners comes the sense that technology has advanced so far that they fear they can no longer control and guard their privacy not only from governments but also from private enterprise. Listening to people on the radio, as well as my constituents, there is a growing perception in the community that in the normal activity that people engage in of shopping when they use the Internet, or when they give their name when purchasing an object or making an inquiry, they leave footprints and identifiers which, in Internet usage, are known as cookies. This enables businesses and corporations to know more about people than people want them to know—more about their habits, more about their interests and more about what they do. You could almost say there is a perception that companies are spying on the shoppers, using technology to garner the information that people unwittingly provide about themselves every time they shop, use the Internet, take out a loan or, indeed, every time they visit their own MP—and I will say more about that later.It is clear that the Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 is very welcome. For the first time, we will have legislation in regard to privacy in the private sector. The bill will not stop the direct marketing that so annoys and irritates my constituents and the people who call up the radio stations, but it will put into law a process where individuals have the opportunity and the information to opt out. One of the complaints I hear frequently is that, while the Direct Marketing Association's voluntary code of conduct calls on members to provide an `opt-out' option, many organisations are sloppy about removing people from their mailing lists. Under the legislation, if this happens the individual will have redress to the Privacy Commissioner who can impose a range of penalties. Australians will be able to ascertain what information is kept about them and ensure that the information is accurate. In the future they will be able to control the collecting and passing on of that information.In addressing the bill tonight, I have in mind my own constituents and those who have expressed their concerns on Mr Byner's program. Rather than looking at the philosophy of the bill and how it fits into a worldwide pattern of what is happening in other countries, I want to set out as clearly as I can—for my constituents and other people in Adelaide—how the bill will affect my constituents and what it does and does not do. In doing this I need to address the national privacy principles which are at the core of the bill. There are 10 of them and they are contained in schedule 3 of the bill. They set out rules relating to the collection, use, disclosure and security of personal information. The principles originated from a broad consultative process undertaken by the previous Privacy Commissioner. Representatives from industry and consumer groups contributed to the process. Public forums were held, an information paper was released to the public and more than 50 submissions were received. These national privacy principles reflect the privacy concerns of the public, the industry and consumer bodies.I will refer to the national privacy principles as NPPs. NPP1 sets the standard for the collection practices of organisations. It specifies that organisations must only collect personal information that is necessary for its function. NPP2 deals with the use and disclosure of personal information. It prohibits the disclosure and use of personal information about an individual for purposes other than the primary purpose. There are exceptions to this, but the principle is quite clear and the exceptions are reasonably minor. NPP3 requires an organisation to take reasonable steps to ensure that the information it collects, uses or discloses is complete, accurate and up to date. This is a very interesting principle. There have been complaints that the bill is not retrospective and so does not affect databases already in existence; but because the bill actually requires that existing databases are accurate and updated on a regular basis, they then come directly under the other rules of the bill. So an organisation, having changed its databases to bring them up to date, will be required then to make sure that those databases are accurate and accessible to the people whose information they hold and that those people are made aware that that information is there. NPP4 requires that an organisation take reasonable steps to protect personal information and to destroy or de-identify personal information that is no longer needed. NPP5 requires that organisations have clearly documented and publicly available privacy policies. NPP6 will be particularly welcomed by my constituents and by those concerned about the type of information that organisations hold on them. This NPP requires that organisations must provide individuals with the details of information held on them by that organisation. This has been a growing concern in the community. People have been afraid that organisations might hold information on them that is plainly wrong. In the past they have not had the right to access that information or to determine if what is happening in their life—whether they are being refused a job or something else—is a result of some organisation holding wrong information on them and passing it on. There are some exemptions to this in the legislation but, as they will not affect the majority of people, I will not go into them as they generally relate to matters of law and personal safety.A particular aspect of this legislation that will be very welcome to people who have tried to find out what the doctor has written about them is that they will now be able to access their own health records. This is an important move forward. I think it has been inappropriate in the past that medical and other personal information about people has been passed from doctor to doctor. Although we can see the importance of strictly medical information, I know that it has not always been the case that the information is strictly necessary. In the past, I think patients would have been surprised to find out some of the things that have been said about them in those professional papers. It is interesting to note that the AMA believes that this principle is in conflict with common law which in the past has denied patients access to their medical records. I would like to commend the Attorney-General for moving forward on this groundbreaking work, despite the objections of the AMA.NPP7 prevents organisations from using common identifiers such as Medicare and pension numbers. I just note here that tax file numbers have already been covered in the existing part 3 of the act. NPP8 requires that where lawful and practical, individuals can remain anonymous when entering into a transaction with an organisation. NPP9 prohibits organisations in Australia transferring information to countries where similar laws protecting privacy do not exist. NPP10 regulates the collection of sensitive information—and I use `sensitive' as opposed to `personal' information. Sensitive information includes race, ethnicity, religious belief and affiliation, political sympathies, philosophical belief, membership of a professional or trade or union organisation, sexual preference and activities, criminal records and health. I just want to add that health information can be collected when it is relevant to public safety or health or the management of a health service, so long as that information does not identify the individual or it is impractical to seek an individual's consent or the information is collected under law by a legitimate medical authority. In brief, organisations must not collect sensitive information about individuals unless the individual has directly consented or where collection is required by law or where it is necessary to prevent harm to the individual or where the individual is physically or legally capable of giving consent. One of the issues frequently raised with me—I know it is frequently raised on the morning radio program on 5AA which I have alluded to—is credit ratings. I would like to make it clear at this point that the Privacy Act already imposes obligations on credit providers and credit reporting agencies regarding the collection, storage, access, correction, use and disclosure of personal credit information. These obligations provide privacy protection for individuals in relation to their consumer credit records—something that I think is not generally known in the community. When acquiring information, a credit provider must inform the individual of items that will be passed on to a credit reporting agency. Where a loan has been refused on the basis of information from a credit reporting agency, the credit provider must inform the individual in writing that the refusal was based on information from a credit report and give the name and address of the credit reporting agency and information about their right to access the file and that agency. This protection, as I said, is already provided for under the Privacy Act. The proposed legislation will only serve to strengthen this protection with credit providers and reporting agencies having to comply with any component of the NPPs that are not already required by existing legislation. How does it work? How do you actually complain? If you have a beef against an organisation that you think has not done the right thing, what do you do? The first thing an individual has to do is make a complaint to the organisation itself. If there is no satisfaction there, the person can take it either to the particular body that is relevant to that organisation or, if there is not a particular body, directly to the Privacy Commissioner. The complaint will be investigated and when there is a determination in favour of the complainant the respondent will comply with the penalties prescribed by the industry body or by the Privacy Commissioner. In the event that the respondent does not comply, the Privacy Commissioner, the industry body or the individual can seek enforcement in the Federal Court. Penalties include apologies, an agreement to improve privacy protection, and also monetary compensation. The roles of the Privacy Commissioner include advocate of privacy, negotiations for formulation of guidelines, the approval of codes, investigation of complaints, issuing determinations and pursuing cases in the Federal Court.Another penalty, not actually a penalty as such, is the effect of the market on companies. One of the most effective mechanisms is the threat that the Privacy Commissioner will make public that an organisation has not kept to the code of practice—that it has violated it and then has not done what the Privacy Commissioner has organised. As Dr Ann Cavoukian, a Canadian information and privacy commissioner, said:... whoever builds the most trust, wins. In an online world, this translates into which companies can protect their consumers' privacy the best, win.That is a very important point. But let us face it: this bill does not rely on that market force; it is there in addition to what this bill provides. (Time expired)22:17:0022340Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise tonight to also take the opportunity to speak on this Privacy Amendment (Private Sector) Bill 2000 and the inadequacy of the government's approach to the issue of privacy. We live in a world where new technologies, particularly information technologies, are rapidly changing and this produces a climate where individuals' privacy interests require different protection from that which has been required in previous decades. The inherent limitations of paper based systems provided some protection of privacy, because the actual amount of information that could be stored or transferred was not that great. The quantity of information made available by the development of information technology and the Internet has dramatically increased. This has resulted in a proliferation of possibilities of uses of personal information. Take, for example, Monica's story as described in a piece by Jeffrey Rosen, titled `In cyberspace everyone knows your name'. This appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, 3 June 2000. It reads:“People need to realise that your e-mails can be read and made public, and that you need to be cautious”— Monica Lewinsky said on American talk show Larry King Live—Lewinsky was unsettled by Kenneth Starr decision to subpoena Washington bookstores for receipts of her purchases; in her biography Monica's story. She points to the bookstore subpoenas as one of the most invasive moments in the Starr investigation. But she was also distraught when the prosecutors subpoenaed her home computer. From the recesses of her hard drive, they retrieved e-mail messages that she had tried unsuccessfully to delete, along with the love letter she had drafted but never sent to the president. “It was such a violation,” Lewinsky complained to her biographer Andrew Morton.It is slightly ironic in one respect but nevertheless the point is there: there is no privacy left in this world in many respects.In addition to the quantity of information out there, the circumstances now prevail: as the cost of the technology required to access the Internet has fallen, we can expect to see an increasing number of Australians using it for social, educational, and work related purposes in their homes. Indeed, we are seeing it now. I do not think anybody in this House needs to be told about the magnificent email situation. They only need to sit in their offices for half an hour to know that. The government, in allowing delays and procrastinations in the development of a national private sector privacy framework and the introduction of legislation relating to this matter, has refused to meet the challenges of this changing environment. The government has demonstrated a lack of leadership on this issue, indicating that it preferred a self-regulatory scheme as opposed to legislation, before announcing that it would legislate in the area of personal information in the private sector by way of a `light touch' regulatory regime.Australians have proven themselves to be early adopters of new technology, and Australians are among the greatest Internet users in the world, with an estimated 41 per cent of the Australian adult population accessing the Internet in the last year. Usage by Australians is higher, relatively speaking, for younger Australians, with over 74 per cent of 18- to 24-year-olds using the Internet in the same 12 months. The member for Hindmarsh indicated that she thought young people in a recent survey indicated they did not have concerns about privacy on the Internet. I think this is not the case, but I think we will find that young people probably know how to ensure their privacy on the Internet better than do some people who have come to the technology later. There are many devices out there such as Kremlin and other software that can be used to ensure that you actually have privacy, but it does take someone who knows how to use the computer system extremely well. It is not so much that young people are not worried about it; they just know how to protect themselves better.Although we have a great take-up rate of the Internet, the Australian public are reluctant to engage in electronic commerce because of concerns about the security and confidentiality of information on the Internet. In the same period, it is estimated that a little under five per cent of Australian adults used the Internet for online shopping. This situation has economic implications. E-commerce has the potential to be a key driver of economic growth, and to improve national productivity, income and welfare, with consequential benefits for all Australians, according to Tom Muecke, Chairman, E-Commerce and Telecommunications Advisory Group, Small Business Coalition. He also quotes a substantial report by the National Office for the Information Economy which predicts that e-commerce is expected to contribute a 2.7 per cent increase in GDP, or $15 billion by the year 2007.Therefore it is not surprising that two of the largest lobby groups quoted in the Bills Digest as being opposed to legislation being introduced were the Australian Bankers Association and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. They wanted to go with this light touch approach of self-regulation. We know that will not work. As we know, there are severe limitations in the bill before us today.One also has to think at another level about the consequences that the growth of e-commerce has had and the devastation it has had on face-to-face financial services. I have no doubt that Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, who is in the chair, is aware of the consequences that this will have on banking services going in the bush. On the one hand, it is a wonderful thing to have greater access to services if you have a phone line, but on the other hand where are those jobs? The advance of technology is always at the expense of employment. Australians have also demonstrated their significant concern about privacy. One has only to recall the debate which raged over the introduction of the Australia Card or concerns people have around the quotation of their tax file number. Internet users do perceive the Internet as an insecure and potentially privacy invasive medium and are concerned about unsolicited advertising material and other intrusions. They are also uncertain about how identifiable personal information will be used or disclosed by the recipient organisation. The Freehill Internet privacy survey report suggests that Internet users need to feel confident that their privacy will be protected before they can be expected to take full advantage of the convenience of e-commerce. As organisations gain expertise in the fledgling area of e-commerce to fully realise the benefits of the Internet as a sales channel and to build customer relationships, the need for proper protection of privacy of personal details will increase accordingly. The legislation needs to recognise this developing climate.There are three main areas I would like to focus on. The first is provision for children. The legislation fails to address the requirements of effective privacy protection because there is nothing relating to special treatment of information collected from children. This is in direct contrast to the US Children's On Line Privacy Protection Act 1998, which requires operators of commercial web sites and online services directed at children to observe several conditions. They include providing parents with notice of their information collection practices, obtaining parental consent before collection or using or disclosing personal information about a child, obtaining new consent from parents when information practices change in a material way, allowing parents to review personal information, allowing parents to revoke their consent, not requiring a child to provide more information than is reasonably necessary and maintaining the confidentiality, security and integrity of information collected from children. Some of these measures would have been of benefit in this bill. The bill is deficient in respect of enforcement. While the Privacy Commissioner can recommend compensation for privacy breaches, there is no provision in the legislation for civil penalties to be available to punish corporations that engage in serious breaches.The issue of existing databases is without doubt the major flaw in this legislation. Nobody in this place can tell us that this is not a drama. Many of the speakers from the government side have ranted and raved about not having seen the foreshadowed amendments that the shadow Attorney-General spoke of. But that is nothing compared to the government's late introduction of legislation to this side of the parliament on numerous occasions—being provided with legislation only a couple of hours before we are going to debate the issues. Nevertheless, the greatest concern in this bill is the issue of existing databases. The bill fails to deal adequately with existing databases, specifically providing that the principle that relates to the use and disclosure of personal information will not apply to these. Why will this vast amount of personal information not be protected by the legislation? Is personal information collected from the Internet site yesterday somehow less worthy of protection than information collected after the passage of this bill? If this bill is not amended, it will remain possible for organisations which have databases with personal information on as many as 15 million Australians to sell or lease that information even though Australian citizens unquestionably did not consent to their personal information being used for that purpose. The whole debate of extending privacy regulations beyond the public sector to the private sector gained currency when media reports began circulating about the Acxiom consortium. Yet this bill will do nothing to regulate that consortium. Let us look at what Acxiom can actually do. I would again like to quote from the article I read from before about DoubleClick in the US. It provides a good case in point. It says:For the past few years, DoubleClick, the Internet's largest advertising-placement company, has been compiling anonymous data on American browsing habits by placing “cookie” files on millions of hard drives. Cookies are electronic footprints that allow Web sites and advertising networks to monitor online movements with granular precision. Some Web sites can monitor the search terms you enter and the articles you skim. After DoubleClick sends you a cookie, you will find yourself receiving targeted ads when you visit the Web sites of its 2,500 clients. As long as users were confident that their virtual identities weren't being linked to their actual identities, many were happy to accept cookies without thinking about them. Then, last November, DoubleClick bought Abacus Direct, a database of names, addresses and information about the off-line buying habits of 90 million American households, collected from the largest direct-mail catalogues and retailers in the nation. In January, using Abacus's detailed records, DoubleClick began to compile profiles linking individuals' actual names and addresses with their online and off-line purchases. Suddenly, shopping that had once seemed anonymous was being achieved in personally identifiable dossiers. As Rosen puts it, privacy protects us from being misdefined and judged out of context. The principle I have cited with DoubleClick is what Acxiom was looking to follow—a massive compiling of information all about you: where you spend, how you spend, where you go, what you do and all the rest of it. Sometimes we worry about the big conspiracy theories that some of our constituents present to us. Tragically, sometimes you think there is something in it. I worry that somehow there is a compilation of information that paints a picture of you—but it is out of context; it is not you. This wonderful database can somehow divine who you are and start to sell to you and target you in ways that you never thought about and hoped would never happen. Somehow this can happen. This legislation does not protect individuals from that because it does nothing to rectify what is happening with existing databases now. This bill, which fails to successfully control existing databases, is somewhat akin to closing the gate after the horse has bolted. That would be fine if its name was Brew and you had had a few dollars on it, but it is hopelessly ineffective in the protection of personal privacy. Debate interrupted.Adjournment2234310000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2234322:30:0022343Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I have previously brought to the attention of members the threat that is being posed to the Belmont--Jewells Wetlands. The wetlands contain a diverse ecosystem and include species of flora and fauna that are endangered. These wetlands extend from the coast to Lake Macquarie and act as a filtration system for the lake. Lake Macquarie City Council recently resolved that this unique coastal land should be incorporated into a coastal reserve, a reserve that would become a valuable educational resource, a focus for ecotourism and a valuable cultural and heritage asset.The last time I spoke of the community's campaign to save Belmont Wetlands in this House I implored BHP to transfer the ownership of the land to the community. Since that time there has been a positive turn of events, with BHP entering into negotiations with the New South Wales government to transfer the wetlands to the state. This is a positive signal and, if the negotiations are successful, the people of Lake Macquarie will have saved a very precious piece of our coastal wetland. I hear arguments that part of the land must still be developed to allow for the wetlands to be restored, but I disagree with this most strongly. What is important is to deliver the land to the community, a community that has fought long and hard to save it—not to build wall-to-wall houses. Recently a local developer, Mr Jeff McCloy, has expressed an interest in purchasing the land from BHP and developing the area. His idea of development has no room for ecotourism, education or the preservation of cultural and heritage. Rather, it is houses, golf courses, condominiums and wall-to-wall development. Mr McCloy has a sorry record when it comes to development and working with the community. His approach to negotiating with the community is to bully it into submission. In a long running dispute with the community at Green Point, another area within the Shortland electorate, he beat the community into submission with threats of building chook farms and market gardens, along with sending threatening letters to residents in the area. In more recent times he has served Mrs Leslie Jacoby with a letter threatening her with court action after he perused the Lake Macquarie City Council files which he obtained under freedom of information. This related to a development that adjoins the Belmont Wetlands. In a letter to Lake Macquarie City Council, Mrs Jacoby expressed concerns about the fact that stockyards had been built in a residential area, a highly sensitive area, horses and goats had been introduced into the area, there had been clearing right up to the boundaries, fertiliser was being thrown all over the land and the proper environmental precautions were not taken into account. Mr McCloy's response to this was to write to the council and say he had got a copy of the letter and he was most upset about it. The matters Mrs Jacoby referred to in her letter to council were factual. But the in-house solicitor from McCloy's sent the letter to Mrs Jacoby threatening her and saying that her letter contained many falsehoods and that of particular concern were the allegations and imputations in relation to his client, Mr McCloy. This was an attempt to intimidate Mrs Jacoby. This is common practice by this developer. It is a threat of a strategic law suit against public participation.The Lake Macquarie Coastal Wetlands Alliance is holding a public meeting on 13 December to support the wetlands being brought under state government control. The community will support the alliance and will not be intimidated by this developer, Jeff McCloy, and his bullyboy tactics. The community is entitled to preserve this wonderful wetland. They should not be threatened and pushed into submission by a developer who enjoys threatening the community. The Belmont Wetlands is a precious resource. It is of vital importance to the coastal ecology of Lake Macquarie and must by preserved for future generations—our children's children. (Time expired)2234422:35:0022344Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—Today was quite a surprise to me when I watched the Melbourne Cup. I saw Brew go across the line and then realised that the young jockey on the back of Brew was one Kerrin McEvoy from Streaky Bay. It is with great pride that I join with the celebrations tonight—VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—Where is Streaky Bay?HV5Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELIN—Streaky Bay is one of the jewels in the crown of Grey. It is a magnificent place on Eyre Peninsula. I want to acknowledge the community of Eyre Peninsula and the people of Streaky Bay today as we celebrate this young man's great success. To his parents and grandparents who are in Melbourne today, it is fantastic. I am grateful to the journalist Dennis Markham, writing from Melbourne yesterday and today, who says that young Kerrin began his riding in Streaky Bay when he was about 15. I wonder whether it was at Perlubie Beach or at one of the race meetings at Streaky Bay itself. I know that he had his first ride at Balaclava—once again, thank you to Dennis Markham—and his first winner at Ceduna. I know that there is a great country race tradition which this family has been involved with over many generations. This is a great historic day for the McEvoy family and particularly for Kerrin. The Melbourne Cup, run over 3,200 metres, is actually the Foster's Cup and, as one of the commentators said today, you should have to be on a horse named Brew in the Foster's Cup. Tonight I join with the family and with people like Mike Moroney, the trainer, and Glen D'Arcy, Kerrin's manager, in saluting and celebrating Kerrin McEvoy's win on Brew.2234522:37:0022345Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I would like to go back a couple of weeks and talk about the other great sporting events, the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games. I would like to inform the House about the achievements of athletes from my electorate. Seven athletes from the Greenway electorate competed, three at the Olympics and four at the Paralympics. I am proud to be able to say that they brought home a total of five medals and two Australian records among their other achievements. The Olympics started well for our Greenway athletes on day one of competition, when Mehmet Yagci of Seven Hills broke two Australian records in the 56-kilogram section of the weightlifting competition. Mehmet eventually finished 17th in the competition, behind a world record lift, but we should all be celebrating his Australian record in the clean and jerk and the overall total of 235 kilograms.The other two Greenway residents in the Olympics, Melanie Roche of Stanhope Gardens and Fiona Hanes of Quakers Hill, brought home bronze medals as members of the Australian Thunder softball team. Melanie was backing up from Atlanta bronze. Let us hope they can go a couple better in the year 2004. I took great pleasure from watching the softballers in action, just down the road from my office at the world-class softball venue that was built in Blacktown for the games.Let me now turn to Greenway's Paralympians. Four athletes were competing in three different sports and they all performed with credit and inspiration. Nicholas Moroney of Lalor Park was a member of the Boomerangs, the basketball team for the intellectually disabled. But he was not just any member: Nicholas was Australia's top scorer in the competition, the Andrew Gaze of the ID basketball team. Nicholas also received the 1999 Variety Club Young Sportsman of the Year Award. As he is 22, there are many more years of international basketball ahead of Nicholas and I look forward to following his career with interest.Troy and Kerrie-Ann King of Seven Hills were our representatives in the sport of goalball. Indeed, Kerrie-Ann was the captain of the women's team, a great honour. Unfortunately, the tournament did not go according to plan. The men finished ninth while the women finished eighth. We have heard a great deal about funding for our elite sports men and women during and since the Olympics and we have also heard about funding for our Paralympians. Goalball seems to have been forgotten in all of this. I was lucky enough to go to a training day for the goalballers in Blacktown a month or so before the Paralympics began. These training days can only be held every three or four months because the team are scattered around the country and cannot afford to do it more often. Indeed, the Blacktown Police and Citizens' Youth Club will not even store the goals; they have to be stored at the home of one of the coaches, so goalball has no home and no money. While international competition is easy to arrange in Europe, even domestic competition is very difficult here in Australia. Goalball does not have the profile of other sports and suffers badly as a result. This is a pity because it is a great game to watch and I am told it is a great game to play, even for the non-visually impaired. I would urge the minister, when deciding future funding, to at least look at the sport of goalball. Goalballers need a home and some means of developing a domestic competition. I am sure the international results will follow. I would like to finish on a high note. That note is Alicia Aberley of Riverstone. While the focus of the media was on Siobhan Paton in the S14 swimming class and Siobhan was the star of the meet, Alicia quietly went about her business, picking up two silver medals, two bronze medals and a host of personal bests behind Siobhan. Alicia won silver in both the 100-metres freestyle and 200-metres individual medley and bronze in both the 200-metres freestyle and 50-metres breaststroke. As Alicia is just 16 years of age, there are many more swim-meets ahead of her and—who knows?—by Athens she might just catch Siobhan. I am very proud of all of the Australian athletes but there is a special spot for the locals from the Blacktown area who performed so magnificently at both games. All I can say is: roll on Athens. (Time expired)2234622:42:0022346Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—Tonight I call for producers of depraved material on a CD such as the one I am holding to be held criminally liable for the corrupting influence such material may have on the people who purchase such a disc. Anyone, regardless of age, can buy this CD at a record store. After I opened the CD, I was stunned when I flipped through the CD's sleeve and saw the words of the lyrics of what is on the CD. They are printed inside in the jacket of the CD. The band is called Six Feet Under. The CD is called Maximum Violence. But the title still did not prepare me for the content. The CD is depraved. Its genre is called `death metal'. That promotes death, sexual violence and obscene language. It is a genre that encourages listeners to act out the fantasies of these so-called artists. It is a CD that brainwashes kids, convincing them that violence and death are cool and that they are the done thing in society. I listened to the first track, called Feasting on the Blood of the Insane, and this is a typical verse:In the dark of the night I search forthe mindless wretches of societyTo drink the blood and feast upon their fleshTime to break cause you'll never take thisLots of stiffs and blood—what a sickening messFeasting on the blood of the insaneHere's another take of the ... deranged.In deference to the parliament tonight, I have deleted the references to the expletives that were in that particular verse. It is just disgraceful. I can assure you that I find myself unable to repeat some of the words that are in other verses in other tracks on this CD. This despicable, degrading and dangerous product has one aim only—to shock and to shock again. So what is the price of notoriety? It is the impact on our society and particularly on our kids in a destructive and damaging way. Enough is enough—these bands should be held accountable for the worthless rubbish that they put in the music stores. They should be held accountable for irresponsibly influencing our children and they should be held accountable for the damage or violence that occurs as a result of this material—material that has no artistic merit at all.Without regret, remorse or responsibility, this material is freely available to anyone of any age in a music store. The defence `We don't make them listen to it' has long expired. I propose that artists and producers responsible for this kind of material should be held liable for any criminal acts committed as a result of listening to this kind of matter and as a result of people being influenced by this depraved product. I propose no leniency and no exceptions. Bands like Six Feet Under should stand trial if their music is shown to have influenced others to commit criminal acts. They should stand in the dock and receive equal punishment. We all know the effect Charles Manson had on his zombie followers and the hideous effect his followers had on people like Sharon Tate and her unborn baby. I certainly have not forgotten those images. Although there is legislation in place controlling such filth, it is obvious that it is ineffective. The Commonwealth Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 is clearly allowing obscene material into local music stores—and at what cost? Clearly ineffective legislation that fails to safeguard our kids should be strengthened. It should address the real impact which materials such as this have on those who listen to it. If it does not, we as responsible citizens have failed; we have not acted to stop this crime. There is only one solution: make these bands accountable for pushing the deceptive and subliminal messages that violence, sexual fetish and death are acceptable. As a legislator, I expect the parliament to take account of this kind of material and do something about it. I certainly do not want my kids or anyone else's kids to have Six Feet Under as a role model. So, as legislators, let us get tough and let us do something about it.2234722:47:0022347Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I wish to draw attention to some of the rare good sense displayed in the last few days about electoral matters, given the current overwrought atmosphere regarding allegations of electoral fraud in Queensland. I particularly want to draw attention to some conflicting principles raised by the Financial Review in its editorial and a very interesting submission by the Australian Electoral Commission to the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters for its inquiry into the integrity of the rolls. In its editorial today, the Financial Review said that there are two issues of principle that the parliament should examine:Electoral fraud diminishes confidence in the electoral system and could lead to voters failing to cast their ballot regardless of whether there is a penalty.There is also another issue in conflict with that:... it is also important not to overstate fraud allegations so that people feel the Australian electoral system is not functioning properly when, by most international standards, it delivers a quality result.Those of us who practise in politics on all sides of the parliament will, I am sure, acknowledge the great participation we get during elections in most states: the performance of the Electoral Office, the role of volunteers and the role of political parties. I am certainly concerned that in our friendly democracy—the United States—we will tomorrow have a vote of perhaps less than 50 per cent. I am not saying that the Australian compulsory voting system is perfect, but our recording of 96 per cent of the vote and its being done to very high standards compared with most countries is something we should treasure and try to preserve and not put into jeopardy for short-term political gain. In its submission to this inquiry, the AEC said:The AEC does not support major amendments to the Electoral Act for the introduction of early close of the rolls, voter identification or subdivisional/precinct voting because of the following possible impacts on the federal elector system:a reduction in the franchise, particularly affecting the young and the socially disadvantaged;a decrease in the accuracy of the rolls at the close of the rolls; a reduction in compliance with the legal requirement for compulsory voting; queuing delays, confusion and inconvenience at polling booths; an increase in declaration voting; and, delays in the delivery of election results.There are numerous sensible recommendations that any good democratic electoral system such as the Australian system can put into place. The Electoral Commission recommend a couple of them. They include the enhancement of the continuous roll update and other databases that they use to improve the auditing of the enrolment process and an increase in penalty levels for electoral fraud offences. I think all of us in this parliament who sensibly think about these kinds of issues can support those kinds of measures. Perhaps there are others too which I am sure the committee will examine and which can be supported on a non-partisan basis. The Joint Select Committee on Electoral Matters, in its inquiry into the integrity of the roll, ought not throw the democratic baby out with the bathwater—that is, the rorting issues. It is very important to preserve our democratic process. I am particularly concerned about recommendations by the government before this parliament that the close of the roll take place immediately the election is announced.Currently, at least some 65,000 younger people choose the time between the announcement of the election and the close of the roll, the five days thereafter, to register to vote. Younger people who are 17 and 18 years old do not necessarily have politics at the front of their mind. In a compulsory voting system, we ought to do everything we can to make sure that they, like Aboriginal voters or other groups who may not be participating in the compulsory voting system, have every opportunity to do so. We must make sure—in our enthusiasm to make political gain, as some people are, out of regrettable instances such as those in Queensland—that we do not jeopardise the rights of young people and other groups to participate in democratic elections and in compulsory voting. 2234822:51:0022348Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I said in a previous adjournment speech what a wonderful country we live in here in Australia. I am reminded of this, having recently led a parliamentary delegation—on your behalf, Mr Speaker, and on behalf of Madam President in the other house—to Hungary and Poland. Hungary is a country the size of Mallee with 10 million people in it, and Poland is a country the size of the state of Victoria with 40 million people. So I come back reminded of what a wonderful opportunity we have in our country in achieving our future. But there are some challenges involved in this. The challenge that confronts us as a trading nation that needs to trade five times more than it produces for the domestic market is to engage in the `global village'. Much is said about globalisation, and it is very sad that as members of this place we have not been able to lead our constituencies to understand what globalisation really means. It is about trading with the rest of the world. We are an island continent, which is another one of the great assets that our nation has, and that island continent is free of disease. That brings me to the point I wish to speak about during tonight's adjournment debate—that is, the discussions currently taking place about the possible importation of apples from New Zealand. They are our close cousins across the Tasman. They are confronted by the same challenges that confront us in engaging in the global economy. But one of the great strengths of our economy here in Australia, particularly for that section that is engaged in agriculture, is our disease-free status. It is absolutely crucial that the science of the discussions on the importation of apples is absolutely right. It is not about creating barriers for trade—we want to trade with New Zealand. We want to buy their goods and we want them to buy our goods, just as we want other countries to buy both their goods and our goods.We have a very reputable organisation in the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. It is well regarded around the world, and it has been instrumental in attaining very important market access for many of our constituencies. Mr Speaker, you would be very pleased to know that the Minister for Trade was in Sunraysia in my electorate last Monday engaging with the citrus industry, which is seeking the government's cooperation in creating greater market access. AQIS is involved in issues, such as settling phytosanitary matters, to do with access to some of those export opportunities particularly in Asia, particularly in Korea, India and other countries. With that emphasis, it is also important that we treat the issue on an even-handed basis and that we get the science right in the issue of apples from New Zealand.I am getting a large number of representations from the stone fruit and apple growing constituency associated with the Swan Hill district, which is a growing region of Australia that is centred around horticulture. There is an increasing number of people growing apples who have expressed a concern about the need to get this right. We just do not want fire blight in Australia. I need to be able to return to my constituents, who have invested large amounts of capital, look them in the eye and give them a guarantee that, whatever arrangements are entered into in regard to the importation of apples from New Zealand, Australia will not, as a result, suffer the blight of fire blight—so aptly named, endemic and prolific in some countries. I am very pleased that the Senate will be conducting an inquiry into the issue to ensure that the science is right, and I invite my constituents to ensure that they make submissions, which are due before Christmas on 23 December. I am advised that the committee will be conducting hearings in the apple growing regions of our great country and that it intends to engage the industry and to ensure that there is proper public consultation. I am also advised that there will be no compromises in undermining the disease-free status which our great country enjoys. I invite them to make a submission to the inquiry and to engage with the Senate committee, and I offer to them the opportunity to facilitate their submissions through my offices. Question resolved in the affirmative.22:56:0022349House adjourned at 10.56 p.m.Notices22349The following notice was given:0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the Committee has duly reported: Fitout of new leased premises for the Australian Bureau of Statistics at Belconnen, ACT.Answers to Questions in Writing22350The following answers to questions were circulated:22350(Question No. 1641)164122350Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 June 2000: (1) Does the modelling in the (a) Fightback package indicate that a 100% abolition of fuel excise on both petrol and diesel would produce a 5.74% cut in road transport costs and (b) new tax system package indicate that a 50% cut in diesel fuel excise after a GST input credit produces a 6.7% reduction in road transport costs, (2) If so, why does a 50% cut in diesel fuel excise produce a greater percentage reduction in road transport costs now than a 100% abolition of fuel excise would have caused in 1992.22350Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) (a) No, the Fightback package contained no detailed information on the price impacts of the package. Separate modeling by the then Labor Government estimated that the overall change in the transportation component of the CPI (a measure of what consumers pay for transportation) would be a fall of 5.74 per cent as a result of the package, one element of which was the removal of excise. (b) Tax Reform: Not a New Tax, A New Tax System estimated that the Road Transport industry would experience a fall in input costs of 6.7 per cent as a result of the full tax reform package, one element of which was a reduction in diesel excise for some users. (2) The estimate of a 6.7 per cent reduction in the cost of inputs to the transportation industry is not comparable to the estimate of a 5.74 per cent reduction in the prices paid by consumers for transportation. One estimate refers to input costs while the other refers to the price of outputs.22350(Question No. 1739)173922350Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 14 August 2000: (1) Does Taxpack 2000 contain two separate instructions for the spouse superannuation contributions rebate which request taxpayers to calculate their spouse's assessable income and also their taxable income. (2) Which calculation is used for the purposes of claiming the spouse contribution rebate. (3) Will the two different calculations result in some taxpayers inadvertently over claiming the rebate and facing penalties from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO). (4) Will the ATO levy penalties on taxpayers who inadvertently over claim the spouse rebate in 1999-2000. (5) How many erroneous spouse rebate claims were made in 1997-98 and 1998-99. (6) Were penalties levied by the ATO against taxpayers who erroneously claimed the spouse rebate in 1997-98 and 1998-99. (7) What is the ATO's assessment of the number of expected erroneous spouse rebate claims for 1999-2000. (8) What is the estimated cost of the superannuation contributions for spouse rebate in each financial year it has been operating. (9) What is the total value of superannuation contributions that have been made on behalf of spouses under the rebate scheme in each financial year since the rebate has been operating. (10) Will he provide the RIM Group modelling that was undertaken on the cost of the superannuation contribution spouse rebate which the ATO confirmed had been undertaken in evidence before the Senate Select Committee onSuperannuation in 1997 and which was originally requested by the Senate Committee in 1997; if not, why not.22351Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No. (2) Spouse's assessable income is used for the purpose of claiming the `spouse superannuation contribution rebate'. (3) If a taxpayer follows steps 1-3 in Question R6 of the TaxPack 2000 instructions, they will write the correct amount at the correct label. (4) The Commissioner's TaxPack Guarantee requires taxpayers to follow TaxPack. TaxPack instruction was that taxpayers were to use their spouse's assessable income figure in calculating the amount of the spouse superannuation contribution rebate. This was defined in TaxPack as generally their gross income before taking off any allowable deductions. Self preparers and tax agents who, contrary to the TaxPack instruction, did not use the assessable income figure had penalty imposed unless they could show they took reasonable care. Factors including age, education and experience are relevant in deciding whether reasonable care is used. Self preparers who show they followed the TaxPack instruction and attempted to calculate the assessable income figure but got the calculation wrong are not being charged penalty. (5) The ATO identified 1 414 and 2 130 erroneous claims for spouse superannuation contribution rebate in the years ended 30 June 1998 and 30 June 1999 respectively. (6) ATO policy is not to charge penalty on taxpayers who make mistakes during the first year of a new government initiative. Penalties were therefore not imposed in 1997-98. In line with point 4 above, penalties were imposed in 1998-99. (7) If a taxpayer or their adviser, follows steps 1 to 3 in Question R6 of TaxPack 2000, the number of erroneous claims in the year ended 30 June 2000 would be expected to be fewer than in previous years. (8) The estimated cost of the spouse superannuation contribution rebate is $6.9 million and $11.2 million for the years ended 30 June 1998 and 30 June 1999 respectively. (9) The total value of superannuation contributions that have been made on behalf of spouses in each financial year is not available. However, given that the rebate is calculated as 18% of superannuation contributions under the relevant threshold, the amount of contributions on behalf of a spouse which are able to be used for rebate calculations were $38.2 million and $62.3 million for the year ended 30 June 1998 and 30 June 1999. (10) The RIMGROUP modelling referred to has been described in detail in a publicly available paper by Dr Rothman of the then RIM Task Force. The paper is titled 'Aggregate and Distributional Modelling of Australian Superannuation using the RIMGROUP Model' and was presented in July 1996. It is available through the Treasury web site: www.treasury.gov.au/rim/ as RIM publication 18; the relevant pages are 9 to 10.22351(Question No. 1824)182422351Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 16 August 2000: In 1999-2000 in the Minister's Department, what was the (a) average salary paid in each Australian Public Service salary band and (b) average staffing level (average number of employees) for each band.22351Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: CLASSIFICATIONAVERAGE SALARYAVERAGE STAFFING LEVELAPS 1$19,2325APS 2$27,10316APS 3$33,10571APS 4$38,56041APS 5$43,36985APS 6$49,51684EL 1$62,408107EL 2$77,04291SES Band 1$94,09032SES Band 2$118,8166SES Band 3$173,6254 It should be noted that average salaries shown above are the actual average salaries received by the employees in each category. As such, the figures reflect the impact of part-time hours in some of the classifications.22352(Question No. 1845)184522352Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, upon notice, on 17 August 2000: (1) Did he attend the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs meeting on 21 July 2000. (2) Was the 10-point plan on fuel sponsored by New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria discussed at the meeting. (3) What was the outcome of the discussion of the plan. (4) Did the Commonwealth vote in favour of the plan. (5) What is his position on point three of the plan regarding fuel substitution.22352Hockey, Joe, MPMr HockeyDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) Yes. (3) The 10 point plan was not adopted by the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs. (4) The Council did not vote on the adoption of the Plan, therefore the Commonwealth was not required to vote on the issue. (5) The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill, has brought forward legislation in the form of the Fuel Standards Bill 2000 as the first step in implementing fuel standards primarily to address air quality concerns. However, compliance across Australia will only be assured if Commonwealth action is supported by legislation and action at the State and Territory level. The matter of fuel standards is a joint responsibility of the Commonwealth and the States and Territories. The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill, is responsible for that aspect of fuel standards which relate to impacts on air quality, while the primary responsibility for ensuring consumers get what they paid for lies with the State and Territory Fair Trading Ministers. Excise matters are the responsibility of the Assistant Treasurer, Senator Kemp. In relation to fuel adulteration, the Customs Tariff Act 1995 was amended with effect from 10 March 2000, to impose a customs duty on imported toluene, benzene, xylenes and mixed alkylbenzenes that can be used in illicit blending. The customs duty imposed on these chemicals is now equivalent to petrol excise. In addition, the Petroleum Excise Amendment (Measures to Address Evasion) Bill 2000 has only just passed the Senate and is still awaiting royal assent. These changes are aimed at addressing revenue loss through excise evasion and the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) will continue to monitor whether other products are being used for fuel substitution purposes and if further action is required. The Petroleum Excise Amendment (Measures to Address Evasion) Bill 2000 is designed to improve ATO's ability to undertake prosecutions for excise evasion, and when it receives royal assent, ATO will be putting resources into its testing for marked fuel program as soon as possible. However, any testing undertaken by ATO is only to determine whether any marked fuel is present. This is only one small part of an overall strategy on areas of concern relating to fuel. The national fuel legislation will go some way to addressing the other concerns relating to air quality but require supporting State and Territory legislation. The other area of concern relates to whether consumers are getting an appropriate fuel for their vehicles and this responsibility lies with State and Territory Fair Trading Ministers.22353(Question No. 1922)192222353Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 4 September 2000: Does the Government propose to allow early access to superannuation investments for the purpose of vocational training and lifelong learning.22353Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: No.22353(Question No. 1951)195122353Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca6J4BowmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 7 September 2000: (1) Has his attention been drawn to a letter dated 20 December 1999 written by the Acting Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) regarding the individual complaints process of the Convention Against Torture in response to correspondence from the Secretary of his Department dated 25 October 1999. (2) When was the possibility of withdrawing from the individual complaints process first mooted within his Department. (3) Was the original letter from the Secretary of his Department suggesting that the possible withdrawal from the individual complaints process be kept open as an option written at his direction. (4) Has his Department been contemplating the withdrawal from any other obligations or processes adopted by Australia as part of the UN Human Rights treaty committees. (5) Was DFAT's advice that withdrawal from the individual complaints process would have serious ramifications for Australia's reputation on human rights and credibility in seeking reform of the UN treaty committee system considered in the Government's decision to implement the package of measures to improve interaction with UN human rights treaty committees which he announced with the Attorney-General and the Minister for Foreign Affairs on 29 August 2000.22353Ruddock, 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) In mid 1999 I was briefed in relation to the individual complaints made under the Convention Against Torture (CAT). In addition to a process of dialogue with the Committee Against Torture, I asked that the use of individual complaints by failed asylum seekers be monitored. I also asked that other arms of Government be alerted to the potential difficulties of increasing usage of these processes. In October 1999 my Department alerted other relevant Departments of my concerns in this matter and the need to monitor the use of the individual complaints mechanism as well as the Committee's responsiveness to addressing issues of concern to States. My Department also advised that the option of considering possible withdrawal from the individual complaints mechanism should not be ruled out. (3) The letter from the Secretary of my Department was consistent with my concerns. (4) No. (5) Yes.22353(Question No. 1972)197222353Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr Ripoll83EOxleyALP00 asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 3 October 2000: Will Centrelink's decision to use a telephone contact number with a “13” prefix result in Centrelink customers paying a higher rate of 25 cents for a local call to Centrelink rather than 15 cents per call if they had access to neighbourhood calls; if so, why was the decision made. 22354Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: In 1997, Centrelink entered into a Managed Voice Services (MVS) Contract with Telstra. One of the features of the MVS Contract was that Centrelink customers would be able to ring the agency from anywhere in Australia for not more than the cost of a local call (mobiles excepted). The decision to adopt the Telstra “13” network rather than the less expensive neighbourhood call option was based on the following reasons:· Non discriminatory, distance independent pricing;· Community familiarity with “13” numbers; · Income support payment specific numbers, allowing customers access to skilled telephone operators and consistent information quality;· Ability to support complex routing and queuing requirements (not available with the neighbourhood / local call network); and· Ease of explanation in promotional material; Based on community acceptance and satisfaction with the Centrelink Call network, the number of “13” services has increased from 7 in 1997 to 33 in 2000. The existing contract is currently being renegotiated.22354(Question No. 1974)197422354Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 3 October 2000: Are training courses available for a blind 24 year old man in regional Victoria to enable him to gain meaningful employment; if so, what are they; if not, what plans are envisaged to provide appropriate training.22354Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: The Department of Family and Community Services funds specialised employment services to assist people with a disability gain meaningful employment. These services are classed as Competitive Employment, Training and Placement, and Supported Employment. Competitive Employment, Training and Placement services assist people to gain jobs in open employment. These services can link people into appropriate external training and provide on the job support and training, for example, training in job search, interview skills and resume preparation. However, funding is not provided for formal training courses. Supported Employment services provide ongoing support for people in a small business, enclaves or individual jobs. Training is provided in the skills required to do the job. These services may assist people to access external training, however, funding is not provided for formal training courses. In Victoria two specialist employment services receive funding to assist people with vision impairment: - The Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind (RVIB) provides specialist assistance through its employment service for people with vision impairment in the Melbourne metropolitan area. This service trains job seekers in switchboard operations, computer and adaptive technology skills, and industrial skills. RVIB provides a substantial amount of their own funds to support this training. They are also able to assist regional employment services in providing limited on the job training for people with vision impairment, however they are not funded to deliver formal training courses in regional areas. - SensWide Services specialises in assisting people with a dual disability, including a sensory impairment. SensWide operates throughout Victoria and provides advice and training to assist job seekers, employers and other employment services. They can assist job seekers with pre-employment and on the job training and to gain access to relevant training programs and appropriate employment services, however they do not deliver formal training courses in regional areas. 22355(Question No. 1999)199922355Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 3 October 2000: What has been the cost each year since 1995, including 2000, of providing quarantine services and processing at each airport where those services are provided.22355Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service (AQIS) provides quarantine services at all major international airports throughout Australia and through these major airports, to others with first port status. Quarantine costs for each airport are not available for the 1995/96 and 1996/97 financial years but is provided in aggregated form below. Location1995/96($'000)1996/97 ($'000)1997/98 ($'000)1998/99 ($'000)1999/00($'000)Sydney--5,5176,7796,918Brisbane a--2,7613,8493,697Melbourne--2,2583,2503,197Perth--1,6122,0832,056Cairns b--1,5131,8671,578Darwin--1,2881,2921,168Adelaide--437602660Hobart--466459Canberra--183112TOTAL12,74613,92215,45019,81719,345 a Includes Gladstone. b Includes Townsville, Mackay and other remote airports in far north Queensland. Funding to implement recommendations made in the Australian Quarantine Review Report commenced in October 1996 and has continued into the 2000-01 financial year. These figures are included in the table for 1996/97, 1997/98, 1998/99 and 1999/2000. The cost of the Detector Dog Program in 1997/98 and 1998/99 has been apportioned to each AQIS airport office based on the number of teams at each location during those years. In 1999/00, the Detector Dog Program was paid for by each AQIS airport office according to the services that were actually provided.22355(Question No. 2002)200222355Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 3 October 2000: If a child is born to a couple as a result of in-vitro fertilisation treatment, and the couple subsequently separates, is the (a) non-custodial parent liable to pay child support and (b) custodial parent required to seek to obtain that child support as a condition of accessing social security if the couple has been (i) married, (ii) in a defacto heterosexual relationship and (iii) in a same sex relationship.22355Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) Generally, yes. (b) (i) Applicants for Family Tax Benefit Part A cannot receive more than the base rate unless they take `reasonable action' to obtain child support. Where a couple separates the resident parent will be required to take action to obtain child support. (ii) Under Family Assistance Law, defacto couples are treated in the same manner as legally married couples. (iii) Same sex couples who separate following an artificial conception procedure are generally not required to take action to obtain child support. This is because, generally, in the case of same sex couples, neither the ex-partner nor the donor is a parent of the child for the purposes of the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989. 22356(Question No. 2008)200822356Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 3 October 2000: (1) What is the average period for approval of applications from newly married Australian citizens and permanent residents wishing to sponsor their spouse to come to Australia from the time the application is made to the approval time. (2) What is the average time for approval of applications for spouses coming from (a) Great Britain, (b) Ireland, (c) Western Europe, (d) Croatia, (e) Hungary, (f) Romania, (g) Baltic States, (h) Russian Federation, (i) Slovakia, (j) Czech Republic, (k) Slovenia, (l) Poland, (m) Turkey, (o) Israel, (q) Jordan, (r) Syria, (s) Egypt, (t) Iran, (u) Afghanistan, (v) Pakistan, (w) India, (x) Sri Lanka, (y) China, (z) Japan, (aa) Philippines, (ab) South Korea, (ac) Thailand, (ad) Malaysia, (ae) Hong Kong, (af) Singapore, (ag) Indonesia, (ah) Fiji, (ai) Papua New Guinea, (aj) Samoa, (ak) Vanuatu, (al) USA, (am) Canada, (an) Latin America, (ao) Sudan, (ap) Ethiopia, (aq) Kenya, (ar) Zimbabwe, (as) South Africa, (at) Ghana, (au) Nigeria and (av) Mauritius. (3) Are there unjustifiable delays in the processing of applications, especially from certain countries; if not, why not.22356Ruddock, 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) Average periods to approval are normally measured as median processing times to visa grant. For subclass 309 Spouse (Provisional) visas, the median time to visa grant at the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' (DIMA) overseas posts is 28 weeks. This is based on 5118 cases approved during the period 1 March 2000 to 31 August 2000. (2) The average time for approval of applications for spouses `coming from' each of the countries listed, is based on the median processing time for the responsible post where a DIMA post is located in the country mentioned. In some cases, figures for several posts have been aggregated, for example, Western Europe comprises Berlin, Paris, Rome, The Hague and Vienna. The table below shows the median time from lodgement to approval for all cases lodged in the six month period from 1 March 2000 to 31 August 2000 for the selected countries. In some cases the DIMA post is responsible for processing cases from more than one country and this has been indicated by brackets. Figures for Pakistan and Afghanistan are based on cases recorded for the country of birth of the applicant, as applications from Afghanistan are mainly processed in Islamabad. (3) Processing times can vary among countries for a range of reasons including: - Difficulties in verifying claims where reliable documentation is not available - Delays associated with health concerns that may arise (eg Tuberculosis, HIV) - Difficulties in obtaining penal certificates - Difficulty of travel and communications - Lack of a processing post in the country of origin requiring travel by officers of a nearby post in order to undertake interviews or site visits - Staff absences or illness at a post - Other processing workloads that have been given priority for example, temporary entry surges - Special circumstances such as civil unrest or natural disasters. Given these factors, processing times for posts are considered to be justifiable but can be improved. Strategies to achieve improvements continue to be developed and implemented. Visa Grants in the period 01/03/2000 thru 31/08/2000(Time taken from date of lodgement to Visa Grant)Subclass 309 by Case Origin CountryPost of processTotal Visa Grants (cases) in the periodTime in weeks for 50% of Visa GrantsaGreat BritainLondon57826bIrelandDublin3522cWestern Europe(Berlin), (Paris), Rome, The Hague, (Vienna)27813dCroatia(Vienna)1919eHungary(Vienna)732fRomania(Belgrade)2347gBaltic StatesBelgrade21327hRussian Federation(Moscow)2240ISlovakia(Vienna)813jCzech Republic(Vienna)1215kSlovenia(Vienna)214lPoland(Warsaw)2012mTurkeyAnkara11016oIsraelTel Aviv1611qJordan(Beirut)5314rSyria(Beirut)5822sEgypt(Cairo)4915tIranTehran3922uAfghanistan**(Islamabad)2444vPakistan**(Islamabad)8239wIndiaNew Delhi14144xSri LankaColombo7836yChinain total60041Beijing16643Guangzhou22033Shanghai21449zJapanTokyo768aaPhilippinesManila38518abSouth KoreaSeoul2913acThailand(Bangkok)11140adMalaysiaKuala Lumpur4314aeHong KongHong Kong8515afSingaporeSingapore5735agIndonesiaJakarta14443ahFiji(Suva)17318aiPapua New GuineaPort Moresby2636ajSamoa(Suva)624akVanuatu(Suva)141alUSAin total20915Washington12015Los Angeles8914amCanadaOttawa764anLatin AmericaSantiago7522aoSudan(Cairo)844apEthiopia(Nairobi)849aqKenya(Nairobi)2942arZimbabwe(Pretoria)542asSouth Africa(Pretoria)8035atGhana(Nairobi)667auNigeria(Nairobi)135avMauritius(Pretoria)745sub-total4107TOTAL (ALL Case Origin Countries from ALL Posts of Process) 5118281.**Pakistan/Afghanistan based on country of birth.2.Post enclosed () processes multiple Case Origin Countries.22358(Question No. 2035)203522358Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Sport and Tourism, upon notice, on 9 October 2000: (1) What is the expected increase in international tourism to Australia over the next ten years. (2) Has her department provided advice on the capacity of Sydney Airport to cope with the projected increase; if so, what are the details.22358Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie KellyGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Sydney 2000 Games10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) International visitor arrivals to Australia are expected to increase at an average annual rate of 7.3 per cent, growing from 4,459,500 in 1999 to reach 8,409,000 in 2008. (2) Yes. The advice is confidential as part of the Government's deliberations on this issue.22358(Question No. 2064)206422358Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 12 October 2000: (1) Has his attention been drawn to the June 2000 issue of the journal, Health Affairs, in which the head of his Department states that the Government's 30 per cent private health insurance rebate 'may be seen as a move towards the opt-out model'. (2) Does this statement reflect Government policy; if so, what type of opt-out arrangements is the Government planning to introduce for the Medicare system. (3) Has the Government considered exempting private insurance holders fromthe Medicare levy; if so, what are the details.22358Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. (2) No. (3) No.