2000-12-073917REPS2358902000-12-07—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills23589R121523589Bill presented by Mr Slipper, for Mr Fahey, and read a first time.2358909:30:0023589Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends three acts dealing with superannuation for federal parliamentarians and Commonwealth civilian employees in the CSS and PSS. These acts are the Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Act 1948, the Superannuation Act 1976 and the Superannuation Act 1990.The amendments in the bill will assist former members of these schemes to meet any post-retirement surcharge debts by enabling them to convert their pensions to a lump sum. Where surcharge assessments are issued before retirement, a member can choose to pay them while still a member or leave them to accumulate within the scheme. On retirement, the scheme pays any outstanding surcharge debt and the member's benefit is adjusted accordingly. However, where assessments are issued after members leave their scheme, these assessments must be met by the former member from his or her own funds. The amendments in the bill provide a facility to assist former scheme members to pay these assessments if they so choose. The amendments will also allow reversionary beneficiaries to commute their scheme pensions where they become liable to pay a surcharge assessment issued in respect of a deceased scheme member or former member.Where a person takes up this commutation facility the commuted amount will be paid directly to the Australian Taxation Office to be offset against the surcharge assessment.Those persons will have their scheme pensions reduced to recover the commutation amount over the period of the payment of the pension. Changes will need to be made to the PSS rules for these arrangements to apply to pensions from the PSS. The amendments made to the Superannuation Act 1990 by this bill ensure that the act will apply appropriately in the light of such changes. The bill will also provide a special appropriation for the payment of surcharge assessments under the federal parliamentary superannuation scheme in a manner consistent with the arrangements for the Commonwealth civilian schemes. This will streamline the administration of the payments. It will have no effect on the budget, scheme costs or members' entitlements. Members of the parliamentary scheme will continue to have their benefits reduced on retirement to take account of the surcharge assessments paid from the scheme at that time.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Bills23589R120723589Bill presented by Mr Reith, and read a first time.2358909:35:0023589Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The amendments that I am introducing today in this bill will bring significant improvements for Commonwealth employees through safer Commonwealth workplaces.This bill contains amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991—the OH&S act—which provides a legislative basis for the protection of the health and safety at work of Commonwealth employees in departments, statutory authorities and government business enterprises. It complements the compensation and rehabilitation arrangements established under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The OH&S act requires amendment to modernise and streamline outdated provisions that are currently inhibiting its effectiveness. Consistent with the principles of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, the focus of occupational health and safety regulation has to shift away from imposing solutions towards enabling those in the workplace to work together and make informed decisions about how best to reduce risks to health and safety at their particular workplace. Any additional flexibility in meeting obligations, however, must be backed by a strong and effective enforcement regime. The amendments in the bill reflect the government's commitment to achieving safer workplaces and take account of advice from the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, comprising representatives of Commonwealth employers and employees and other persons with relevant qualifications and experience, which has recommended changes in some areas. The key amendments proposed to the OH&S act by this bill relate to the employer's duty of care, workplace arrangements and penalties. In relation to the employer's duty of care, amendments are proposed to section 16 of the act to replace the current prescriptive elements of the section requiring an employer to develop an occupational health and safety policy and agreement in consultation with involved unions. Instead, employers will be required to develop, in consultation with their employees, safety management arrangements that will apply at the workplace. The term `safety management arrangements' is being used to describe collectively a range of matters which could be covered, and the specific needs of individual workplaces will therefore be able to be accommodated in a more flexible and efficient way. Employers and employees will be able to make informed decisions about how best to reduce any risks to workplace health and safety at their own workplace. This will ensure that there is a more integrated and focused approach at the workplace level. To assist organisations to develop their safety management arrangements, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission is being given the power to advise on the matters to be included, and employers must have regard to such advice in developing their safety management arrangements.Safe and healthy workplaces can only be achieved if there is maximum commitment from both employers and employees, and each must play an active part in developing appropriate arrangements at the workplace level. Consistent with this, consultation between employers and employees to improve occupational health and safety outcomes is being enhanced by facilitating a more direct relationship between employers and employees and removing the current mandated role of unions.Employees will have the right to be represented in consultations with their employer by an employee association that has a principal purpose of protecting and promoting the industrial interests of its members in the workplace.The proposed amendments to the workplace arrangements provisions retain the current features of the act concerning designated workgroups, health and safety representatives and health and safety committees.A health and safety representative may be selected for each designated workgroup, as is currently the case. However, the current restrictions on the ability of all employees to become health and safety representatives, are being removed.A health and safety committee will be required to be established where an employer's work force comprises not fewer than 50 employees. The current prescriptive requirements concerning the composition and operation of health and safety committees are being removed from the act and these matters will be dealt with under the safety management arrangements at the workplace.Improved outcomes can also be achieved by encouraging employers and employees and others with responsibilities under occupational health and safety laws to voluntarily comply with their statutory obligations. Other amendments in this bill therefore provide greater encouragement for voluntary compliance. There must, however, be a strong enforcement regime to ensure compliance with the requirements of the act. The less prescriptive approach being proposed to the employer's duty of care is therefore being balanced by very important amendments to the penalties provisions to ensure an effective compliance regime. A wide range of remedies and sanctions is being introduced, along with significant increases in penalty levels.Currently all offences under the act are criminal offences. Even though there have been over 28,000 incidents reported under the act since its commencement in 1992, with 1,248 investigations, there have only been nine prosecutions, of which eight have been successful. All prosecutions have involved significant delays—up to four years in one particular case.The bill proposes to amend this enforcement regime to one based on both civil and criminal penalties for contravention of the act. As far as possible, the act will provide for civil penalties rather than criminal penalties. This is expected to make proceedings under the act more readily available and reduce delays.Criminal penalties will be retained for contraventions of the act which result in death or serious bodily harm—or if the contravention is intentional or reckless—and for offences which are more appropriately dealt with in the criminal justice system. Courts will also be given the powers to grant injunctions to prevent the occurrence or recurrence of a breach of the act and make remedial orders.A very important initiative in this bill is the power being given to Comcare to accept enforceable undertakings from persons considered to have contravened the act. Enforceable undertakings will be available as an alternative to prosecution and will assist in obtaining voluntary compliance with the act.Where a court finds that an employer has breached sections 64 or 76 of the act, by dismissing, or taking other prejudicial action against, an employee, the court will be able to make orders modelled on section 298U of the Workplace Relations Act 1996, such as requiring reinstatement of the employee or the payment of compensation.The new range of available remedies will provide maximum flexibility to ensure that effective action can be taken to address breaches or potential breaches of the act.Currently, the penalties under the act apply only to government business enterprises and their employees. The bill includes an amendment to extend civil and criminal penalties to Commonwealth employees and employees of Commonwealth authorities. This will ensure that a Commonwealth employee will be accountable where he or she has acted wrongfully. Commonwealth officers or employees, however, will have the protection of the Commonwealth's policy on indemnification where they have acted reasonably and responsibly in the course of their duties.Commonwealth employers will, however, be subject to the new provisions providing for injunctions and remedial orders.Finally and importantly in relation to penalties, the bill proposes substantial increases to the level of penalties in the act. Currently the maximum penalty under the act for a breach of the employer's duty of care is $100,000. The new maximum penalty will be 2,200 penalty units—currently $242,000—for a breach attracting a civil penalty and 4,500 penalty units—currently $495,000—for a breach attracting a criminal penalty. These amendments will make the level of penalties under the act more consistent with the levels of penalties in state and territory occupational health and safety legislation.The bill also contains amendments to revise the annual reporting requirements of Commonwealth agencies under the act so that there will be a greater focus on outcomes rather than process and some minor or technical amendments to improve the current arrangements concerning investigations of alleged contraventions and notices issued by inspectors. Full details of all amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum for the bill. I present that explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Bills23592R120623592Bill presented by Mr Reith, and read a first time.2359209:44:0023592Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill mainly proposes amendments to two acts, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (SRC Act), which is the legislative basis for the Commonwealth public sector workers compensation scheme, and the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989 (ICNA Act), which establishes a scheme to assess industrial chemicals imported and manufactured in Australia for their health and environment effects. The amendments to the SRC Act proposed in this bill will improve the operation of the Commonwealth workers compensation scheme while at the same time ensuring that the act reflects the government's commitment to balancing the costs of work related injury with access to fair compensation and effective rehabilitation for injured workers. The amendments are, however, largely of a housekeeping nature, reflecting that the act has not been amended for some time. They include amendments based on advice from the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, and amendments which rectify unintended legislative anomalies. They also include amendments to implement what was parliament's original intent as to the effect of the legislation at the time it commenced operation during the previous Labor administration.The bill proposes to streamline the act's currently complex and prescriptive licensing arrangements, while closely paralleling existing arrangements. The five categories of licence now available will be replaced with a single generic licence which will provide scope for both self-insurance and claims management. Applications for licences will still be determined by the commission but within a less prescriptive framework. Ministerial directions will give guidance by disallowable instruments on such matters as the criteria for granting a licence and licence conditions. The bill also contains some minor amendments to improve the general operation of the licensing scheme.Amendments are also proposed to streamline the funding arrangements for regulation of workers compensation and occupational health and safety in the Commonwealth jurisdiction by providing for one regulatory contribution. The bill also contains amendments to ensure that Comcare's financial arrangements are consistent with the requirements of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. The Commonwealth scheme recognises the importance to both the employee and the employer of arranging a safe return to work as quickly as possible and has processes and incentives in place to achieve this. These include a system of rehabilitation which relies on the services of approved rehabilitation providers.The act currently gives Comcare the responsibility of ensuring that rehabilitation providers have the qualifications, proven effectiveness, availability and cost efficiencies to deliver quality services to employers and employees. The approval provisions protect injured employees by ensuring that persons providing treatment and services meet acceptable standards. The bill proposes to improve the current processes for approving new rehabilitation providers, provide a statutory basis for existing guidelines, enable a fee to be charged to cover the costs of the application process and ensure that the approval can be revoked if a rehabilitation provider is no longer able to meet the standards required. The bill also contains amendments to improve some scheme benefits, clarify the circumstances in which compensation is payable under the act and clarify the appropriate amount of compensation payable. The improvements to scheme benefits will provide greater access to compensation for employees who suffer a hearing loss, ensure that all employees covered by the act can receive compensation beyond age 65 if they are injured over the age of 63 years and enable claimants to have the costs of treatment from a wider range of health practitioners than at present reimbursed, without having to seek a referral from a medical practitioner. Other amendments will standardise the basis by which compensation is calculated for the first 45 weeks of a claim and clarify that dependants of deceased employees have access to common law.The bill also addresses deficiencies in compensation for former employees by ensuring that compensation payments for former employees are maintained at 70 per cent of indexed normal weekly earnings and that normal weekly earnings of former employees are updated by reference to a prescribed index. As mentioned previously, the bill also includes amendments to clarify the circumstances in which compensation is payable under the SRC Act. Amendments are therefore proposed to the definitions of `disease' and `injury' in the act. The act requires a material contribution by employment to a disease before compensation is payable. However, case law indicates that the act has not achieved parliament's original intention. The bill therefore includes an amendment to restore this intention by making it clear that an employee's employment is not to be taken to have contributed in a material degree to his or her disease unless there is a close connection between the employee's employment and the disease. In terms of the definition of `injury', the current legislation seeks to prevent compensation claims being used to obstruct legitimate management action and accordingly contains what is known as an exclusionary provision. It provides that compensation is not payable in respect of an injury which arises from reasonable disciplinary action taken against an employee, or a failure by the employee to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with employment. This provision needs to be updated to include other activities which are regarded as normal management responsibilities. The bill therefore includes an amendment which provides that, in addition to the current exclusions, an employee will also not be entitled to compensation for an injury resulting from a reasonable appraisal of the employee's performance, any reasonable counselling action (whether formal or informal), any reasonable suspension action, or a failure by the employee to obtain a reclassification in connection with his or her employment.A further amendment relates to the interaction between `disease' and `injury'. The SRC Act sets out separate tests for establishing entitlements to compensation for diseases and injuries. The bill includes an amendment to ensure that where an injury occurs at work which is the natural progression of a disease, the injury will be deemed not to be an injury for the purposes of the act, but an employee will not be prevented from seeking to establish that his or her employment contributed in a material degree to the contraction of the disease itself and that the disease is therefore compensable. The bill also proposes an amendment to extend to all claimants the requirement that any earnings by a claimant may be taken into account in the calculation of that claimant's weekly incapacity payments. Another amendment will clarify that there is no automatic entitlement to payment for non-economic loss for employees who suffered a permanent impairment before the SRC Act commenced. The bill also contains a number of other amendments to the SRC Act which are mainly of a minor policy or technical nature, including some amendments which address regulatory matters. These include amendments to enable Comcare to collect premiums to cover common law liability for Commonwealth agencies in relation to proceedings which are permitted under the SRC Act and to allow Comcare to manage the defence of such proceedings, a change to the composition of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission to provide for the Australian Capital Territory to be represented (as an employer). There are also a number of amendments to streamline administrative arrangements. This bill also amends the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989. The majority of the amendments are minor or technical in nature and will streamline and improve the operation of the National Industrial Chemicals Notification and Assessment Scheme. One amendment will extend the definition of synthetic polymers of low concern to include polyesters of low molecular weight and risk. This will reduce fees for firms applying for assessment of this type of chemical. Other amendments will assist in streamlining the reassessment procedures and reducing the burden on industry. For example, the provision for joint application for reassessment will enable the sharing of fees (where applicable) and the provision of information by several companies. This bill also includes minor or technical amendments to four other acts. The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 is amended to correct a technical anomaly arising from the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Act 1999. The Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 is amended to enable taxation information to be provided to Comcare as well as to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act 1985 is amended to reflect the change of name of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991 is amended, consequential upon the amendments relating to collection of premiums under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 which are proposed elsewhere in the bill. Full details of all amendments are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Bills23594R121423594Bill presented by Mr McGauran, and read a first time.2359409:52:0023594McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of the Communications and the Arts Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2000 is to amend certain offence provisions in legislation within the Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio to reflect the application of the criminal code to all Commonwealth criminal offences. The amendments are intended to ensure that when chapter 2 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (the code) is applied to all Commonwealth criminal offences, from 15 December 2001, those provisions will continue to operate in the same manner as they operated previously. If legislation containing offence provisions were not amended to have regard to the code, the code may have altered the interpretation of existing offence provisions. The criminal code is contained in schedule 2 to the Criminal Code Act 1995. It sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility that will apply to all Commonwealth criminal offences once the act comes into force, on and after 15 December 2001. Chapter 2 of the criminal code codifies the general principles of criminal law and adopts the common law approach of subjective fault based principles. It adopts the traditional distinction of dividing offences into actus reus and mens rea but uses the plainer labels of physical elements and fault elements. The general rule is that for each physical element of an offence it is necessary to prove that the defendant had the relevant fault element. The prosecution must prove every physical and fault element of an offence. The physical elements are conduct, result of conduct and circumstances of conduct and the fault elements specified in the criminal code are intention, knowledge, recklessness and negligence. The default fault elements which the criminal code provides will apply where a fault element is not specified and where the offence (or an element of the offence) is not specified to be a strict or absolute liability offence. The default fault elements set out in the criminal code are intention for a physical element of conduct and recklessness for a physical element of circumstances or result. Needless to say, this is entirely clear and precise for lawyers. Others will have to study it more considerably. Fault elements will not be applied where an offence is specified to be one of strict liability or absolute liability. This bill specifies where an offence is one of strict liability. This is necessary to ensure that offences currently interpreted as strict liability continue to be interpreted as such after the code is applied. In addition the bill amends certain offence provisions to remove the defence and restate it is a separate subsection. This is to ensure that the defences are not interpreted as an element of the offence.In addition, the Communications and the Arts Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2000 will make other minor amendments to offence provisions in the Communications, Information Technology and the Arts portfolio which are consistent with the general criminal law policy to simplify offence provisions and improve the operation of offence provisions. These amendments fall into the following broad categories:· amendments to restructure provisions where part of the conduct element of the offence includes `breach of a condition of a licence, authorisation, permit, certificate or declaration';· amendments to restructure offences relating to non-compliance with a notice, requirement, rule, direction or order; · amendments to restructure offence provisions which include an inappropriate physical element of conduct; · an amendment to alter a legal burden of proof; · amendments which create a new offence; · amendments to make certain fault based offences ones of strict liability;· amendments to ensure the meaning of `engaging in conduct' includes omissions; · an amendment so as not to require knowledge of the law; · amendments to repeal false or misleading statements or false or misleading documents provisions; and · amendments to convert dollar amounts to penalty units.Subject to several minor exceptions, noted in the explanatory memorandum, this bill does not affect the operation of the current criminal offences. It ensures that the current criminal offences are not altered following the application of the criminal code to Commonwealth legislation. I commend the bill to the House. I present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Bills23595R120523595Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.2359510:00:0023595Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill inserts a new division in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to introduce the simplified tax system (STS).The simplified tax system is an optional package for small businesses. It will deliver a number of benefits, reducing the time and money that participating small businesses need to spend on bookkeeping and income tax compliance, as well as retaining their access to generous rates of depreciation. The simplified tax system is based on the recommendations of the Ralph Review of Business Taxation. Consistent with those recommendations, most businesses with an average annual turnover of less than $1 million will be eligible to join.The simplified tax system has three key elements.The first element is cash accounting. Under this method of calculating taxable income, businesses will, in general, recognise income when it is received and deductions when expenses are paid.The second element is simplified depreciation. Assets costing less than $1,000 are immediately deductible. Assets costing $1,000 or more and with effective lives of less than 25 years are pooled and written off at 30 per cent per year. Assets costing $1,000 or more and with effective lives of 25 years or more are pooled and written off at five per cent per year. The use of pools removes the need to keep detailed asset schedules.The third element is simplified trading stock. Under the trading stock provisions, simplified tax system taxpayers will no longer have to account for changes in trading stock of less than $5,000.The bill also incorporates a new 12-month rule for determining deductions in respect of prepaid expenditure for simplified tax system taxpayers and individual taxpayers incurring deductible non-business expenditure.Small business taxpayers who do not enter the simplified tax system and non-individuals who incur deductible non-business expenditure will apportion their prepayment deductions over the eligible service period. These taxpayers will have access to transitional provisions to phase in this apportionment of deductions over the period to 2002-03.The simplified tax system and prepayments measures included in this bill will apply to assessments for income years commencing on or after 1 July 2001.The government has been consulting with small business representatives since its announcement of the simplified tax system on 21 September 1999. The government released the exposure draft legislation for the STS in October this year for public comment.As a result of further consultation and submissions received in response to the exposure draft legislation for the simplified tax system, the government has decided to improve certain provisions of the simplified tax system bill including:· increasing the depreciating assets threshold for eligible businesses from $2 million to $3 million;· removing the requirement to account for the change in value of trading stock on a cash basis; and· relaxing the control tests to avoid inadvertent grouping.The government considers that the consultations with small business representatives have been a very positive and important part of the development of the simplified tax system. I would like to thank those involved in that extensive process for their efforts.The government will soon be releasing for public comment the exposure draft legislation for the uniform capital allowances system, which also starts from 1 July 2001. It will contain some concepts and definitions used in the simplified tax system.Full details of the measures in the New Business Tax System (Simplified Tax System) Bill 2000 are provided in the explanatory memorandum, which I commend to the House—it is an excellent read. I commend the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Bills23596R120823596Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.2359610:05:0023596Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends the laws relating to excise in order to transfer the general administration of those laws to the Commissioner of Taxation from the Chief Executive Officer of Customs. Excise is an indirect tax— MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Wow! Who wrote that?DK6Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEY—It is all my handiwork here. Excise is an indirect tax, and it is appropriate that the administration of excise laws be integrated with that of other taxation laws.Administration of the `off-road' Diesel Fuel Rebate Scheme, which provides a rebate of excise duty or customs duty for a qualifying use of diesel, mainly in the mining, agricultural and rail and marine transport sectors, is also to be transferred to the Commissioner of Taxation.The `off-road' scheme complements the `on-road' Diesel and Alternative Fuel Grants Scheme, which has been administered by the commissioner since its introduction as part of this government's comprehensive reform of indirect taxes.The bill contains amendments to excise, customs and taxation legislation to give statutory recognition to the administrative changes.The amendments will ensure that officers currently authorised to exercise search and seizure powers for excise purposes will continue to have those powers. These relate to the search and seizure of evidential material and forfeited goods under a warrant issued by a magistrate.In addition, the Excise Act will provide for forfeited goods seized by police officers to be dealt with in the same way as if the goods had been seized by excise officers. This particular measure will support the compliance improvement amendments enacted earlier this year to combat the trade in illicit tobacco.The bill will also repeal redundant provisions in the Spirits Act 1906 and the Distillation Act 1901 which are inconsistent with modern industry practices and with current tax compliance verification methods.Excise legislation will also be amended to adopt gender-neutral language, and to replace the maximum dollar amount of penalties stated for excise offences in accordance with the penalty unit standard specified by the Crimes Act.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Bills23597R120223597Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.2359710:08:0023597Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends the Medicare Levy Act 1986 and the A New Tax System (Medicare Levy Surcharge-Fringe Benefits) Act 1999 to increase the Medicare levy low income thresholds in line with increases in the consumer price index.The amendment to the Medicare levy low income thresholds will apply to the 2000-01 year of income and later years of income.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Stephen Smith) adjourned.Bills23597The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Education Services for Overseas Students (Assurance Fund Contributions) Bill 2000Education Services for Overseas Students (Registration Charges) Amendment Bill 2000Education Services for Overseas Students (Consequential and Transitional) Bill 2000Bills23598R114123598Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments— (1) Clause 9, page 12 (after line 6), after paragraph (c), insert: (ca) except in the case of a provider mentioned in subsection (5)—the designated authority has told the Secretary in writing that the provider has satisfied the designated authority that the provider is fit and proper to be registered; and (2) Page 12 (after line 20), at the end of clause 9, add: (5) Paragraph (2)(ca) does not apply in relation to the following kinds of provider: (a) a provider that is administered by a State education authority; (b) any other provider that is entitled to receive funds under a law of the Commonwealth for recurrent expenditure for the provision of education or training, other than one excluded by the regulations from the scope of this paragraph; (c) any other provider specified in the regulations.To avoid doubt, any private corporate body established in connection with a provider covered by paragraph (a) or (b) is not itself, by virtue of that connection alone, a provider covered by that paragraph. (6) In deciding whether it is satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (2)(ca), the designated authority must have regard to whether the provider, or an associate of the provider who has been, is or will be involved in the business of the provision of courses by the provider: (a) has been convicted of an offence; or (b) has ever had his, her or its registration cancelled or suspended under this Act or the old ESOS Act; or (c) has ever had an Immigration Minister's suspension certificate issued in respect of him, her or it under this Act; or (d) has ever had a condition imposed on his, her or its registration under this Act; or (e) has ever become bankrupt, applied to take the benefit of a law for the benefit of bankrupt or insolvent debtors, compounded with his or her creditors or assigned his or her remuneration for the benefit of creditors; or (f) has ever been disqualified from managing corporations under Part 2D.6 of the Corporations Law; or (g) was involved in the business of the provision of courses by another provider who is covered by any of the above paragraphs at the time of any of the events that gave rise to the relevant prosecution or other action;and any other relevant matter. (7) Nothing in subsection (6) affects the operation of Part VIIC of the Crimes Act 1914 (which deals with spent convictions). (8) Paragraph (2)(ca) does not apply at any time before the national code takes effect (see section 39). (3) Clause 24, page 20 (lines 25 and 26), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) However, the following kinds of provider are exempt from the requirement to pay annual Fund contributions: (a) a provider that is administered by a State education authority; (b) any other provider that is entitled to receive funds under a law of the Commonwealth for recurrent expenditure for the provision of education or training, other than one excluded by the regulations from the scope of this paragraph; (c) any other provider specified in the regulations.To avoid doubt, any private corporate body established in connection with a provider covered by paragraph (a) or (b) is not itself, by virtue of that connection alone, a provider covered by that paragraph.(4) Clause 34, page 25 (line 13), at the end of the clause, add “and the conduct of persons who deliver educational services on behalf of registered providers”. 10:11:0023599Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.We are dealing with the Education Services for Overseas Students Bill 2000 and the Migration Legislation Amendment (Overseas Students) Bill 2000 again as there have been Senate amendments. The Education Services for Overseas Students Bill had Labor amendments passed in the other place. The Migration Legislation Amendment (Overseas Students)Bill had government amendments passed. The ESOS amendments are, in the government's view, unnecessary, because the points would have been covered by the government's provisions in the bill and the national code. However, in the interests of achieving passage of this very important legislation, the government has agreed to them. We note the opposition's cooperation in the passage of this legislation so that industry can benefit from an improved regulatory framework.I turn to the clause 9 amendment, the fit and proper person test. The government had already proposed a provision for a fit and proper person test for the national code, which would contain the rules for registration on CRICOS. It would be legally enforceable and a disallowable instrument. The national code sets out the rules for the states, who would continue to approve providers for registration on the Commonwealth register. The national code also sets out the rules for providers to comply with. This would have been the more sensible instrument in which to include a fit and proper person test. The government would have preferred to continue to negotiate this provision with the states in the process of finalising the provisions of the national code. The states will have the key role to play in applying the test, so it is a matter of some regret that the opposition chose to cut short that consultation process by including this provision in the bill.Clause 24, the insurance fund exemptions, incorporates in the bill exemptions from the requirement to belong to the assurance fund. The bill did have a provision to place these exemptions in the regulations in just the same way the 1991 act provided exemptions in the regulations from the notifiable trust account requirements. The opposition has again chosen to cut short the consultation process which was in hand on this aspect of the regulations. This purpose could have been achieved anyway through the regulations, and the process of consultation would have been far more satisfactory for both industry and the states. Once again, however, this was not something that would have justified the government delaying these important reforms, and the government agreed to this amendment. The government agreed to the clause 34 amendment, which again did not add to the provisions which were already in the bill and code.The government amendments to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Overseas Students) Bill 2000 contain measures aimed at improving regulation of the education and training export industry and strengthening the integrity of the overseas student program. The first measure provides, in certain circumstances, for the automatic cancellation of student visas by operation of law and the discretionary revocation of the automatic visa cancellation. The second measure empowers Immigration officers to require the production of—and to search for, inspect and, in some cases, seize—relevant records held by education providers. These new powers are to be used where there is a reason to believe that the conditions of student visas are not being or have not been complied with. The other chamber passed the government amendments to the bill yesterday. These amendments were necessary as a result of the recent Federal Court decision in Nong v. Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. The amendments impose a new version of condition 8202 on student visas and allow a student's compliance with the condition to be assessed during their course.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I might interrupt the parliamentary secretary to seek clarification that we have not dealt with the first bill before proceeding to the next bill. If the House has no objection, we might be able to deal with the two messages at once. MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—To assist the House, the opposition has no objection to proceeding in that manner.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the House for the clarification and apologise to the parliamentary secretary, but we now have that clarification.8V5Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. In addition, section 116 of the Migration Act 1958 is amended to permit cancellation of a student visa where the holder is not, or is likely not to be, a genuine student or where the holder has or will engage in conduct not contemplated by the visa. This new visa cancellation power in section 116 is discretionary.Overall, the package of five bills achieves a comprehensive strengthening of a key export industry while maintaining the integrity which is essential to that industry's future—which of course is so very important to Australia. As I highlighted in the original debate, there are 150,000 international students studying in Australia in universities, VET institutions and English language courses in schools. Enrolments are up 14 per cent on 1999 figures.10:18:0023600Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—On behalf of the opposition, I indicate that we will be supporting the adoption of the amendments that have been agreed to in the Senate. This is probably no surprise, in that a number of them are opposition amendments and are the result of lengthy negotiations between the government and the opposition. All five bills in the government's Education Services for Overseas Students Bill 2000 package have successfully passed through the Senate with amendments moved by the opposition and supported by the government and the minor parties. Following a lengthy process of negotiation between the opposition and the government, amendments were agreed to in a great spirit of pre-Christmas compromise. For the record, I indicate that Senator Kim Carr, my parliamentary secretary in the Senate, and his staff have played a very crucial role in those negotiations. The amendments go to the following issues. First of all, the opposition amendments have resulted in the inclusion in the bill of a robust, fit and proper persons test for providers, their associates and their agents. It is common knowledge that the opposition have raised a number of cases where we have concerns about people who have been involved in this very important industry. To protect the reputation of the vast majority of excellent education providers that Australia has, we need to ensure that we crack down on the cowboys that risk giving everyone a bad reputation. We believe that a fit and proper persons test is the best way to make sure that, if someone has committed offences in the past or has been a bankrupt, this should be considered when determining whether or not they should be allowed to remain in the industry or whether they should obtain a new certification through CRICOS to be involved in the future.The second amendment provides for the extension of the proposed national code, which is binding on state accrediting authorities and providers, to cover contractual and franchise arrangements involving registered providers and other parties. The amendments also go to the provision of an exemption from required membership of the proposed tuition assurance fund for universities, TAFE colleges and schools in receipt of Commonwealth recurrent funding. Further agreement was reached on the service of notices by the Commonwealth on providers, specifying that the relevant provisions of the Corporations Law will apply. Finally, the opposition, in that pre-Christmas spirit of compromise, agreed to withdraw a proposed amendment to the main bill which provided for extraterritoriality of its provisions. We do have several bills that seek to apply Australian law offshore, the most famous being the one dealing with child sex offences by Australian tourists in other countries. We did not press our amendment to extend other provisions of the bill offshore. We recognise this is an area where we have to be very careful. We know that there is some legal debate about the best way for countries to deal with issues of this nature, and the government put to us that we needed to pay very close attention to any amendments that sought to move in this direction. It remains our intention, however, to pursue this matter with a view to ensuring that the actions of Australian education providers offshore comply with the relevant parts of this act which govern their behaviour onshore. We would be happy to work with the government in a cooperative manner on that in the future. Labor acknowledges the cooperation of the government on this legislation. We note that, with the passing of these bills and the amendments that the opposition have moved, together with the government's amendments, a stronger, clearer and more robust regulatory regime will be in place in Australia's international education industry. At a time when Australian and Indonesian ministers are meeting to discuss many important matters—including, I am sure, education—legislation such as this will ensure that we are protecting Indonesian citizens who might wish to come to Australia and that we are protecting the ability of this very important export earning industry to continue to go from strength to strength.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills23601R114623601Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 8), omit “This section and section 1”, substitute “This section, section 1 and Schedule 4”.(2) Schedule 2, page 9 (after line 8), after item 1, insert:1A Subsection 116(1B)Repeal the subsection.(3) Page 33 (after line 29), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 4—Satisfactory attendance and performance by students Migration Act 19581 After paragraph 116(1)(f)Insert: (fa) in the case of a student visa: (i) its holder is not, or is likely not to be, a genuine student; or (ii) its holder has engaged, is engaging, or is likely to engage, while in Australia, in conduct (including omissions) not contemplated by the visa; or2 After subsection 116(1)Insert: (1A) The regulations may prescribe matters to which the Minister may have regard in determining whether he or she is satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (1)(fa). Such regulations do not limit the matters to which the Minister may have regard for that purpose. (1B) In paragraph (1)(fa):student visa means a visa described in the regulations as a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.3 Application of amendmentsThe amendments made by items 1 and 2 apply in relation to all student visas, whether granted before or after the commencement of this item.4 Special condition on certain student visas(1) This item applies to the following visas (and only those visas): (a) all student visas that are in effect when this item commences; (b) all student visas that are granted after this item commences but before 1 July 2001.(2) Condition 8202 of each visa to which this item applies is taken for all purposes to be as set out in subitem (3), instead of as set out in regulations made for the purposes of section 41 of the Migration Act 1958.(3) The condition is that: (a) in the case of the holder of a Subclass 560 visa who is an AusAID or secondary school exchange student—the holder is enrolled in a full-time course of study; and (b) in any other case—the holder is enrolled in a registered course; and (c) in the case of a holder whose education provider keeps attendance records—the Minister is satisfied that the holder attends for at least 80% of the contact hours scheduled: (i) for a course that runs for less than a semester—for the course; or (ii) for a course that runs for at least a semester—for each term and semester of the course; and (d) in any case—the holder achieves an academic result that is certified by the education provider to be at least satisfactory: (i) for a course that runs for less than a semester—for the course; or (ii) for a course that runs for at least a semester—for each term or semester (whichever is shorter) of the course.(4) In this item:student visa means a visa described in the Migration Regulations 1994 as a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.(5) Other expressions used in subitem (3) that are defined in the Migration Regulations 1994 have the same meaning as in those regulations, as in force from time to time.(6) After this item commences, the Minister may cancel a visa under section 116 of the Migration Act 1958, on the ground that the Minister is satisfied that the condition set out in subitem (3) of this item has not been complied with, even if some or all of the non-compliance happened before this item commenced.Motion (by Ms Worth) agreed to:That the amendments be agreed to.Bills23602S25823602Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.2360210:24:0023602McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000 aims to halt the further expansion of the interactive gambling industry in Australia for a period of 12 months from 19 May 2000 while the government investigates the feasibility and consequences of banning interactive gambling.The government is concerned that if it does not take immediate steps to constrain the growth of interactive gambling, this industry could continue to expand while the government conducts its investigation. This would make it more difficult for the government to implement any outcomes that may arise out of the investigation.The bill contains an exclusion for types of interactive gambling services that are an extension of telephone wagering, which has long standing in the community and has general community acceptance. However, the bill does cover new forms of interactive wagering, particularly real time or `ball by ball' sports wagering, which has the potential to be addictive and therefore socially undesirable.Why the government is concernedThe government is concerned that new interactive technology could provide unprecedented access to gambling services. This technology brings gambling services into the home in a way not previously possible. By its very accessibility, interactive technology presents a serious risk to problem gamblers, their families and the wider community.Given that interactive gaming is highly accessible and potentially attractive to younger gamblers, a new cohort of problem gamblers could emerge. The government is mindful of recent experiences where new technology, such as poker machines, attracted new gamblers and resulted in new problem gambling.Because this industry is still in its infancy, it is practical for the Commonwealth to take action now. In another year or two, the industry may have grown too big and established for any government to take action. This is exactly the situation that state and territory colleagues have found themselves in with poker machines. I am sure there are a number of state and territory law-makers who regret earlier decisions to allow poker machine numbers to expand so dramatically in clubs and pubs. The Commonwealth is determined not to repeat this mistake with interactive gambling. How the moratorium worksThe bill makes it an offence to provide an interactive gambling service in Australia. However, this is a moratorium, not a ban. The bill exempts services where it is proven that the service:· is the same or substantially the same service as a pre-19 May 2000 service;· uses the same name as the pre-19 May 2000 service; and· had at least one genuine paying customer prior to 19 May 2000.The burden of proving these elements will fall to the defendant. The government considers that the defendant is uniquely placed to access the information necessary to prove that it is, on the balance of probabilities, exempt. It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the prosecution to negate such a defence.By structuring the moratorium in this way, we will ensure that existing services can continue to provide the same or substantially the same service as they did prior to the moratorium and yet prevent new entrants from establishing services during the period of the moratorium. However, the moratorium will also constrain existing providers from introducing new services to take advantage of their privileged market position.The bill also exempts telephone betting services and interactive wagering services, meaning services for betting on a horse race, harness race, greyhound race, sporting event or other events and contingencies. These services can be regarded as an extension of telephone betting, which is well established and accepted in Australia. It would be wrong to conflate this form of interactive gambling with the more modern, high-tech interactive gambling that we are concerned about.However, interactive wagering services that allow bets to be placed after a sporting event has commenced will not be exempted. This will include new types of wagering services that will allow ball-by-ball and continuous betting. The government considers that rapid and repetitive betting of this kind is potentially addictive and therefore socially dangerous. It also has the potential to increase corruption in the administration and conduct of sporting events.Since first proposing a moratorium on interactive gambling, the government has received numerous representations to remove wagering from the coverage of any moratorium. While the government remains concerned that new forms of interactive wagering have the potential to exacerbate problem gambling in Australia, it also accepts that most interactive wagering services are extensions of long-standing phone betting services. This does not mean the interactive wagering industry can continue to develop without any regard to its potential impact on problem gambling. New forms of interactive wagering that go radically beyond phone betting type services have the potential to exacerbate problem gambling dramatically. For this reason, the moratorium will cover services that allow bets to be placed after a sporting event has commenced.The Commonwealth will also continue to investigate the feasibility and consequences of banning all interactive gambling. This investigation includes all forms of interactive wagering.The bill also specifically exempts services relating to certain futures and options contracts. While on-line share trading, on-line insurance policy applications and other risk bearing financial transactions are clearly not gambling, there are some futures and options contracts that share some of the characteristics of gambling. The Corporations Law already recognises this and specifically exempts these contracts from gambling laws. In order to remain consistent with the Corporations Law, and to remove doubt about the type of services this moratorium is intended to affect, the government has decided to make it clear that these futures and options contracts are not subject to the moratorium. The moratorium is a short-term measure. The government intends this law to last for only 12 months while it investigates the feasibility and consequences of banning interactive gambling. To make this absolutely clear, the bill contains a sunset clause stating that the moratorium expires at midnight on 18 May 2001.Internet service providers will not be liable for the offence of providing an interactive gambling service if they merely host a gambling service, and do not provide the content of the service. The moratorium will also not affect any of the ancillary services associated with an interactive gambling service such as software development, testing, accountancy or marketing, unless they themselves are providing the gambling service.The states and territories rejection in mid-May of a voluntary moratorium has left the Commonwealth with no other option but to legislate to pause the growth of this industry while it undertakes its investigation into banning.Over the past year, the Commonwealth has sought to work constructively with states and territories to address issues of problem gambling. Dealing with interactive gambling was one of the first issues taken by the Commonwealth to the new Ministerial Council on Gambling. The out-of-hand rejection of the Commonwealth's position by most of the state and territory ministers present at that council signalled that those governments were more interested in protecting the potential revenue stream generated by this industry than addressing the harm associated with this new mode of gambling.ConclusionThe Commonwealth will continue to investigate the feasibility and consequences of banning interactive gambling regardless of whether or not a short-term moratorium is in place. However, without this moratorium, the interactive gambling industry will continue to establish itself in Australia. Such a situation can only complicate the implementation of any recommendations arising out of the Commonwealth's investigation and leave the industry in an uncertain position. I commend the bill to the House and present the revised explanatory memorandum.Leave granted for second reading debate to continue forthwith. 10:35:0023604Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The problem for the government is that the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000 which is before the House now, on this last scheduled day of sitting before Christmas, is internally inconsistent, hypocritical and will not work. That is the basic problem; it will not work. In the latter stages of his second reading speech—which, whilst a second reading speech to the House, was read by him for the first time—referred to industry uncertainty. Nothing could cause industry more uncertainty than the measure that the government is pursuing. Consistent with the spirit of Christmas past, I will outline to the minister and the House how the opposition proposes to handle debate on this matter, which has been presented to the House at the death knock.Before the conclusion of my remarks, I will formally move a second reading amendment which again places on the record the opposition's approach to this particular piece of legislation. We propose to divide on that second reading amendment and then to formally oppose all further stages, including the third reading, but not to delay the House unnecessarily by dividing on those issues. We would not be proposing to conduct a detailed committee stage debate given that this matter has been exhaustively considered by the Senate: firstly, in the bill's initial form, secondly, in the committee's report and, thirdly, by the Senate in the last couple of days when the government recommitted the bill to the Senate.The bill seeks to impose a moratorium on online gambling. The minister refers to a 12-month period, but the moratorium is proposed to be retrospective to the date of announcement in May of this year, so the government's moratorium will be effective until May of next year. The problem for the opposition is that a moratorium is simply a fancy word for a short-term ban. We also believe that the government's unstated intention is to seek to effect a long-term ban. The problem with any ban in this area is that the ban will not work. It is unworkable and ineffective, and it will only have the consequence of driving users and industry to offshore sites. So www.gamblingaustralia will become www.gamblingoffshore, leaving open the risk that even more Australians will be at risk from the worst excesses of gambling without any of the protections that a sensible, regulated industry arrangement in Australia could effect. To slide this bill through the Senate to effect a recommittal, the government is relying upon a hotchpotch of coalitions, a splinter group of Democrats and the Tasmanian Green. We saw last night a couple of the Democrats voting in favour of the government's proposal, a couple of the Democrats abstaining and a handful of them voting against. Such is the tension within the Australian Democrats party at the moment that that dispute spilled over publicly onto the floor of the Senate in a most unseemly way so far as senators would be concerned. Adding to the industry uncertainty is the unholy alliance and shamble of coalitions which the government's legislative basis relies upon. What certainty, if any, will there be for industry when the government is forced to revisit this issue in May of next year, some six months from now? This ban will not work. A short-term ban or a long-term ban will not work so far as online gambling is concerned. It will be as ineffective as the government's online content legislation has proven to be. At the heart of our opposition is the same philosophical point: there is no point seeking to try to ban use of the Internet; you have got to do your best to educate the user and consumer, to have sensible industry regulatory arrangements and to have sensible legislative regulatory requirements. To slide the bill through the Senate, the government has now come upon a distinction between wagering and gaming. Betting on sports is okay, but gaming is not. Wagering is okay, but gaming is not. I will just refer the House to what the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston, said in the Senate on 9 October. He said: As I understood it, it is being suggested that there is somehow some valid distinction between gaming and wagering. Each of them involves putting money on an outcome or, if you like, having a bet. One is a mechanically determined outcome; the other is a real-life event. Beyond that, they each involve the outlay of money based on some element of chance, and in that sense they both constitute interactive gambling. The government's view is that, to the extent that through the Internet, the television set or otherwise it is possible to generate a new industry that caters for either or both of those streams of chance, they should all be put on hold for the period of the moratorium in order to make a judgment about what is a sensible approach. That was Senator Alston speaking in the second reading debate of the bill on 9 October this year when there was no distinction between the two. Now there is a distinction between the two, and the government seeks to put forward a sensible public policy argument that a distinction which did not exist in October is now a valid basis upon which to proceed, adding to the hypocrisy, adding to the industry uncertainty and adding to the unfairness of the outcome.The sensible way to proceed is as outlined by Labor senators in their minority report of the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies on this measure, as outlined by the Labor opposition's second reading amendment in the Senate, and again as reflected by the second reading amendment which I will formally move when I conclude my remarks. This second reading amendment, which is in comparable terms to that moved in the Senate, makes the point that the sensible way to proceed on this measure is to have an effective regulatory arrangement. You cannot simply proceed on the basis that www.onlinegamblingaustralia will not end up being www.onlinegamblingbermuda, with no capacity whatsoever for the government to extend any prohibition or regulatory arrangements to that. You have an arcane distinction between gaming and wagering which was not valid two months ago but is valid today.It is no wonder that Senator Alston is just about to scurry away offshore for two weeks, but I am sure that as he does the rounds overseas for those two weeks he will get the same response in respect of this measure that he got when he went to Silicon Valley in the aftermath of the government's enactment of the online content legislation. How can you proceed on the basis that a nation like Australia seeks to have a role in the new economy and the new information age, but on two examples of public policy your starting point is that you ban activity or regulate activity out of existence? That is the fundamental flaw in the government's approach. Before I formally move the second reading amendment which has been circulated in my name, I indicate again to the minister that we propose to divide on the second reading amendment and formally oppose passage of the legislation at all of the further stages of consideration of the bill, but we will not delay the House with divisions in respect of those points of procedure. So I move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, this House:(1) condemns the Government for introducing a bill which: (a) does not provide strong regulation of interactive gambling as the most practical and effective way of reducing social harm arising from gambling; (b) may exacerbate problem gambling by barring access to regulated online gambling services safeguards but allowing access to unregulated offshore online gambling sites; (c) does not extend current regulatory and consumer protection requirements applying to other forms of gambling; (d) singles out one form of gambling in an attempt to placate community concern but does not address more prevalent forms of gambling; (e) is not technology neutral or technically feasible. (f) is contrary to the best interests of the Australian Internet industry;(2) calls on the Government to show national leadership on this issue by: (a) addressing harm minimisation and consumer protection as well as criminal issues that may arise from online gambling; (b) ensuring a quality gambling product through financial probity checks on providers and their staff; (c) introducing measures to minimise any criminal activity linked to interactive gambling, (d) providing effective privacy protection for online gamblers; (e) containing social costs by ensuring that adequate ongoing funds are available to assist those with gambling problems; (f) addressing revenue issues that impact upon state government decisions relating to interactive gambling; (g) working with State and Territory governments to ensure that online and interactive gambling operators meet the highest standards of probity and auditing through licensing agreements.”10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! Is the amendment seconded?LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak.10:45:0023606Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—In rising to speak on the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000, like my Labor colleagues, I would like to express my disappointment in this legislation and to support the amendment moved by the member for Perth. In my view, this was a chance for the government to show leadership and tackle community concerns about gambling. Instead, we have legislation that will seek to make illegal online forms of gambling which are totally legal off-line. These measures by the government are largely prompted by displaced concern about poker machines, particularly in Victoria, and their affect on the community. It is a concern that I find entirely justified but does not lead to rational considerations of issues when you displace your concern from one issue to another. In my view, this is, at best, coalition hypocrisy.In March 2000, after extensive submissions and evidence, the Senate Select Committee on Information Technologies released the Netbets review of online gambling in Australia. Later, in September, the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technologies and the Arts Legislation Committee released its report into the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000. Despite the hearings and the submissions, the government has ignored the evidence and the rational arguments and continues with the Prime Minister's directive, which, in my view, is to make Internet gambling illegal. Perhaps this is some kind of below the belt appeal to voters in the lead-up to the next election. It is interesting, too, to note when this moratorium ends. Certain groups will then have it portrayed to them that the Labor Party is in favour of gambling, when of course we are not in favour of the rampant effects, particularly in Melbourne, of the unlimited use of poker machines and the number of licences granted for them. This happened mostly under the former conservative government of Mr Kennett. A very big donor to the Liberal Party's finances, Mr Bruce Mathieson, has a very large number of these poker machines, which he has licences for in every seedy and awful cabaret and hotel in Melbourne. Now we have the government arguing, in an extraordinary backflip, that wagering and gambling are two very distinct activities and should now be treated differently. On the one hand, we have the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts selling Australia as a new economy which is capable of being a major player in e-commerce and online business. Yet, on the other hand, the same minister has been trying to make illegal online activities which are perfectly legal down at the local TAB. Now—and presumably this is the government's idea of showing leadership—it is arguing that separating wagering from gaming will placate community concerns and problems associated with Internet gambling and gambling in general. For a government said to be concerned with economic growth, make no mistake, this measure is economic vandalism.I hold no brief for the casino or poker machine industry. Even though Crown Casino is a big employer—perhaps the biggest—in my electorate of Melbourne Ports, I know there is a high price for those jobs. The community pays a very high price for PBL's profits. To see some of the most disadvantaged people pouring their savings into poker machines owned by Australia's wealthiest man troubles me very much. But no-one is suggesting that we ban terrestrial casinos. They say—very rightly—regulate, legislate and manage the damage so that people who can gamble responsibly can have their right to be entertained protected and those who cannot are also protected.So banning online casinos is pure, unadulterated symbolism. It is politics, pure and simple. It is the crowning glory of a government that, despite its rhetoric, has made it harder and harder for small business and for exporters, who now have to pay higher stevedoring costs. Despite the government's triumphalism here the other day about higher productivity on the wharves, we know that in that area the benefits mainly flow to the Lang Corporation, whose share prices have gone up from $1.60 to $9.00. The benefits of higher productivity on Australian wharves have not been passed on to importers or exporters. This is just another example of the government making it harder for small business.Tatts.com, as I understand it, currently employs 30 people in the ACT operating its online casino. They are 30 young Australians who will probably lose their jobs as a result of this cynical and, indeed, bizarre measure. I understand also that Federal Hotels have made a $20 million investment. They employ another 25 people. Again, they will go to the wall because of this government measure.We know all too well that online casinos are part of the Internet. Indeed, they are one of the very few areas of the dot com economy to demonstrate consistent profits. It is a reality we might not like, but we have to accept it as a reality. The stories of online casino and sports book customers being ripped off by unscrupulous mafia style operators in the Caribbean are legendary. That is where the opportunity lies for our country in this and so many other fields. Let us use our reputation as a fair and decent place to do business. Let us use our tough but respected legal system to create a potentially huge export industry—an industry that would create high wage, high technology jobs for young Australians. That would have been leadership. Instead, this government has, yet again, decided to play politics, sending a signal to the online industry, to the gaming industry and to investors—both foreign and domestic—that it is not really interested in ensuring Australia's place in an increasingly competitive global economy. Let us turn to the issue of states rights. Historically, the fact that this proposal comes from the Liberal Party is very interesting. The party founded by Sir Robert Menzies now finds itself legislating in an area that the Commonwealth has never legislated in before. Gambling is and always has been the responsibility of and under the jurisdiction of the states. In my historical memory, and in the historical memory of most Australians, the conservative government—the Liberal Party—in particular was the great defender of states rights. Now it has turned that on its head. Perhaps that is because in Tasmania the state government does not accord with their political interests, so the government feels that the Tasmanian government and the people of Tasmania can be sacrificed. Increasingly, many Australians are offended by the growth of central control in Canberra, and they want the state governments that they elect to have the power to improve their lives. Instead, what they get is more Commonwealth legislation, interference, regulation and obfuscation.States rights used to be the clarion call of the Liberal Party. It was built on that proposition. If you look at its structures, the state divisions have tremendous power. If it is good enough for the Liberal Party, why is it not good enough for the rest of Australia? The answer is simple: it is political opportunism. This is a government with very little moral compass and few core values other than the desire to be re-elected at the next election. Many of us would have great sympathy with the report on the effects of gambling and poker machines but, as I said before, this measure against online gaming is simply displacing concern about one issue and putting it on another and where the people who are involved in that industry are now going to have to pay the price.When Minister Reith and his family ran up $50,000 on his Commonwealth phone card, he seemed to say, `It is not my responsibility, it is not my problem,' and he stonewalled for a while but finally agreed to pay the money back, although only after an immense public outcry. That is what this government is like. It follows rather than leads. It lacks inspiring leadership and vision. Imposing a moratorium and no doubt an eventual prohibition on online casinos will cost jobs for hundreds, cost investors millions and cost Australia hundreds of millions, perhaps more, in lost export income. Imagine the choice between Australia, with its highly developed reputation for legal behaviour, good business practices, et cetera that did us so well during the recent Asian economic decline, and the contrasting shonks in the Caribbean. But of course these are all business opportunities that this government will have us now miss.This is an indulgence that Australia cannot afford. This is further proof that the government is enshrined in our Prime Minister's outdated, backward looking parochial views. It is indeed most frustrating for people who support Australia's future as a knowledge nation and in e-commerce and for people who look to Australia's future in those areas—particularly the benefit it might have for Australian exports. This is a deeply disappointing piece of legislation.10:54:0023608Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I would like to speak to the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000, which imposes a 12-month moratorium on this industry while the government conducts investigations into the consequences of banning interactive gambling. The moratorium, as was mentioned earlier, starts from 19 May 2000 and continues until midnight, 18 May 2001. The bill proposes penalties for the provision of interactive gambling services during the period of the moratorium. Breaching the moratorium is seen as a criminal offence and will be enforced by the Australian Federal Police. The maximum penalty for breaching will be set at 2,000 points a day for every day of the offence, which equates to a maximum penalty of $220,000 a day for individuals and $1.1 million a day for corporations. Under this bill, an interactive gaming service has four elements: the service is a gambling service; it is provided in the course of carrying on a business; the service is provided to customers using either an Internet carriage service or any other listed carriage service, a broadcasting service of any content service or a datacasting service provided under a datacasting licence; and the service is linked in a specified way to Australia. The Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000 does just this. The gambling services that are linked to Australia and that make a business out of providing a service to Australians are covered under the bill. Services linked to Australia include service providers carrying on a business within Australia as well as those where central management and control of the business is located in Australia and the service is hosted in an offshore jurisdiction. This is an important component of the moratorium because it prevents Australian providers from establishing offshore servers for their interactive gambling services, and the focus of this bill is on the provision of interactive gambling services.Under the bill, there are several services that have been exempt, mainly services that are substantially the same as those in existence prior to 19 May 2000, those that use the same name as prior to 19 May 2000 and those that have had at least one genuine paying customer prior to 19 May 2000. The bill prevents new services from being established during the moratorium period. However, it allows existing services to continue. Although this bill makes it an offence to provide an interactive gambling service in Australia during the moratorium period, it must be remembered that it is not a ban—and the member for Melbourne Ports and the member for Perth were speaking about that aspect of the moratorium period. The moratorium is a short-term measure designed to allow time for the government to investigate the interactive gambling industry in this country. There has been considerable talk this morning about offshore services. They currently do exist and, yes, valuable Australian dollars are being funnelled offshore at the moment. There really needs to be a closer look at the effect of this on the industry.Phone betting is exempt under this bill, as is online share trading and online insurance policy applications and risk bearing financial transactions that do not fall under the category of online gambling. In order to keep consistency with the Corporations Law and to remove doubt regarding the types of services the moratorium is intended for, the government has decided that certain futures and options contracts are not subject to the moratorium and, in addition, the minister has the power to determine whether or not a service is an interactive gambling service for the purpose of the moratorium.The bill sends a very clear message to the interactive gaming industry that their future in this country requires some more certainty. The industry is still in its infancy, and it is very important to note that nowhere today has anybody spoken about the social consequences of gambling. We have heard about export jobs being lost and about Internet technology, but one needs to look at the social implications that are involved as well and it is opportune for the government to undertake an investigation of this sector, its feasibility and its consequences. It is too late when it has grown into an overwhelming monster that cannot be controlled; so it is important that we look at it now when it is starting up.The bill is not meant to curtail gambling. Far from it. Rather, it is intended to investigate the potential for this mode of gambling to increase problem gambling in this country. Australia has one of the largest per capita gambling industries in the world and one should never lose sight of this fact. In comparison to North America and Europe, Australians spend twice as much on legalised gambling. The figure is further heightened when you consider that the total Australian population is on par with the population of the New York metropolitan area. That is pretty frightening stuff.Gambling is therefore a problem in this country, and it is estimated that one in 10 Australians are affected by problem gambling in some way. Unfortunately, I have seen the results of gambling problems in a number of the companies with which my parents have been associated and witnessed the terrible consequences of gambling for families. WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—It is not online.9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—I do not want any form of gambling—whether or not it is online—to increase those problems, having seen the devastation that problem gamblers cause their families. Gambling affects families in every street of every city and of practically every town. We must never lose sight of that fact. The member for Melbourne Ports made scant mention of the social consequences of gambling and concentrated on the industry as a whole. However, the government must consider those social consequences before this problem gets out of control. The wider community is affected by problem gambling. Interactive gambling is an issue for this government because, coupled with the social malaise that is gambling, Australia is one of the top four nations of households with Internet connections. We should examine closely the implications of that information.There is also concern that over the next 12 months new interactive broadcasting and telecommunications services, including wireless applications and datacasting, will potentially expand the availability of interactive gambling. In 1999, six million Australians had access to the Internet, 75 per cent of whom used it more than once a week. Between 1998 and 1999 there was an increase of 183 per cent—or just over 500,000 people—in the number of Australians who purchased goods or services over the Internet. The ease of accessibility of interactive sites, including gambling, from the family home underlines the concerns of both the community and the Commonwealth. Interactive gambling sites provide access to users 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Let us not lose sight of that fact and the potential for abuse and escalation of the problem. It is difficult to equate the true cost of the problem to both families and the community. However, a recent survey reported in yesterday's media found that some 82 per cent of Australians oppose interactive gambling. That figure is made much more interesting when one notes that about 80 per cent of Australians regularly engage in gambling. Although for the majority of these people gambling is seen as harmless and fun, it is a very serious problem for several hundred thousand Australians. The accessibility of interactive gambling via the family home highlights the potential increase in the use and abuse of gambling services and sends a physical message of acceptance to all members of the community, including children. If children see their parents increasing their use of Internet gambling, it sends a message that that is perfectly acceptable behaviour that should be adopted. Children adopt new technology incredibly early, and evidence suggests that they will embrace this gambling technology. These sites are very attractive to children: they comprise a myriad games, graphics, music, virtual casino walk-in sites, live streamed broadcasts—all sorts of wonderful, exciting interactive technology. I know that some sites ask for the identity and the age of the gambler, but I have only to look at my 12-year-old son using the computer and Internet technology to know that children can bypass such measures. They are very clever at avoiding screening, and I have seen them do it time and time again. There is no evidence to suggest that children will not adopt this gambling technology, and that is a concern—especially as some 39 per cent of couples with children have Internet access at home. We should look at that issue more closely and consider the impact that gambling will have on the home.The member for Melbourne Ports spoke earlier about a number of measures, and I was interested in how he was able to bring the telecard affair into a debate about gambling. When the Commonwealth met the states and territories on 19 April 2000 to discuss halting the growth of interactive gambling and adopting some sort of integrated approach, New South Wales and Western Australia were the only states to indicate support for that initiative. I note that Queensland was not particularly interested in getting involved. I wonder whether that had anything to do with the granting of Internet licences to some members of the Beattie government—a revelation that caused quite a scandal. I thought that was rather extraordinary. WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—Didn't he get rid of them?9K6Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO—Yes, following a public outcry and after the Treasurer was exposed. It is hypocritical for the honourable member to talk about gambling behaviour when Queensland government ministers had interests in Internet licences. One must ask whether Labor's approach to gambling is balanced and partisan when Queensland ministers were granted Internet licences. The Premier did something about it—thank goodness—but only following a public outcry.I support this important bill. The moratorium is a good thing and we must look to conducting some sort of study of the industry. We need to consider the feasibility and consequences of the interactive gambling industry—regardless of whether a short-term moratorium is in place—which will continue to establish itself in Australia. 11:06:0023611Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I am sure that it will come as no surprise to you—this is our second meeting this morning—to learn that I support strongly the position adopted by the Labor Party that was advocated by our shadow minister for communications, the honourable member for Perth, this morning. I particularly support the amendments that will be considered and voted on at the conclusion of this debate on the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000. I think it is worth pointing out that I find the inherent hypocrisy of this legislation, the internal contradictions within it and its unworkability quite outstanding. I have some knowledge of this industry, and I believe this legislation will not stop Australians gambling on the Internet.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—They'll just go offshore and support foreign operators.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Foreign shonky operators. Anyone with any understanding of how the Internet works will know that you cannot put a bridge in place to prevent Australians gambling on the Internet. Let me make it very clear: there are three licensed Internet gambling operations in the Northern Territory: two racing and gaming operations, sports betting operations; and Lasseters Casino. Lasseters Casino, just for information's sake, is turning over currently $210 million and has 85,000 players. The bulk of these players are from overseas. I have looked at the Centrebet operation in Alice Springs, its online gambling, its racing and waging, which is not covered by this legislation any more and—I think I am correct in saying this—about 85 per cent to 90 per cent of its custom is overseas. What gamblers are after when they log into these sites in Australia is an understanding that we have well-regulated sites and good governance overriding their operation. They know that it is a market attraction to be able to gamble off Australian sites. What we are seeing now is the potential to push this market into a position where they will be dealing with gambling operations offshore in Antigua or elsewhere in the Caribbean and other sites across the world.I am not sure what the government thinks it will achieve by this; it simply will not stop gambling on the Internet. I challenge any member of the government to come in here and explain to me—and to the House and to the Australian community—how they intend that this legislation will prevent Australians from gambling on the Internet. The answer, of course, is that they cannot give such an explanation. The government has not taken a rational approach to what are the real problems and the real concerns about the question of gambling. It has not ensured that we have a highly regulated and properly regulated Internet gambling industry—and I know that those involved in the industry have no problem with being regulated. If you had a mind to do so, you could even regulate to the extent of ensuring that they would not accept Australian based waging. That could be done very easily. Why you would do it, I have no idea, because of course they could still gamble from Antigua or elsewhere. You do not have to be Einstein to work this out—but, clearly, the Prime Minister is not Einstein, as we all know.I note from the Senate committee that our Labor colleagues in their minority report said, in relation to this question of problem gambling, that the InterChurch Gambling Taskforce—whose submissions support the legislation which the government has put forward—acknowledged that it was more an expression of values than a solution to a potential problem. That is what it is. So why are we here effectively moving Australian jobs offshore? Why are we denying ourselves the possibility of properly regulating new Internet gaming operations that are based in Australia? Let me make it clear that this view that these things will not move offshore needs to be brought home. I am advised by Peter Bridge, the boss of Lasseters Casino in Alice Springs, Central Australia, that as a result of domestic prohibition there are already examples of casino operations moving to offshore jurisdictions with low standards of regulation. The example he uses is the Christchurch Casino. That casino has recently established Kiwicasino.com under a licence from Antigua, because of New Zealand's policy on online gambling. Let us be very clear also: I am advised also that, in relation to the immediate impact of this legislation on operators in Australia, Federal Hotels in Tasmania have said that they will be taking down their Southern Cross casino site on Friday of this week, in order to comply with the government's requirements of a moratorium dating back to last May. What sort of absurdity is that?As any observer of this place would know, I am not a great ally or fan of the Northern Territory government. Indeed, there would be very few occasions when I could see us walking on the same side of the street, let alone holding hands. But, on this issue, I share its view—a view which I understand not to be shared by the CLP senator from the Northern Territory who sits with the National Party who, when the vote was taken in the Senate last night, went missing, abstained, took a pair. Of course, the impact of that pair was to deny a Labor person, an opposition person, the opportunity to oppose it in the chamber while he squibbed it outside. He was not prepared to speak up for the people of the Northern Territory, not prepared to speak up and face the concerns of his own CL Party in the Northern Territory, not prepared to own up that he is so inept that he could not persuade the Prime Minister, his party room or the coalition of the potential impact of this legislation on the Northern Territory community. He was not prepared to take it up to the Prime Minister in terms of the concerns expressed by the CLP government in the Northern Territory about the ridiculous nature of this piece of legislation. He squibbed it. I would not have expected anything else from the bloke, to be very honest. After all, this is the second occasion in the last week where we have seen the Northern Territory done unceremoniously in the eye by John Howard's government. I note that the shadow minister for transport is sitting at the table. As he will observe, and as I am sure I have mentioned to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the first example occurred with road funding. I am advised that under normal circumstances the Northern Territory could expect to receive from the Commonwealth around 3.2 per cent of the allocation of these sorts of funds from the total bucket. In this instance, are you surprised to learn, Mr Deputy Speaker, that we received only 1.6 per cent, that we received only $20 million, and that the electorate of Gwydir, which is one-tenth the size of the Northern Territory and has a population only two-thirds that of the Northern Territory got $42 million—twice the amount of the Northern Territory? Of course the member for Gwydir is the Deputy Prime Minister. And what did the CLP senator for the Northern Territory do about that? He did absolutely nothing—as he did nothing about this except to walk out of the chamber when he could have taken the opportunity to express his view. Let us accept that he might have had to vote with the government. Why could he not have expressed his opposition to it? He could have accepted the discipline of the vote, but he could have got up and shown enough guts to express his opposition to this piece of legislation because of its impact on the Northern Territory community.This legislation will not stop problem gamblers from betting online, that is clear, and anyone with any understanding or appreciation of this interactive communications media will tell you that. It will not stop Australian punters being ripped off or having their personal details misused. In fact, if they go to offshore sites as a result of this legislation, it is more than likely that that will happen than if they are working with regulated sides in Australia. It will not address issues such as problem gambling, domestic violence or family breakdown. If the government have a real concern about the impact of gambling on Australian families, why have they not been able to persuade state and territory governments to do something about poker machines? I share the view—probably a conservative view in some circles—that poker machines have done great harm to many Australians, to their families and to their lives. We know all about that. This bill will not help that. This bill will not help the problem punters who go down to the TAB every day or every week or who front up at the races to bet on course and do the week's wages. It will not help them. It will not provide harm minimisation or consumer protection. We can, however, provide consumer protection. We can do that by ensuring a quality gaming product, by having financial probity checks on providers and their staff, by maintaining the integrity of the games and the proper working of gaming equipment. That can be done. Instead of adopting that course, this government have closed their eyes to the reality—something to which they are blinded—that interactive gambling will continue into the future despite what this government does. Frankly, I think it is grossly irresponsible of the government to do what they are doing. To hear Senator Brown in the Senate carry on about the importance of excluding racing and gaming from this bill for some concocted reason is I think a very good indicator of what is fundamentally wrong with this legislation. It is opportunistic; it will not work. It is inherently contradictory and, as I said at the outset, it is fundamentally hypocritical. I think all of us in this chamber would accept the view that we have to ensure that we do not have criminal activity linked to gambling. We should be making every possible effort to ensure that that is the case. We should do all we possibly can to stop money laundering through gambling activities. One of the best possible ways of doing that is by ensuring that we have proper regulations and controls over interactive gambling. It can be done. It is far more manageable than trying to monitor every punter who bets with a bookie at the races on a Saturday. You have to have ID, you have to have approved credit and you have to have your bank details. You and I can go to a bookie flashing 10 bucks and that is it, the bet is on—no problem. But does this bill do anything about that? Absolutely not. Instead of trying to structure a properly regulated environment for interactive gambling, this bill abdicates that responsibility.Any understanding of where we are in technology development must lead you to realise that some time in the near future, with online digital communications rapidly emerging into the home, people are going to be able to sit in front of their televisions with their remote controls and literally plug into one of these sites in Antigua. What is the government going to do about that? Is it going to have the digital police monitoring households, jumping through bedroom windows to see what people are doing on their TVs? `Don't gamble, son'—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—They did it to Laurie Brereton. IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—That is right. Are we going to have a plethora of coppers merging into the community with their trench coats and caps, coming into our houses and saying: `Are you gambling? What have you got on the screen?' Perhaps it will be John Howard in disguise. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—No, it might be the Prime Minister, but not—IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Well, there could be many John Howards, but in this case the Prime Minister. Will he be meandering up the street, swapping from side to side, knocking on doors—`Excuse me; gambling today, are we?' Or is he going to go to the racecourse, stand in front of the bookie circle and say, `Excuse me. What's your name? Bill Smith, is it? I notice you are in debt. You can't bet today'? I think not. It is okay for Kerry. `No problem, Kerry. You can go and spend millions offshore. We don't mind, Kerry. You can do that. No problem.' If you happen to be a person who is sitting at home, who has the wits to be able to use an interactive device, and you want to put a bet on, say at a casino in Australia, you cannot do it. But if you want to put a bet on at a casino in Antigua, you can do it. It seems to me that that is not too bright. Apart from the loss to the Australian community of the revenue which it is demonstrated is being secured from the taxation that flows from the gambling industry, apart from the jobs the industry is providing, apart from the window to e-commerce that it gives us, apart from the fact that we are developing world best technology to control gambling, the government says, `We are not interested. Give up. We are going to put a ban on.' You and I know, Mr Deputy Speaker, that bans do not work. Bans have not worked. We all know about prohibition. It did not work in the 1920s and 1930s and it will not work now. What you need is a properly regulated environment where interactive gambling is properly controlled. For that reason, I urge the House to support the position adopted by the Labor Party and, in particular, the amendment it has moved today. 11:25:0023614Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—As legislators, we are regularly called upon to consider issues of public importance for which there can be a more than respectable argument in favour or against a particular position. So it is with some caution that I speak in favour of the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000. This is not to deny the good intentions of the bill and of those who drafted it, for problem gambling is a blight on our society, that extends beyond the problem gambler as an individual to their family and to their community. But it is not hypocrisy to recognise a social problem that requires a public policy response. There is no question that the increase in gambling options that has clearly taken place in Australia in the past decade has had externalities beyond the simple relationship between the gambler and the house. One does not need to examine laboriously the evidence collated by the Productivity Commission in its very thoughtful 1999 report to understand the magnitude of gambling as a modern industry. For the record, the commission found that 290,000 Australians, or over two per cent of the entire population, exhibited gambling behaviour that could be described as problematic. One does not need to visit the gambling counsellors and group help organisations catering to gamblers seeking an end to their addiction to understand the impact that a gambling problem can have on an individual's life or on the life of their family. One does not have to survey a casino floor at four in the morning to accurately gauge the obsession that can overcome a gambler as they make their last play, not for winnings, but for that which they have already lost. One does not need to visit too many pubs or clubs in Sydney or Melbourne or Adelaide to understand the devastating effect of the poker machine on social interaction, on live music or on the simple act of having a drink after work. Yet the act of gambling is an act of free will. Once we begin denying citizens the right to govern their own lives—regardless, it must be said, of whether they wish to deprive themselves of their own free will—we enter the murky waters of soft tyranny. Thankfully, that is not what this bill proposes, contrary to its, perhaps more hysterical, critics. In its amended form—amended, that is, since its defeat in the Senate in October—it is more appropriately crafted. It will now exempt from the scope of the moratorium wagering services equivalent to those offered off-line on 19 May 2000 and in traditional wagering formats; services that relate to betting on an outcome of a sporting event where the bets are placed, made, received or accepted after the beginning of the event; and services that relate to betting on a contingency that may or may not happen in the course of a sporting event where the bets are placed, made, received or accepted after the beginning of an event. The proposed exemption will not permit the introduction of more interactive ball by ball style microwagering. Furthermore, new wagering services will not be permitted during the period of the moratorium. As almost every speaker on this bill to date, for or against, has noted, gambling in Australia is seen as part of our national culture. Be it by lottery, by wager or by chance, Australians are active participants in the gambling culture. As legislators, we may have personal likes and dislikes when it comes to specific games or wagers but we recognise generally that, like drinking and like fine food, gambling, taken in moderation, is not detrimental to one's health. I am pleased to note that this bill recognises that fact. It does not seek to ban gambling or even to reduce gambling; rather, it is a moratorium on a specific sector of the gambling industry, a breathing space for the community to engage in thoughtful public policy. Similar philosophical issues dominated my consideration of the Broadcasting Services Amendment (Online Services) Bill 1999. In that debate, my support was drawn to the legislation by the notion of equivalency—that is, I did not believe that, simply by virtue of it being offered on a new medium, Australian material published on the Internet ought to have been legally immune from Australian classification law. I believe that the moratorium in this bill is also justified by the notion of equivalency in public policy.Gambling in Australia has come to be regulated and guided by public policy development over decades—in fact, over two centuries. Often that policy development, conducted by the states and territories and by their colonial precursors, was a case of one step forwards and two steps back. The accommodation of offcourse betting in an illegal but tolerated form is a good example of that haphazard development. Nonetheless, the opportunity to develop those regulations and guidelines was conducive to the more appropriate development of a legal gambling industry. The very example of SP bookmaking's reform is testament to the value of that opportunity. We may not have decades or even years to develop a similar regulatory response to online gambling, but this moratorium does offer us 12 months from 19 May 2000 to develop an appropriate response.Just as this parliament was not convinced that the particular technological nature of the Internet exempted material published on the Internet from Australian law, so this parliament ought not to be convinced that the technological nature of online gambling should exempt it from careful and considered regulatory development, especially in relation to the obvious externalities associated with problem gambling and under-age gambling. In making this case, I may be at some variance with supporters of this bill who have spoken in the other place. But I do say in response to the member for Melbourne Ports that being a Liberal does not mean being a libertine. Liberals support the appropriate regulation of gambling generally. Why should Liberals not also support the consideration of the appropriate regulation of online gambling?Some supporters of the moratorium have applauded its introduction as an opportunity to garner the evidence to condemn online gambling in its entirety—to make it online but offshore. I am sceptical about whether adult Australian Internet users should be denied the opportunity to gamble online, and I am very sceptical as to whether such a ban is possible. In a free society, the burden of proof lies with those who would deny freedoms to others. But this moratorium gives both proponents and opponents the opportunity to put their arguments to the Australian people and to the Australian government, and it gives the people and the government the time to properly consider the future regulation of this sector of the gambling industry.In this regard, I note that the National Office for the Information Economy, in consultation with the Treasury, the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Family and Community Services, is presently finalising a study into the feasibility and consequences of the ban. I urge all members of this House and the executive to consider the findings of the report of the National Office for the Information Economy with an open mind and without a predisposed position on such a ban. As such, I commend this bill to the House.11:35:0023615Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I rise to speak on the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000. I have some grave concerns about the opportunities and the dangers that are presented by online gambling. I am a person who believes in people being responsible for their own activities and the way they live their lives. I believe in taking the responsibility that all people, given the wonderful rights and freedoms that we enjoy in this country, should exercise when we set about conducting ourselves in the community. In other words, I believe we all have rights and responsibilities. I think that is engrained in this government's philosophy and the way it looks at policy and endeavours to chart the way ahead. With that in mind, I do have grave concerns about the way in which online gambling can work and the way in which it is being approached, particularly by members opposite. One of the things that I think has been distributed to the House is the proposed amendment by the opposition. I had a good, close read of that amendment, but to be frank I believe it is not worthy of consideration. I think it is little more than rhetoric and does not contribute at all to the central problem that the government is trying to address—I might say, with the broad support of many Australians.I would like to turn to a few of the things that the members opposite said. Before I do that, I would like to conjure up in members' minds the way in which online gambling allows people to enjoy gambling. It would be available if you do have a computer and you are able to go online or, as the member for the Northern Territory said, it would be available through the television. You can click on your TV or you can use your computer. You can do this in the privacy of your own home and you can use your own credit card for the gambling part of the operation. In doing so, you can—I presume—take that credit card to the max in the security and the privacy of your own home, with no-one watching.Most of the members of this House and most of Australian society have the real capacity to manage that kind of thing. Anyone realises the danger and that, if you take your credit card to the max in half an hour in a splurge on the gambling machines, the consequences for you are quite horrendous. You are going to have to pay all that back. So you would, no doubt, be very judicious in the use of such a pleasure, in doing this sort of thing in your own home. But there are people without the kind of restraint, when it comes to gambling, that ordinary people in the community exhibit. Some of those people are physically addicted to gambling and do respond, even when they are required to go to a public place, when they are in the bar of a hotel where there are poker machines or when they are in a casino. They cannot restrain themselves there and, let me tell you, when they are in the privacy of their own home, with no-one watching and with no-one looking over their shoulder and tut-tutting at their behaviour, or when the possibility of the shame of spending all next week's rent in a splurge on the machines is not going to be known to anyone but themselves, the threat of this kind of behaviour is there and it is all the more obvious the more you think about it.Members opposite are chiding the government about putting in place this moratorium and taking steps to curtail gambling—and, of course, that is not directly the objective of this legislation; this legislation is about giving time to consider a reasoned response. Members opposite are chiding the government, saying: `It's too hard. The government should be rolling over and going ahead with it.' They say that, if we do not, it will go on in places like Antigua; it will be a source of money for small economies in the Caribbean. `Why shouldn't Australia,' they say, `enjoy that bonanza?' In fact, I could not believe the attitude of the member for Melbourne Ports. He regards this as one of the few areas of the dot com economy that return consistent profits. He suggested that, as a result, there would be high wage jobs and high-tech jobs from a machine that probably plays a little bit of music, produces a row of cards and says: `Too bad. You've just lost your rent money.' Those are the kinds of high-tech jobs that members opposite want.They are chiding the government. They are saying that all this would go on in Antigua. They are asking: why don't we join them on the descent into hell? Why don't we facilitate these kinds of high-tech jobs? Why don't we set out after this part of the dot com economy that can make consistent profits? The member for Melbourne Ports has the gall to accuse the government of having very little moral compass or few core values, when members opposite are standing up one after the other proposing this kind of radical expansion of people's capability to access gambling. They are out there proposing that, without a thought to what impact that might have, and they are standing up one after the other and criticising poker machines when you can, in effect, gamble so much more heavily in the privacy of your own home, without anyone watching, and the only time you are going to get caught out is when the house is taken out from under you, and your wife and children are turned out into the streets. I am not a fan of gambling. As the member for Curtin said, it can be enjoyed in moderation. I agree with that. I also agree with 70 per cent of Australian people, who say that gambling does more harm than good. Those are the findings of the recent report that has been considered here on numerous occasions. Some 70 per cent of people believe gambling does more harm than good, and I believe they are very perceptive. Some 92 per cent of people do not want to see more poker machines in Australia. If 92 per cent of people do not want to see more poker machines, when they get a load of the way this system works, more than 92 per cent of people will be saying that they do not want this.I can understand the attitude of the member for the Northern Territory, for example. The member for the Northern Territory mentioned Lasseters Casino in Alice Springs. He said that Lasseters Casino has a turnover of $210 million and that it has 85,000 players playing its games. Without having made the switch to this kind of online gambling, I believe Lasseters Casino would be broke. I believe that this system has saved its bacon. There was a hotel attached to Lasseters Casino in Alice Springs. It has been shut up for years. It has not had any guests in it. It has been shut up because it had financial difficulties. I believe Lasseters Casino has switched to this lucrative form of earning income because it sees a dollar to be made, and I believe members opposite see a dollar to be made and I believe they see it in relation to the states in particular.I note that subclause (f) of the second part of the opposition's second reading amendment says that the government should be addressing revenue issues that impact upon state government decisions relating to interactive gambling. I can tell you that in Queensland, without the government's goods and services tax, gambling has become a de facto growth tax. Gambling has become one of the major sources of revenue driving schools, hospitals and police. Isn't it bizarre that, in Australia today, we have to gamble to fund schools? That is the way it is in Queensland today: to fund schools, you have got to gamble; to fix roads, you have got to gamble. There are problems and distortions in the tax system in Queensland when that kind of a regime applies. I do not believe that we can fix the problem by giving gamblers more of the drug that they apparently crave. We do not fix it by turning them on a little bit more, by giving them more of a kick out of gambling—which every member in this place knows is a real social problem. I am sure that every member in this House has had people in their electorates ruined by gambling. The members opposite can squawk all they like that poker machines are the great evil but online gambling, because it is high tech, is somehow pure. They seem to want to draw some kind of moral boundary between one and the other. If you ask me, online gambling is worse. If you can do these things without having to consult your conscience at all—in other words, if you can curl up under your doona and blow your rent cheque—I think that is a far worse and more dangerous proposition for Australian society than all of the poker machines and casinos that we currently have. It is much worse.One of the great faults in what the opposition are proposing, with Antigua and this trumped-up argument they are pushing, is that there would be gambling in Antigua anyway. What they want to do, they say, is to legitimise it. They want to give it a lovely saccharine sugar coating and establish a regime in Australia that protects gamblers. They call it harm minimisation. So if you are dealing with an Australian company when you are curled up under your doona—a high-tech dot com gambling company—you will be secure. If you ever happen to make a winning in that process, it would be protected. Isn't that great? What a great service they are providing to the Australian economy by proposing that. All of those people, when they are under their doonas, will feel a lot more secure about blowing their rent cheques. I am sure even Kerry Packer would tell everyone that while gambling does occasionally produce a return, it costs very dearly. Any fan of gambling would tell them that that is the situation. Yet the members opposite want to legitimise it and make it part of a protected situation. I would much rather that some concerns be raised in the minds of people when they set about accessing interactive gambling. I would rather that they had to think twice, before they put the rent cheque on the line, about whether or not there might be an outcome at the other end. If you had to deal with Antigua or Tajikistan through your modem with your rent cheque, you might think twice and stick your rent cheque back in the bank, or you might actually go and pay your rent with it. But these are the kinds of people I am worried about. The members opposite want to facilitate their gambling habit. The cost of that kind of behaviour is horrendous. There are 130,000 Australians with severe gambling problems, and they lose an average of $12,000 each—$3.5 billion in total. You could argue, as members opposite would, that that is $3.5 billion, potentially, to go into the wonderful, high-tech economy. `Wow!' they say. `What a wonderful opportunity for Australia!' I say: that is $3.5 billion on our welfare bill, basically. That is money that is going to have to be paid by welfare agencies and charitable organisations that should be, I think, dealing with government and parliamentary representatives who want to see their burden minimised, not racked up because of some fixation that the member for Melbourne Ports has with the dot com economy. The member for Melbourne Ports said that by proceeding with this kind of thing we would be pursuing the knowledge nation. One thing I know is: if you gamble, you are going to lose. If that is his example of the knowledge nation, then it is something we really ought to be very concerned about.The member also spoke about the Liberal Party and its structure. I know that in Queensland the structure of the Labor Party has ensured that there were interactive gaming licences granted to an organisation called GOCORP. Who were the people associated with GOCORP? A bunch of Labor mates. I think subsequent events have illustrated the background of some of those Labor mates. Obviously, an interactive gaming licence involves someone of the stature of Bill D'Arcy, who is today in jail. Charges were already laid against him when that gaming licence was being granted in Queensland.Members opposite talk about this process of granting licences to Australian companies as a possible way to reduce criminal involvement. I would like them to look at that example. I would like them to consider what that means. What was the level of scrutiny given to that particular transaction? What effort went into that? What guarantee was there that the knowledge nation would benefit by that proposal?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—You mean it didn't suffer the brown paper bag test.84CThompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON—It is much worse than the brown paper bag test; it is, I think, a situation that Australians would be horrified about. If we were to deal with gaming licences all over Australia in the carefree way that the Queensland government did on that occasion, we would—if you regard problem gamblers and their difficulties as being a contagion—be dealing with a bunch of people hell-bent on spreading that contagion by encouraging people to take up gambling and encouraging the worst types of irresponsible gambling activity.In closing, I have to say that on occasions I go to the races, on occasions I buy a lotto ticket and on occasions I go down to the local club and play the pokie machines for maybe 15 minutes. I do not find it an unpleasant form of behaviour—you can enjoy yourself doing that. I think many Australian families and other people have a greater love of gambling than I do, and for these people the whole of the gambling industry is providing an excellent service. I think that as a society what we must worry about are those who are hooked on this activity and are not responding appropriately to it. When the government considers its position as a result of this moratorium and looks to the way ahead, we must consider ordinary Australian families and the fact that each Australian loves a punt and should have the opportunity to enjoy it. But at the same time we must make sure that we do not facilitate an explosion in problem gambling by supporting it and fostering its continuance. (Time expired). 11:55:0023619Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10— I rise today to speak on the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000. It is one that I personally support. I think it is appropriate that we have this legislation in the House. It is unfortunate that previous legislation was knocked back in the upper house and that there have been some amendments. But I think it is appropriate that we now see this bill go forward. The reality is that the Democrats have said that it is not a serious bill. Given the impact of gambling on the lives of everyday Australians I believe it is a very serious bill. It is appropriate that we have a one-year moratorium on Internet interactive gambling so that we can consider the consequences of this leap forward.I have an interest in this area because of personal experience. For a number of years I was the shadow minister for finance in New South Wales and I also used to act as shadow Treasurer in New South Wales. During the time that I was shadow minister a bill was introduced which legalised draw poker machines in hotels. It was to be on a limited basis and was expected to have minor consequences for clubs. It was to assist hotels remain viable and was to be a minor adjunct to their activities. More than a decade later we can see the impact of that legislation. We have seen a proliferation of these draw poker machines in hotels throughout New South Wales and the hotels depend for their livelihood on them. The volume of money from poker machines runs into multimillions per hotel, further expanding the overall area of activity. When people looked at it at that stage it was seen as being fairly benign. It is a different situation now, given the degree of competition in the gambling market between the clubs and the number of poker machines that exist in hotels. We have that very situation here: Internet gambling is exploding. People want to participate in interactive gambling. I think the minister concerned and the government should be commended for calling for this moratorium. It is a disgrace that it was knocked back before.This is a serious situation and the impact on people's lives is very significant. Again, I speak from my own experience. The solicitor I was dealing with when I was purchasing a house suddenly advised me that he was handing over his practice to another solicitor. He was subsequently put in jail for gambling and losing his life's earnings. He lost his practice, and the funds people had invested with him, because he had a gambling addiction. For a lot of people gambling is a fine social activity that has no negative consequences but a proportion of the population do become gambling addicts, and it is that aspect of it that we are concerned about. We do not want to go blindly into interactive gambling. As the shadow minister would know—his expertise in the technology and Internet areas is appropriate—approximately 50 per cent of Australian households have access through the Internet to gambling. Because people have that widespread access, instead of having to walk down to a TAB, club or hotel to play poker machines they can pull up a chair, sit in their own living room and take the action.So that is the reason for it. In fact, if you look at the extent to which Australians are involved in gambling, we are amongst the leaders in the world. In the United States they have gambling in places like Las Vegas, Atlantic City and Nevada but, basically, it is confined to those areas. We have gambling places everywhere. I think that 20 per cent of all poker machines in the world are located in Australia. It is estimated that some 300,000 gamblers in Australia have a serious problem. These are the people who lose over $12,000 per year each. If we think of the average wage of an Australian then we can see that they are gambling away almost half of average income every year. There are consequences for families and children in those relationships, and for the activities that gamblers get involved in as a result of that gambling addiction. It is quite a tragedy. It often leads to marriage breakdowns, violence, depression and countless other problems. So it is important to be aware of the social consequences of gambling. Remember that we had an inquiry in New South Wales before the casino was introduced there. Sir Laurence Street headed up an inquiry to look at the social consequences of the casino. The report came out saying that there would be a few problems but they could be handled with counselling. Again, we have had extensive problems through the widespread use of casinos throughout Australia, as each state's capital city had to have their own casino as they vied for the gambling dollar and brought in the high spenders from overseas. The consequences we have seen, just in terms of families, from those decisions are significant. We should not downplay the social consequences of gambling. I was very pleased to see that, two years ago, overwhelming public concern about this issue prompted the government to request a Productivity Commission inquiry into the issue. It showed that, if losses are averaged out across the nation, each adult in Australia loses around $800 per year. So this is about not sitting around and saying, `It's all too hard; the years of the Internet are here—let's just let the free market determine it.' I am very much a free market person but there are obviously areas of market failure and, where we have significant social consequences, we should look at those areas.The bill calls for a one-year moratorium, that is, it prohibits the use of interactive gambling services that were not provided before 19 May this year for one year. Exemptions are provided in the case where an operator has provided that service before 19 May and was under the same name prior to that date. The reason for this one-year moratorium is that it will give the government a chance to review its legislative options in an area which is growing far quicker than is presently possible to control through the law. I was very interested to see that Senator Ellison said in his second reading speech:... the inertia and the revenue generated by a large and established industry is overwhelming. The Commonwealth is determined not to repeat this mistake with interactive gambling. As a further illustration of what Senator Ellison was saying, when New South Wales introduced poker machines in pubs five years ago the revenue lifted from $7 billion a year to $11 billion in just four years—a rate of $1 billion per year increase.The penalty imposed by the bill is significant— 2,000 penalty points for each day the offence has been committed. That is $220,000 per day maximum for individuals and $1.1 million maximum for corporations. It will come in when this legislation receives royal assent. There have been proposals for amendments regarding wagering services that relate to betting on an outcome of a sporting event when the bets are placed after the beginning of the event, or when bets are placed on some event that could happen during the course of an event when the bets are placed after the event has begun. They will still be allowed. This is because such bets were already occurring over the telephone and by other means. The exemptions from the moratorium should not reduce the effectiveness of this legislation. The exemptions the government has proposed will not, however, allow the increasingly common ball-by-ball type of interactive gambling—and neither they should. In other words, the bill will not allow a gambler to be constantly betting through the Internet on what will happen on the next ball of today's Prime Minister's XI game—for which we certainly wish the Australians well. This provision is obviously a sensible one as it is interactive forms of gambling like this which can turn average punters into problem gamblers.I conclude by noting that the government is expecting to receive the report of the National Office of the Information Economy on this matter in the very near future. The government has worked with a number of departments, including the Treasury and the Department of Family and Community Services, to analyse the options and possible outcomes of a ban on Internet gambling. No final decision has been made, but I certainly commend the minister and the government on this decision. This decision shows that we are not going to rush headlong into interactive gambling without considering the social consequences of poker machines and casinos. The expansion of poker machines into hotels has had a serious downturn in terms of the social consequences right throughout Australia. The devastation of families, of partners and children of those with gambling addiction, the impact on companies and other secondary impacts of gambling have been seen. I am sure that all of us would not want to try to provide strict controls on gambling but, in terms of the social consequences, we in this place have a responsibility to consider the wider impact in Australia. On behalf of my colleagues, I commend this legislation to the House. 12:06:0023621Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I support the comments made by the member for Cook in relation to the leadership shown by the government through the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000 in the way the government has proactively looked at changing technology and the vast array of options that are becoming increasingly available in all forms of our lifestyle. In that sense, I certainly support what has been put to the parliament today. The bill aims to halt the further expansion of interactive gambling in Australia for 12 months from 19 May 2000 while the government investigates the feasibility and consequences of actually banning interactive gambling. It is a breathing space, and a sensible breathing space.As members on both sides of the House would be aware, the Internet gambling industry is growing rapidly. The government recognises that we need to take immediate action to halt this as it poses a serious threat to compulsive, problematic gamblers, their families and indeed our community. I am concerned that this new interactive gambling technology has the ability to provide access to gambling like we have never seen before. Interactive technology just brings gambling into the home in a way that we have certainly not seen. It is just so easy these days if it is on your computer screen, you have a credit card and you are a compulsive gambler. Before you know it, you are in deep strife. As members would be aware, the Howard government is concerned that, with this unprecedented possible access and the attraction of these services, the youth and the vulnerable could be attracted like never before, creating a new wave of problem gamblers.It has been only in the past decade that my state of Queensland has had poker machines. With their introduction, we saw immediately people flocking to have a punt, and there is nothing wrong with that. In some cases, though, it was more than just a punt; it became a way of life. Day after day at home, at 10 o'clock in the morning, just before they open, I see people queuing up outside the establishments that have poker machines, wanting to get in to get on the poker machines. I think that is quite sad. We need to take action now because of these wider possibilities that are available that could so easily get out of control.We cannot repeal the mistakes of the past, where we now see poker machines in basically every pub and club, generating a lot of dollars for consolidated revenue but costing families so dearly. There is a bit of an enigma here, where state governments which take all of this revenue out of the gambling industry are not so happy about this federal government legislation, and I wonder why that might be. I wonder if it might be because they might lose a further revenue stream that they would otherwise have. I ask the state governments particularly to have a think about the social consequences and their social responsibility in relation to the ever increasing takes from the gambling industry. It is important to note that gambling is not a sin. Many in my electorate of Herbert in Townsville and Thuringowa enjoy having a punt at the races or going down to Jupiters casino. However, as I said earlier, for some it is a serious problem, not just for the gambler but also for their family, their friends and our community. Under this bill, it is an offence to provide an interactive gambling service in Australia. It is important to note that it is not a permanent ban but a temporary halt so we can work out ways to make sure that it will not harm our community in the long run. But it does have some sensible exemptions. For example, if it can be shown that the service is the same or substantially the same as a pre 19 May service, uses the same name as that service and had at least one genuine paying customer prior to that date, there will be an exemption for that service. The bill prevents new entrants from establishing services during the period of the moratorium and constrains existing providers from introducing new services to take advantage of their privileged market position. That is sensible. It specifically exempts phone betting and services relating to certain futures and options contracts. Online share trading—which has just been a revolution in how that has developed—online insurance policy applications and other risk bearing financial transactions are clearly not gambling, although some might say they are. I think people would understand that they, too, will be exempted, as the bill makes clear. The Corporations Law already recognises this and specifically exempts these contracts from being subject to gambling laws. In order to remain consistent with the Corporations Law and to remove any doubt about the type of service this moratorium is intended to cover, the government has decided to make it clear that these contracts, particularly the futures and options contracts, are not subject to the moratorium. It is important to remember that the bill focuses on businesses providing gambling because the government does not intend the moratorium to affect the not-for-profits who run their own fundraising activities. We have them in all sorts of ways in our electorates, but they can be there electronically as well, and this bill does not affect that. It does not affect private, friendly bets or other non-commercial betting, such as office tipping pools. In Townsville, Roberts Nehmer Mckee, a local firm of lawyers, is running a tipping competition on the Crocodiles basketball club. My prediction is that the Crocodiles will win the National Basketball League this year, beating the Adelaide 36ers if all goes well. Of course, there are tipping pools on NRL football games as well, and they are exempted from this kind of moratorium.I support the bill because it protects the vulnerable and the young. As we are all aware, young people are really up with the latest computer technology, and if they have a credit card and a computer and see an opportunity while on the Internet, there is a possibility that that credit card may be worn out within an hour. Reports have proved that problem gamblers established their addiction in their youth, so I guess that makes this point doubly important. It has already been proved that young people outnumber others as participants in online gambling.I noted that, in the Senate last week, Labor Senator Kate Lundy spoke about harm minimisation and government inaction about other forms of gambling. One must ask: is Senator Lundy aware that the federal government does not have jurisdiction in relation to other forms of gambling? She then spoke about the need for harm minimisation. We can stop this before it becomes a major problem. I believe Senator Chapman said it perfectly when contradicting Senator Lundy's remarks when he said:We ... believe in harm prevention, not harm minimisation.I receive many calls in my electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker—and I assume that you might too—from concerned parents, churches and other community groups about this issue. I receive calls from people saying that it is an invasion of civil liberties, but I think we all share a common theme: that this parliament must do something to ensure that online gambling does not turn into a major social problem.The temptation for the states to ignore the issue is high, as the inertia and the revenue generated by a large and established industry are very compelling indeed. However, we must take the lead. Suggesting that we must take the lead is about where I came into this debate, and taking the lead is something we are doing. We are doing it for the community and we are doing it for our kids. There are significant penalties in the bill and that detail has been explained already.Finally, some people say that such a moratorium or ban is not possible. Some people say that it is not feasible. They say that the Internet has no boundaries and that it is global. I disagree. I believe that, if we work together, and if we have an effective approach, a ban on Internet gambling on Australian sites is certainly possible. I support the bill and I support the prospect of a cooling-off period. And I particularly support the bill because I do not want to see the kids of Australia sitting at a computer, pushing a button and, for example, making a bet on who the next President of the United States might be. 12:15:0023623Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—I have been an Independent since April this year. I have supported the Labor Party on most bills and, when I have not, I have abstained, and that is because I share the same philosophical base as the Labor Party. But I want to indicate that, in relation to the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000, I will be supporting the government. The reason I have made that decision is that I do not believe, firstly, that there is anything in traditional Labor philosophy which supports the position that the Labor Party is taking at the moment in relation to this bill, and certainly there is nothing inconsistent with me supporting the position of a moratorium which is inconsistent with traditional Labor philosophy.Let me explain what my concerns are. The tremendous social problem that Australia has in relation to gambling has already been mentioned in this House and in the Senate. This social problem is exploding. It is extremely serious, and it is impacting on, very often, the most disadvantaged people in our community. Certainly, it is impacting very heavily and disproportionately on a constituency that I have purported to represent over the years in parliament—I am referring to the ethnic communities. The expansion of gambling in Victoria, for example, has lead, you can say, to a major crisis in the Australian Chinese community in Melbourne, stemming from the massive expansion of gambling through the development of the casino, the development of poker machines in pubs and many other such developments. It would be wrong for us to further expand these gambling opportunities and not to show the way in terms of saying, `Look, as legislators, as parliamentarians, we believe that it is time'—at least, symbolically, and not only symbolically but also I think this legislation has teeth, which I will refer to later—`to indicate that this matter has gone too far.' That is what I believe. I believe that the gambling disease has infiltrated the nation to a huge extent and to an extent which is not healthy. The level of gambling in Australia is one of the highest in world.I referred before to the Chinese community, but that is not the only community that is being affected by gambling. There is a whole range of migrant and ethnic communities that has been, in a sense—for whatever cultural reasons—drawn into this gambling fever, and the social consequences have been devastating. First of all, the statistics are covered up but are you aware of the number of people who actually commit suicide as a result of their gambling debts? Of course this is not recorded, but we know that they even had to put special cameras in the toilets at the Crown Casino in Melbourne in order to try to prevent people, who were so desperate and had reached such a level of desperation in their gambling, killing themselves. But, leaving aside that extreme, what about the number of marriage breakdowns? What about the number of people who have lost not only some of their property, some of their income and some of their assets but even their own home, the place that they live in? And we are not talking here about one isolated individual in the sense of one single person; we are talking about whole families devastated by this phenomenon.The previous state Labor government put legislation in place to introduce poker machines in Victoria. This was gleefully adopted by Premier Kennett and a massive expansion of poker machines occurred throughout the state of Victoria. One of the major areas in which this expansion occurred was in the disadvantaged suburbs in the north and west of Melbourne, where there are many poor people. Those areas had the biggest expansion of poker machines. We had the pathetic situation of pensioners who have no other income but the pension receiving their pension and, within hours, losing all of it on poker machines. These are serious social problems. Not only should the economic dimension of the matter be considered but the social culture of Australia has been changed by this massive expansion of gambling. The social interactions that used to occur in pubs, for example, no longer occur. People go to the pub, stand before the machine, spending hours there, and then when they have lost all their money go home. What happened to the tradition of social interaction in pubs and clubs? This is a change in the culture and it is a very poor change. I believe that we must act in relation to the problem of gambling, and I therefore support the moratorium.If you want to hear the actual facts—for those of you who do not like anecdotal evidence—then read the report of the Productivity Commission as initiated by the Treasurer. The inquiry was undertaken by Gary Banks, the Chairman of the Productivity Commission, and Mr Robert Fitzgerald, who was President of the Australian Council of Social Service from 1993 to 1997. Some of the findings of the report are that 80 per cent of Australians gambled in the last year, spending about $11 billion, with 40 per cent gambling regularly, and that just over 290,000 people—and that is a conservative estimate—are problem gamblers, with 130,000 of these with severe problems. And you know what it means to be classified as having severe problems. Problem gamblers lose around $12,000 a year each and their total annual expenditure is around $3.5 billion.The prevalence of problem gambling is related to the degree of accessibility to gambling, particularly gaming machines—and this gets back to the point I made about Victoria. But of course it is not just Victoria that has this problem: all the states now have a proliferation of gambling machines. One of the problems is that gaming machines have become an essential part of the revenue of state governments. They rely on that revenue and, therefore, whatever measures they try to take to rein in gaming machines are going to be half-hearted. The recently elected Bracks government is to be congratulated for having a go, but it is like trying to close the gate after the horse has bolted. The point has been made in this debate, by the way, that if the states had been more responsible at the time when there was such a proliferation of poker machines we may not have this level of problem—because, as the report says, accessibility is a major issue in relation to such machines. Continuing with the conclusions of the Productivity Commission, 70 per cent of people surveyed believe that gambling did more harm than good and 92 per cent did not want to see a further expansion of gaming machines. Huge! The social costs of gambling were also commented on and these were seen as substantial. The estimates, of course, are difficult to identify but they range from a low of $1.8 billion to $5.6 billion. Although obviously there are some economic benefits to gambling, there are also these huge social costs, and not only do these social costs lead to a degradation of the spirit and culture of the nation but also these social costs have to be paid for.Of course, we have had the Victorian Casino and Gaming Authority challenge the conclusions of the report and we have had a number of others trying to minimise the problem. But the problem is not able to be minimised—and I go back to the example that I gave. For all the data that we have already picked up, there are specific ethnic communities where the problem is even more serious than in the general community. You might say: if it is all out there and it is so bad, what is the point of trying to prevent something like this? The answer to that—and it is really a philosophical issue—is that if something is evil you do not compound the evil by allowing it to become even greater. You do not do that. You try to put into place measures which will minimise the evil. That, I maintain, is what we are faced with here.It seems to me that the only way to get around this problem is to deal with the online gambling issue directly. I support a moratorium—after all, it is only a stopgap measure intended to prevent the expansion of these industries. Let us study the impact of online and interactive gambling on communities around the world, keeping in mind the propensity of Australians to become involved very quickly in all forms of new gambling. We can then come to some conclusions about the likely outcome of online gambling and decide whether we should introduce a ban, continue the moratorium for a time or allow some forms of gambling under a tightly regulated regime. However, at the moment I cannot see what harm a moratorium will do. Online gambling requires a computer, and the government has expressed concern about the expansion of gambling at home. I agree with the government. I agree also with those Democrat senators and Senator Bob Brown who have expressed concern about this issue. I know that Mr Peter Andren is also worried about it. I refer the House to some interesting data in the paper, Current State of Play: Australia and the Information Economy , released by the National Office for the Information Economy. It shows that Internet access at home is likely to be much higher among couples with children than among single persons or those with no children. A November 1999 survey found that 39 per cent of couples with children had Internet access at home compared with 19 per cent of single parent families, 23 per cent of couples with no children, and 10 per cent of single persons. In other words, the potential use of gambling facilities is greater among couples with children.A number of members who have spoken in this debate mentioned that all the psychological and sociological evidence shows that people catch the gambling habit early in life. So if children pick up this habit, a whole new group will get into gambling through the Internet. That is a grave concern. It is bad enough that many people got into gambling with the introduction of poker machines; now another group—many of whom have not been involved in the poker machine phenomenon—will be gambling online. That will create even more serious social problems.I argue that we must tackle this problem. As I said, I have seen no persuasive arguments against introducing a moratorium. If, after an examination of the situation over the next 12 months, arguments are offered regarding the imposition of a restrictive regime, so be it. But at this stage I believe it is necessary to take some action to prevent the same kind of phenomenon that occurred with the state governments in relation to poker machines. Poker machines proliferated very quickly and, before the government could retrieve data about what was happening, many negative consequences emerged. State governments are now saying, `Well, we can do something to prevent the issuing of new licences.' However, there is a huge number of existing poker machines in Melbourne, Sydney and throughout Australia and they will continue to have devastating consequences. Why should we allow another form of gambling that will attract many people who are not substantially involved in the industry at present?This is a big moral issue. One may ask: why should the government legislate to protect people from themselves? After all, people have freedom of choice. They can gamble. They do not have to go to a casino and they do not have to use poker machines—although it is a bit difficult to go to a pub nowadays and have nothing to do with poker machines, because they are everywhere. Almost all the traditional pubs have closed; most pubs have had to install poker machines in order to survive.Let us consider a philosophical matter for a moment. Is this a civil liberties issue? No, it is not. The government and the parliament have a moral responsibility to show leadership in relation to these issues. That moral responsibility is not just symbolic: we must take concrete decisions to prevent these problems from occurring. Maybe the gambling industry in Australia can be rationalised and, in that context, we may be prepared to allow some forms of gambling. But my gut feeling at present is that interactive gambling will create massive social problems, including broken marriages and people living in poverty because they have lost everything, or nearly everything, as a result of gambling. I am sorry that I have gone slightly over time but I wanted to make my views about this issue clear. I accept the general argument in favour of a moratorium, which I believe will achieve at least some good by slowing down the development of another bad social phenomenon. (Time expired)12:37:0023626Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I endorse everything that the member for Calwell has said. I note that, at the beginning of his speech, he was almost apologetic that he was voting with the government on this issue and felt as though he had to explain himself to his former Labor Party colleagues. I do not think that many of his former Labor Party colleagues would disagree with what he has said. But their handling of such issues stands in direct contrast with that of this side of the House where, although we might have different views on things, we are able to express them. I would say that what has happened over on that side of the House is that a couple of the leadership group have decided what the Labor Party's policy is going to be and, despite what anyone in the back bench thinks, that policy will be what the leaders say.You just have to look at the speakers list, Mr Deputy Speaker. If you look at the speakers list over the last few weeks, you will see that, where the opposition feels strongly or is to argue strongly about a bill, there are many speakers from that side. On today's speakers list, this particular bill is almost the only one where government members outnumber opposition members—and I would say that they are cowering in their offices saying, `Gee, I hope the government gets this up because we support it deeply.'Gambling has played a recreational role in Australian society to such an extent that it is almost seen as a distinguishing feature of the national character. For evidence, we need look no further than our folkloric reputation for betting on two flies crawling up a wall and the integral role played by two-up in conjunction with the deeply significant Anzac Day remembrances. Therefore, we as a society do not view all gambling—nor do we view all gamblers—as undesirable, by definition. In addition to the considerable contribution made to government coffers by revenue raised from gambling, it could be argued that the activity has offered some social benefits: people have tended to congregate in clubs, where cheaper meals and entertainment have supplemented the availability of gambling; those clubs have also been bound to invest much of their revenue back into the community in the form of sponsorship for sporting clubs, for example.This bill is not about tackling the problems that derive from poker machines or casino activities. It is about nipping in the bud an industry, which is still very much in its infancy, for a period of time in which we will be able to make some longer term judgments. If at the conclusion of the moratorium a ban is found not to be feasible and subsequently is not imposed, at the very least the government will urge the states and territories to enact a uniform national set of regulatory standards, formulated in consultation with the Commonwealth. That is all this is about. It is about having a breather, having a space to see whether we are just flying headlong into an area where we have seen so many problems develop.It has been noted for many years that gambling is a vice—though not for everybody; it is a major problem for a large number of its participants, leading in the long term often to personal crises and family collapse. A colleague in the legal profession commented only recently on the increase in fraud cases he was representing—most often as a result of runaway gambling habits. So it stands to reason that any increase in marketing and availability of gambling should be viewed very warily, given the fact that it is already estimated that one out of every 50 Australians is a `problem gambler'. I repeat: one out of every 50 Australians is a `problem gambler'. Many of those may not even know it yet. They may not have been exposed to the situation where they will develop into problem gamblers. But regular participants in the gambling industry, almost one in seven of these people, suffer the consequences of gambling to excess.The National Council of Churches shares these views and also points out that increases in gambling access correspond directly with a diversion of money away from such things as family necessities. In the mid-1990s, the relaxing of a ban on poker machines in Victoria coincided with a major reduction in supermarket takings. Since it is doubtful that the population had drastically reduced its food intake, it is fair to assume that this sudden increase in gambling exposure and availability not only attracted more gamblers but also created more problem gamblers who had presumably escaped the worst excesses previously. Even more concerning is the apparent tendency for those we see hunched over poker machines in pub gambling dens to be from the middle to lower end of the socioeconomic spectrum—the ones who can least afford to give their money away. This is constantly reinforced in my electorate of Parkes. It happens even in the poorest of communities, where the electronic equivalents of the one-armed bandits hold pride of place. I go into some towns in my electorate where kids roam the streets. Instead of being at school, they roam around and get into trouble and they are hungry, because their parents have succumbed to the vices of drugs, alcohol and gambling—the dreaded pokies. I do not think it is drawing too long a bow to talk about people being genetically pre-disposed to addictive behaviour. I see it everywhere in my electorate: it is the same people with addictive behaviour who are involved in poker machines who also display addictive behaviour in relation to drugs and to alcohol.The opposition say, `This is too hard; you can't do it. You can't do anything about it, so why are we even trying?' They just throw their hands up in the air and do not even have a go. I believe that there are enough reasons for this government to be in favour of maintaining our numerous social and legislative safeguards on the ease with which people can gamble away their savings. Despite the heavy reliance on gambling revenue, some state governments have shown some willingness to put the brakes on betting outlets such as poker machines. Steps have included longer delays between games, smaller wager limits, along with an awareness campaign and hot lines. I understand there have also been changes made whereby larger winnings must be cashed rather than held over in credits. These steps have been taken because of a radical change in the availability of gambling over the past two or three decades. Yet the move to Internet gambling represents an increase in gambling availability almost overnight that far outstrips the market gains made by the industry in the last 30 years.This legislation is a concerted attempt by this government to begin to upgrade the safeguards and parameters that have always surrounded gambling to cope with this aggressive and readily presented new strain of gambling. The government has proposed a 12-month moratorium on the development of the local online industry while it weighs the pros and cons of banning or attempting to ban Internet gambling in general. From the days when SP bookies were vigorously pursued by the authorities to the emergence of home delivered instant gambling, often by use of credit cards, this represents a massive increase in the risks inherent in gambling. It even erodes those tiny barriers to blowing more money on betting by eliminating the need to get dressed up to go out to the pub or the club, for example, or the need to at least get up and replace lost funds at a cash machine whereby there is more likelihood of a gambler in some way keeping track of his or her losses.This government seeks to call to a halt this aggressive expansion so we can fully weigh these issues, but we will make no decision until the results of a study into the feasibility of banning Internet gambling are known. There is no doubt Australian owned gambling sites will reap huge amounts of money from hapless gamblers. If it were not so, the opportunity would not have been pursued by them with anything like the same vigour. Some members opposite talk about exporting jobs overseas. So what? If we want to take that same line of argument, we could talk about the many jobs in the tobacco and alcohol industries—whether in manufacture, distribution or, if we take it a bit further down the line, in the health field with doctors, nurses and physiotherapists. Sure there are jobs associated with this industry, but there are jobs associated with other industries that we have come to learn are perhaps less than desirable. Given the choice, we will probably sacrifice some of the jobs—cardiac surgeons, thoracic surgeons, who are treating people with emphysema related to cigarette smoking. We have to look at more than the surface to see whether these are jobs that do not have flow-on effects, whether these are jobs that we actually want to create in Australia. So we must have breathing space to assess the desirability of Internet gambling before the growth of local companies has provided too much employment and government income to ever face the prospect of being removed. That is what we are trying to do here. If we do nothing now, then that sends the message that we will never do anything to try and address this problem. If we allow the industry to take off to the extent where government revenues and social habits are reliant on Internet gambling, there is no way that any government will attack it. This is the one and only opportunity we will have to address this problem. It is only a moratorium. Now, following opposition from the Labor Party, we now have less than seven months to effect this moratorium. As a new and emerging national industry with more direct access to advertising and promotion, Australian Internet gambling companies will inevitably raise the profile, appeal and acceptability of online punting through aggressive marketing that is not pursued at this stage by offshore operators. Nobody will start an online gambling business in Australia without the intention of cultivating a customer base. At the moment the ones we hear about operating out of the Caribbean do not promote online gambling in Australia as such. But, if we have Australian companies setting up in Australia, they will be doing it to build a customer base and there will be more people exposed to Internet gambling than there are today. One of the previous speakers mentioned—and I tend to agree with him—that even a small brake on somebody's intention to gamble may be enough to cause them to think, `Well, if I am dealing with a company in the Caribbean, how will I be guaranteed that if I do have a win'—which I would have to say is largely unlikely—`I will be able to collect my winnings?' That is just a small brake that needs to be put into the minds of people who may be considering gambling on the Internet. Of the 1,000 sites currently in operation, many are set up in developing nations such as the Caribbean where government regulations are scant. These sites offer no protection to problem gamblers and winnings obtained from these sites come with no guarantee of the winnings being provided to successful participants. This is the sole basis of the argument of the `do nothing' brigade opposite: `It is too hard; don't even try.' What if we took the same line of thinking on our roads? We have cars that can drive at 120, 150 and 200 kilometres an hour, yet we have speed limits because we recognise that it is not safe for the community to drive at those speeds. The cars are capable of doing it. If you apply the same logic put forward by the opposition to that argument we would not have speed limits. We have a speed limit to try to influence the behaviour of people who are able, if they so choose, to drive fast on our roads, but we try to influence them by saying that they should not. Here we are trying to put some legislation in that says, `Sure, we know. At the moment we cannot stop people from gambling on the Internet but we have to send the message out that we as a government, as a nation, have determined that it is not a desirable thing to do. It is not in the best interests of our people.' Although no safeguards are completely failsafe, I understand much can be done to dramatically restrict access to these foreign sites and to the way that they operate if, after the moratorium, we decide that a total ban is not possible. Again this gives us breathing space to investigate how we can influence the industry. The fantastically lucrative science of liberating gamblers from their money has evolved with lightning speed from the equivalent of horse-drawn carriages to Formula One racing cars within a matter of a few short decades. Despite its appeal to many people, we recognised long ago that gambling in the days of horse-drawn technology held many dangers and needed a number of constraints upon it to limit damage to the community. With the arrival of Internet technology in gambling it is beholden on a responsible government to fully weigh the ramifications of such high paced development to make sure that community safeguards are up to speed. This government is striving to do so without causing major disruption and major loss to any fledgling Australian online industry which will emerge in the meantime. I wholeheartedly support this bill. 12:52:0023629Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—I am delighted to be able to speak on the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000. Colleagues considering this bill should not be influenced by interested parties who would have you believe that this bill will inhibit innovation and over-regulate the interactive gambling industry. This bill seeks merely to introduce a 12-month moratorium on the establishment of additional sites and the expansion of interactive gambling services. In my last speech on this issue I outlined my grave concern that the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000 had been blocked by the Labor Party in the other place. However, we now have the opportunity in this House to have the bill passed for the good of all Australians and their families. The government will not give up on these people, as the opposition has done. The opposition belligerently asked just how the government will stop people gambling on the Internet. That is not the purpose of this bill. The aim of the bill is to identify measures to best tackle the problems of gambling addiction. Reducing access to gambling services for problem gamblers would appear to be a logical step. A moratorium on the expansion of interactive gambling services is a logical and responsible measure. This government does what needs to be done in the best interests of all Australians. Interactive gambling delivers a traditional casino environment or public pokie lounge into the homes of those who least need further access. It is appropriate this time to put some facts on the record. As I have stated on other occasions, the Productivity Commission's final report into Australia's gambling industries, released in December 1999 by the Prime Minister, outlines the magnitude of the social and economic impact of gambling in Australia and it included the following findings. Australians are the world's biggest per capita gamblers, losing an average of $776 per adult, with losses in excess of $11 billion—double the figure at the beginning of the 1990s. Australia has 290,000 problem gamblers—2.1 per cent of Australian adults—each losing an average of $12,000 per year, compared with $650 for other gamblers. Each problem gambler, on average, impacts on the lives of five others. Problem gamblers account for one-third of all gambling expenditure, with the extent of gambling losses derived from problem gamblers varying according to the form of gambling from 5.7 per cent for lotteries to 42.3 per cent for gaming machines. Levels of problem gambling are linked to the level of accessibility and type of gambling products. Electronic gaming machines account for between 65 to 80 per cent of problem gamblers in Australia. There is considerable public concern about the level of gambling in Australia. Nationally, about 70 per cent of Australians believe it does more harm than good. In South Australia the figure is 85 per cent, and 92 per cent of Australians do not want to see any more gaming machines. If this bill can stop one problem gambler, online and armed with a credit card, from gambling away the family home in one sitting, the government will be vindicated. This is not a dramatic illustration but a realistic example of just how insidious interactive gambling can be. I applaud the Prime Minister, Minister Richard Alston and our government for their initiatives in this area. I would like to thank two of my state South Australian colleagues, the Hon. Angus Redford, MLC and the Hon. Nick Xenophon, MLC, for their work in this area—particularly the Hon. Nick Xenophon for his untiring, persistent and dedicated work and lobbying in this area. I would also like to thank the Rev. Tim Costello for his untiring and dedicated work in regard to this issue. I have great pleasure in commending this bill to the House.12:56:0023629McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank all members from both sides who have contributed to this now long debate on the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000. This is an extremely important and, indeed, sensitive social and economic issue. Anybody who participated in it is entitled to our respect. Nonetheless, in regard to the Labor contributors, I struggle to properly understand their argument. This is a moratorium. This is not a ban. Even though the shadow minister, during his address to the House, would have us believe that the government has already concluded its view on future action, that is not so. The consultation process has been under way for several months now with the community and with sectors of the gaming industry. Indeed, it has been a completely open process. When the cabinet decides these issues next year, it will do so on the basis of having heard the views of all interested parties and, indeed, those of the wider community. I wonder whether the Australian Labor Party made a contribution to the discussion paper issued by NOIE, the National Office for the Information Economy. Did the Labor Party make any contribution to that consultation process? I think not. All we have got to rely on from the Labor Party is convoluted thinking that you should not proceed with the moratorium because the government has a set agenda to follow—when the Labor Party already has a set agenda. This is a moratorium to provide the breathing space necessary to carefully, methodically examine the issues. What are the pros and cons of a total ban on interactive gambling? Technology is moving at a frightening pace, and you cannot make decisions on the run. You cannot be beholden to any interest group. So the moratorium makes perfect sense. Moreover, it would have the support of the overwhelming majority of the community. Labor members railed against gambling and the social, economic and even cultural effects it has on the community. They are opposed, it seems, to excessive gambling—as any right thinking person would be and as the government is. Yet they oppose a moratorium until 18 May next year. That would allow us to decide whether it is socially as well as technically feasible to impose a ban on interactive, or Internet, gambling.Where is the logic of the Labor Party's position, let alone the morality of it? It is opposed to gambling but does not want to have a moratorium on a looming new form of gambling and, arguably, a more seductive form than presently exists. The government cannot take the Labor Party seriously on this issue. We are doing what the community would want. It is a matter of grave disappointment to Senator Alston, who has charge of this matter, that he is not receiving the support of enough of his colleagues on the Ministerial Council on Gambling, made of up of state and territory ministers. It is perfectly logical to have a moratorium and to enforce the moratorium until considered decisions can be made as to whether or not a permanent ban is imposed on interactive gambling.I understand that Labor does support a strict licensing and regulatory regime in Australia but does not give us any details as to what form or structure that might take, let alone its practicality. It is something that we are examining ourselves at the moment. That is part of the consultation processthe open mind that we bring to the subject matter. But we need to do it within the comfort zone of a moratorium lest the proponents of interactive gambling streak ahead, never to be reined in should it be the considered decision of the parliament that there be a ban in future. The Labor Party should be supporting us, and it is. Sure, the shadow minister for communications has a second reading amendment which effectively guts the bill, which is in effect opposed to the bill, but it will support the bill once it votes on the amendment. 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—That is not true.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—Oh, you will oppose the bill too? Interesting.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I gave the minister the courtesy earlier of advising him that the process on this bill was that we would divide on the second reading and then formally oppose all other stages without the need for a division so as not to delay the House. If you want us to divide on each stage of this bill, we will. Do not misrepresent me and our position. We oppose this bill and if you want us to divide on it we will.10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—There is no point of order.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—The opposition's behaviour in this House is entirely in its own hands, but I do not accept that the opposition's not moving to a division on the second reading is opposition to the bill. The opposition supports the thrust of this bill, despite its protestations, and it is simply going through the motions. It opposes for the sake of opposing. It has no alternatives to this bill any more than it does on other issues of government administration. We see it all the time. It opposed GST; it is now part of its platform. It opposed private health insurance; it is now part of its platform. The defence reform is now part of its platform. Everything the government does, it opposes, tries to crank up scare campaigns and then adopts the position itself. It is shallow, opportunistic and it is increasingly being seen to be so by the Australian electorate, given that it is led by a leader with no ticker. The fact is we are fulfilling 5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I rise on a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. When the division has ruined his colleagues' lunch, they will know whom to blame.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! There is no point of order.XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—What a trite, banal point. The opposition is not going to call a division because it might ruin someone's lunch! That is of no concern to government members because we take this legislation seriously. We believe it is a pressing social issue and we are not playing politics of convenience with regard to it.This is important legislation. The community expects a responsible government to examine the issue carefully. We cannot examine it carefully unless we have a moratorium on Internet gambling, otherwise every unscrupulous operator will have seized the opportunity, knowing the government has it under consideration, to install a business. It would be legally, as well as practically, impossible to rein it in.I thank the government members who have contributed. They have done so on behalf of their constituents. I would like to see members of the Labor Party take this out into the community and say they are supporting Internet and interactive gambling. That is, in effect, what they are doing. They support an expansion of the plethora of gambling outlets and opportunities that permeate throughout the community today. They support interactive gambling. Despite all of their clever wording and any divisions they may or may not call, the fact is they are opposed to the government. That means they support interactive gambling but only for the time being because, once the government passes this legislation for a moratorium, Labor backbenchers will be out in their communities telling the world that it is a good thing there is a moratorium on interactive gaming. That is what they do in everything. They should stand up at public meetings and they should go to community groups and tell them that they actually support interactive gambling without a moratorium to consider the position and see how far they get. They lack the courage of their convictions.Question put:That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Stephen Smith's amendment) stand part of the question. 13:10:00The House divided. (Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. D.G.H. Adams) 77Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Theophanous, A.C.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.61Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J..Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.JHoward, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Vaile, M.A.J.O'Byrne, M.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the bill be now read a second time.13:17:00The House divided.(Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. D.G.H. Adams) 73Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Theophanous, A.C.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.61Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Vaile, M.A.J.O'Byrne, M.A.* denotes tellerIn division—MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: how do people who are not present report to the tellers to tell them that they have changed their vote?10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—They cannot report to the tellers.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: my understanding is that, under the standing orders, those who voted in the previous division must remain in the seat in which they originally voted. I can name at least six government members who are not in their original seats, chief amongst them the Leader of the House, who should be setting a better example.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! If members have changed their seats, they should tell the tellers. For the information of honourable members, the tellers are doing a total recount on this division.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: would you instruct government members to stay in their seats to facilitate the next division, please?10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is a hypothetical question.Question so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. 23633Motion (by Mr McGauran)—by leave—put:That the bill be now read a third time.13:27:00The House divided.(Mr Deputy Speaker—Hon. D.G.H. Adams) 78Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Theophanous, A.C.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.61Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W.Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Vaile, M.A.J.O'Byrne, M.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a third time.Bill read a third time.Committees23634236342363410000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—Mr Speaker has received a message from the Senate acquainting the House that Senator Gibbs has been discharged from attendanace on the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and Senator McKiernan has been appointed a member of the committee.Bills23634R110823634Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate does not further press its request for an amendment which the House has not made and has agreed to the bill.Bills23634R104923634Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendments Nos 1 to 33 disagreed to by the House and has agreed to the amendments made by the House in place of amendments Nos 19 and 21 to 26.Business2363413:32:0023634Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10— Mr Deputy Speaker, if I could just briefly have your indulgence, for the benefit of honourable members, I advise about some of the arrangements for today. It is proposed that question time be, by agreement, at 2.30 today rather than at 2 o'clock. You should have notice of an extended dinner break from 6.30 to 8.30 tonight. It is proposed that the usual Christmas greetings and salutations be conducted at the end of the day, at 10 p.m. Finally, it is expected that the House will sit very late. We, of course, cannot be more precise. The understanding we have loosely with the other side is that we will sit the House as late as is necessary to obviate the need for the House to sit tomorrow morning, which I think suits everybody's convenience. On that basis, it could be very, very late, but I think that is still too for the convenience of members. That being the case, Mr Deputy Speaker, I formally move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent questions without notice being asked at 2.30 p.m. today.13:34:0023634McMullan, Bob (Manager of Opposition Business)Mr McMULLAN5I4FraserALPManager of Opposition Business00—There is no controversy about these matters. I just formally advise the House that we got the same advice as the Leader of the House about the change to the question time arrangements and the same amount of notice about it. For the same reason he is agreeing, we are going to agree. There must be a terrific cricket match going on. The other arrangements are acceptable to us and we will cooperate in those. Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations2363413:35:0023634Mr LAURIE FERGUSON,MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?8T4Mr LAURIE FERGUSON,MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—Yes.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Please proceed.8T4Mr LAURIE FERGUSON,MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON—On Tuesday this week in the New South Wales parliament, Liberal MLC Charlie Lynn read on to the record part of a letter from a Ms Janice Hamilton which makes allegations about my knowledge of and involvement in people being falsely on the electoral roll. The principal allegation against me by Ms Hamilton is that I instructed her to be falsely enrolled. I categorically deny this.Ms Hamilton is described in this morning's Sydney Morning Herald as a former staff member of mine. Ms Hamilton was employed by my office for a total of 41¾ hours over a two-year period. Ms Hamilton's claims go to the enrolment of a number of people other than herself and are demonstrably unreliable. For example, one of the people Ms Hamilton claims was falsely enrolled in Parramatta electorate with my knowledge was Ms Angela Tocher. A check of the records has shown that Ms Angela Tocher has not been enrolled anywhere except in Carlingford, in the electorate of Mitchell. I could not have had knowledge of her enrolment in Parramatta because she has never been enrolled in Parramatta. A similar claim is made against Ms Joanne Basha. A search of the record shows that Ms Basha has been enrolled in Belmore—I think some people here would know where that is in Sydney—not Parramatta, since September 1995, the first point at which Ms Hamilton joined the Labor Party in the area. Furthermore, I note that Ms Basha had transferred out of the Harris Park Branch of the Labor Party in July that year. Ms Hamilton claims that she was instructed by me—according to Mr Charlie Lynn's handwritten annotations on the letter—to retain her electoral enrolment in Parramatta throughout 1998 and for half of 1999, even though she had by then moved to the Wollongong area. Her assertion is that she was forced to remain incorrectly enrolled so she could vote in future elections and ALP preselections. I completely deny this claim. It is wrong, and demonstrably wrong. In October 1998, Ms Janice Hamilton transferred, in her own handwriting, her ALP membership from Harris Park Branch to Bulli-Woonona Branch, making it impossible for her to take part in preselections in Parramatta, regardless of where she was on the electoral roll. This is a regrettable and unreliable set of allegations. It does the Liberal Party in New South Wales no credit that it sought to use them in this way. I seek leave to table the transfer in the Labor Party of Ms Janice Hamilton.Leave granted.Bills23635R115023635Consideration resumed from 5 December.Senate's amendments— (1) Clause 3, page 2 (after line 19), at the end of paragraph (a), add: (iv) that may, on its own initiative, conduct inquiries into matters related to research and research education and publish the results; and(2) Clause 4, page 3 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add:States includes the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory.(3) Clause 6, page 4 (after line 20), after paragraph (1)(c), insert: (ca) the function of conducting, on its own initiative, inquiries into matters related to research and research education, and publishing the results; and (cb) the function of making recommendations to the Minister about matters related to research and research education; and(4) Clause 6, page 4 (after line 29), at the end of the clause, add: (5) The Minister must cause a copy of any request made under subsection (2) to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the day on which the request was made.(5) Clause 7, page 5 (lines 9 to 11), omit subclause (3), substitute: (3) Particulars of any directions given by the Minister under this section in a financial year must be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the direction is given; and (b) included in the annual report for the ARC for the financial year.(6) Clause 10, page 6 (lines 22 to 24), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) Particulars of any directions given by the Minister under this section in a financial year must be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the direction is given; and (b) included in the annual report for the ARC for the financial year.(7) Clause 11, page 7 (lines 10 to 12), omit subclause (2), substitute: (2) Particulars of any notifications given by the Minister under this section in a financial year must be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the notification is given; and (b) included in the annual report for the ARC for the financial year.(8) Clause 12, page 8 (after line 16), after paragraph (b), insert: (ba) a person who represents research students; and(9) Clause 12, page 8 (after line 21), at the end of the clause, add: (2) The person mentioned in paragraph (1)(ba) must: (a) be enrolled in a post-graduate degree course at an Australian university; or (b) have obtained a post-graduate degree from an Australian university in the 12 months preceding his or her appointment.(10) Clause 52, page 29 (after line 31), at the end of the clause, add: (5) If the Minister does not approve a recommendation under subsection (1), the Minister must, as soon as practicable, cause to be tabled in each House of the Parliament copies of a report including the following information: (a) for each of the proposals recommended but not approved for funding: (i) the name of the organisation seeking financial assistance for the proposal; (ii) a description of the research program; (iii) the name and title of the person leading the research program; (iv) a statement of reasons why the proposal was not approved for funding; (b) the names of all persons who, or organisations which, provided advice to the Minister in respect of each of the proposals recommended but not approved for funding. (6) If the Minister approves for funding any proposal other than a proposal recommended for approval under subsection (1), the Minister must, as soon as practicable, cause to be tabled in each House of the Parliament copies of a report including the following information: (a) for each of the proposals approved, but not recommended under subsection (1) for funding: (i) the name of the organisation seeking financial assistance for the proposal; (ii) a description of the research program; (iii) the name and title of the person leading the research program; (iv) a statement of reasons why the proposal was approved for funding; and (b) the names of all persons who, or organisations which, provided advice to the Minister in respect of each of the proposals approved for funding.(11) Page 36 (after line 27), at the end of Subdivision D, add:61A Rules to be tabled Particulars of rules approved by the Minister under section 60 or varied by the Minister under section 61 must be: (a) tabled in each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of that House after the rules are approved or varied, as the case may be; and (b) included in the annual report for the ARC for the financial year in which the approval or variation occurs. Motion (by Mr Abbott) proposed:That the amendments be disagreed to.13:39:0023637Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, the reason there is a gap in time here is that the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs was in the chamber a few minutes ago. He obviously has left the chamber for some reason. He perhaps will come back to close off the debate. In the meantime, I might just make a few remarks about the opposition's position on the amendments that have been successfully carried in the Senate.The government's attitude on these bills, which seek to restructure the Australian Research Council and seek to restructure the way research funds are awarded to Australian universities and research institutes, is extremely difficult to understand. While it has been prepared to negotiate useful amendments with the opposition on legislation about indigenous education and education for overseas students, it has taken a stubborn and unreasonable stance on changes to research funding.Labor's amendments to the proposed structure of the Australian Research Council ensure that the new ARC lives up to the government's rhetoric. Our first amendment means that the ARC can continue as it has done since its inception 12 years ago—that is, we are seeking to retain for the ARC its right to initiate advice to the minister. The government has advanced no sensible argument as to why this power should be stripped from what it is trying to present as an independent advisory body with an enhanced role. Several of the other amendments go to accountability—for example, requiring the minister to give details to parliament of occasions when he diverges from ARC advice about which research proposals to approve for funding. I cannot understand why the government objects to this.Other amendments simply require tabling in parliament of information which will be available in the ARC's annual report. It seems quite pointless to oppose this. By not agreeing to the opposition's amendment which lists the institutions able to access Commonwealth research and research training funding, the government is seeking to remove from the federal parliament the power to make judgments about how Commonwealth money is spent. We find this particularly inexplicable, coming as it does from a minister who one of his Liberal colleagues once described as `a total centralist'. I acknowledge the fact that Minister Kemp has now joined us for this discussion on the ARC.The opposition have expressed their concern about the way in which the original bill would allow scarce research funds to be diverted to private corporations. We could imagine BHP, Telstra or even McDonald's seeking to access ARC research funds. We have proposed and successfully had carried in the Senate an amendment which restricts access to the ARC research funds to the listed Australian public universities and also the University of Notre Dame. The opposition have detailed many times their criticisms of the green and white papers on research funding. A key criticism is the lack of much needed extra funding. Only the government can address that. The changes effected by the amendments before the House make important improvements to the proposed restructure of the ARC and to the way in which institutions can become eligible for research funding. There is no reason for these amendments to be rejected.13:42:0023637Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The Australian Research Council Bill 2000 and the Australian Research Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000 as put forward in this parliament had the intention of broadening and strengthening the ARC's role in providing both strategic policy advice to the government and administering a new financial regime of support for excellent research. The amendments proposed by the Senate threatened to jeopardise the key function of the ARC by overwhelming it with paperwork. They potentially jeopardise the consultative relationship between the government and the ARC, altering the balance between the performance of the ARC's statutory duty to inform the government on particular priorities rather than those priorities of the ARC's choosing. They expand the membership of the board in a manner which is unworkable and, finally, although not unrelated to the operation of the ARC, the amendments impose unnecessary restrictions on the availability of funding to support research and research training. In particular, they remove access to Commonwealth funding for research and research training from at least one university currently in receipt of it. The government, therefore, has moved that the House of Representatives not accept any of these amendments. The Senate amendments Nos 1 and 3 deal with the capacity of the ARC to conduct inquiries on its own initiative. The government's 1999 policy statement `Knowledge and Innovation' clearly set out the role and functions of the ARC as providing strategic policy advice to the government. Unlike the functions of the previous act, the government may seek advice on matters related to research—a broader definition than that currently specified in the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988. That definition would not preclude seeking advice on research training. The strategic planning process outlined in the bill will also provide a new and effective way of developing advice to government on matters related to research.There is nothing in the bill which prevents the ARC from drawing the minister's attention to an issue which should be referred to it for further investigation and advice. Such an approach ensures that there is regular consultation between the minister and the primary body on research matters. These amendments do not carry over the original provisions in the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988, which specified that the ARC could only perform any inquiry on its own motion provided that it did not prejudice the performance of its other functions under that act. The absence of such a caveat in this amendment jeopardises the balance between the ARC's performance of those functions outlined in the act to which the government would accord priority and those matters which the ARC believes would enhance the government's decision making ability. Finally, the function of making recommendations to the minister about matters related to research and research education effectively duplicates the other functions of the ARC; namely, to provide recommendations on proposals for approval for funding assistance and the function of providing advice to the minister.Senate amendment (2), which relates to the definition of states, is unnecessary because there is only one clause which may require the term `state' to be defined; namely, clause 58, conditions of payment of financial assistance. However, as this clause expresses criteria to be met in terms of `state', `the Australian Capital Territory' and `the Northern Territory', the definition is redundant.Senate amendments Nos 4, 5, 6, 7 and 11 relating to requests, directions, notification and funding rules again are amendments which add little to the legislation. While it is important for government actions to be accountable, the amendments put in place a more onerous administrative requirement on the ARC than that which was stipulated in the bill agreed to by the House or which currently exists under the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988. The bill agreed to by the House of Representatives required that the minister's requests for advice, directions and notifications of Commonwealth policies be recorded in the ARC's annual report and open to proper scrutiny through that process. I would like to remind the House that the ARC's independence in assessing excellent research proposals for funding approval is protected, as the minister is prevented by other provisions in the bill from directing the ARC to recommend that a particular proposal should or should not be approved for funding.13:47:0023638Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Perhaps I could put a question to the minister. Can you explain to us why you believe the ARC should no longer have the power to initiate advice to the minister? He says that there will be opportunities for the ARC to raise matters with the minister and for the minister and the ARC to have a conversation and, if the minister agrees, that may result in the minister initiating an inquiry that might result in a report that becomes public. For the last 12 years the ARC has had the power to initiate its own inquiries and to provide advice to the minister as a result of its own decisions. Minister, why do you believe the ARC should no longer have the power to initiate advice to the minister? 13:48:0023639Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I have already addressed this issue in my remarks on the bill. I think it is important to emphasise first of all that the amendment that has been made in the Senate does not include the caveat relating to inquiries initiated by the ARC itself, which are in the legislation—the Employment, Education and Training Act 1988, which the Labor Party put in power. So we have here in fact an exceptional effort to broaden the capacity of the ARC to self-initiate inquiries. It is very important that the ARC carry out in its advisory role the wishes of the government for advice. The process that is put in this particular bill ensures that there is a process of consultation between the ARC and the government on matters brought forward by the ARC. That seems to the government to be as it should be. It is inappropriate to have a provision in the bill which does not ensure that there is going to be adequate consultation between the ARC and the government, and that is the reason for the government taking the position that it has.13:49:0023639Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—While not accepting the explanation of the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, I will move on to another issue to assist the House—although we do find it hard to understand how the government can claim that the ARC is an independent advisory body if it does not have this power which it has had for the past 12 years. An issue that is probably even more important than the independence of the ARC is who will be able to receive funds from the ARC. The minister understands the concerns the opposition has expressed about allowing the ARC and the minister to award research funds to corporate entities, and we have used examples such as Telstra, BHP or even McDonald's Australia. Given that we have a research pool whose funds are limited and we have scarce research funds going to our public universities, could the minister please explain to us why we should allow those scarce research dollars to be at risk of being diverted to corporate entities such as those in the examples I have given? We are not against the federal government providing research funds to Telstra or BHP if they are going to do high quality international research. We just think that should be funded through a new pool of research funds so that we do not have to steal funds from our great public universities to inject extra research funds into private corporations. The government tries to suggest to us in some way that it is unlikely that the ARC will award significant research dollars to private entities, but we know how this minister works. It is a fingernail inside the door, then it is a finger and then it is a foot, and before you know it we have corporations that will be able to access scarce research dollars that otherwise would be going to our public universities. The billion dollar cuts from our public universities and the decline in the last three years in private R&D research expenditure means that we do have a research crisis in Australia. Great Australian researchers working in our public universities need every dollar they can get, and the reason we have pressed this amendment is that we believe it is important to protect the existing dollars for our public universities, and I ask the minister to explain why the government wants to leave open the possibility of these ARC research funds being diverted to BHP, Telstra or McDonald's.13:52:0023639Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—This is another of these fantasies that the Labor Party goes on with that has no basis in reality. Let me state unequivocally for the record that the framework for the funding for research and research training under the High Education Funding Act 1988 as outlined in Knowledge and Innovation will support only those higher education institutions listed on the Australian qualifications framework registers and that provide an approved research and research training management plan to the government. It will not support research in BHP, Telstra, Microsoft or any other corporation; nor will this mean that these organisations can issue postgraduate research degrees. The inclusion of an ultimate process of recognition provides an avenue for universities to continue to receive Commonwealth funding for research and research training under specific circumstances, such as a change to the Australian qualifications framework processes, including something as simple as a name change to one of the registers. It is not intended to bypass agreed national protocols or the processes instituted in the states and territories. And I make the further point that, by requiring that the minister's determination be a disallowable instrument and thus subject to parliamentary scrutiny, it will ensure that the opposition's worst fears are not realised.13:53:0023640Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—To assist the House, I will just indicate that we will not pursue our arguments in this chamber. There is another chamber where we will have a further opportunity to press our arguments with all the strength at our disposal.Question resolved in the affirmative.13:54:0023640Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10— I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendments, and I move: That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills23640R114923640Consideration resumed from 5 December.Senate's amendments— (1) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 21), at the end of subsection (1B), add: ; and (c) the institution or body is listed in Schedule 1.(2) Schedule 1, item 4, page 3 (line 30) to page 4 (line 17), omit subsection (1D), substitute: (1D) For the purposes of paragraph (1B)(b), an institution or body is an accredited higher education institution or body if (and only if) the institution or body is included as a higher education institution on both of the following registers (as in force when the relevant expenditure proposal is being considered by the Minister): (a) the Australian Qualifications Framework Register of Authorities empowered by Government to Accredit Post-Compulsory Education and Training Courses; (b) the Australian Qualifications Framework Register of Bodies with Authority to Issue Qualifications.(3) Schedule 1, item 4, page 4 (lines 18 to 23), omit subsection (1E) (but not the note), substitute: (1E) The Minister may, by instrument in writing, determine requirements to be satisfied for a plan to be approved under paragraph (1C)(b).(4) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 33), at the end of the Schedule, add:8 At the end of the ActAdd:Schedule 1—Institutions or bodies eligible for special research assistanceNote: See section 23. Institutions or bodies eligible for special research assistanceItemName of institution or body1Australian Catholic University2Charles Sturt University3Southern Cross University4Macquarie University5The University of New England6The University of New South Wales7The University of Newcastle8The University of Sydney9University of Technology, Sydney10University of Western Sydney11University of Wollongong12Deakin University13La Trobe University14Monash University15Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology16Swinburne University of Technology17The University of Melbourne18University of Ballarat19Victoria University of Technology20Central Queensland University21Griffith University22James Cook University23Queensland University of Technology24The University of Queensland25University of Southern Queensland26University of the Sunshine Coast27Curtin University of Technology28Edith Cowan University29Murdoch University30The University of Western Australia31The Flinders University of South Australia32The University of Adelaide33University of South Australia34University of Tasmania35Batchelor College36Northern Territory University37Australian Maritime College38The Australian National University39University of Canberra40The University of Notre Dame Australia13:55:0023641Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the amendments be disagreed to.The government's stance on this matter relates to the reasons I have already given for supporting the bill in its original form. There are a number of consequential and transitional amendments here. Senate amendment No. 1 will limit the availability of funds for special research assistance in the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 to those institutions listed on the proposed schedule. It will have the effect of removing at least one university which is already in receipt of research funding to continued access to research funding under this provision. The Labor Party may not be aware of it, but this university has received $165,000 to support the provision of high quality research training and the performance of research. Why the Labor Party wants to remove this university from access to research funds I do not know.Senate amendment No. 2 substitutes the requirements as to what constitutes an accredited higher education institution, limiting it only to those institutions listed on the two Australian qualifications framework registers. The removal of the ultimate process of recognition, which has apparently been a shadow that the ALP has started at, could result in the inability of universities to receive funding for research and research training if, for example, there is a change in the AQF processes or something as simple as a change of name.Senate amendment No. 3 removes the stipulation that the determination of ultimate instruments for recognition of accredited higher education institutions be a disallowable instrument. The fact that it is a disallowable instrument I would have thought would be of value to the Labor Party. Senate amendment No. 4 adds a schedule of institutions eligible to receive funding under section 23 of the Higher Education Funding Act 1988. The schedule restricts the eligibility criteria for special research assistance in such a way as to prevent an institution currently in receipt of funding from receiving additional funding, as well as requiring additional amendments whenever any further higher education institution meets the additional criteria for access to research funding as set out by the bill—namely, being listed on the registers of the Australian qualifications framework and having submitted an approved research and research training management plan. Accordingly, through the motion I have moved, the House of Representatives should not accept these amendments.13:57:0023641Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I have outlined previously the opposition's reasons for pressing these amendments. We will outline them in the Senate. I will not delay the House by calling a division on the vote that is about to take place but, for the Hansard record, we will vote against this on the voices.Question resolved in the affirmative.13:58:0023642Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I present the reasons for the House of Representatives disagreeing to the amendments of the Senate, and I move: That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmativeBills23642R112823642Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate, having considered message No. 605 of the House of Representatives, does not further press its requests for amendments which the House has not made and has agreed to the bill with further amendments.Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 8, page 123 (table, column 2), omit “110” (wherever occurring), substitute “440”.(2) Schedule 8, page 123 (table, column 3), omit “527” (wherever occurring), substitute “1000”.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith. MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Could I seek your indulgence to make a comment, Mr Speaker?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I recognise the member for Dobell.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—The opposition will be seeking to have separate divisions on these two amendments. One amendment deals with the enrolment benchmark adjustment. The other one deals with funding for category 1 schools. I do not know whether the minister is about to move a motion on how we deal with these amendments. But, if that will assist the minister in how we deal with this from now on, given the speed with which this has come back from the Senate, the opposition will be grateful.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I appreciate what the member for Dobell is attempting to achieve, but I understood when I entered the chair that it was the wish of the House to consider the amendments together, so I am in the hands of the minister.Motion (by Dr Kemp) proposed:That the Senate amendments be considered together and one question be put on the amendments.14:01:0023642Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has moved, as I understand it, that all the amendments will be dealt with as one item. Is that correct?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—That is my understanding.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—I wish to speak on that. In moving that motion, the minister is seeking to deny to the opposition the opportunity to have a separate vote on the two matters dealt with in these amendments. The minister knows full well that there are two matters that have been pressed that are dealt with in these amendments. We have been very cooperative with the government this afternoon in dealing with the Australian Research Council bills and the education services for overseas students legislation. If the minister wants to play hard ball with the way we are going to deal with these amendments from now on, the opposition will respond in kind. I am a great believer in Newton's third law—for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. If the minister refuses to allow the opposition the chance for separate divisions on the abolition of the EBA and holds the category 1 schools to the current levels of funding, as the day finishes and as the night progresses and we deal with this legislation, it will be the government that bears the consequences of this.The reason I believe the amendments should be dealt with separately is that the enrolment benchmark adjustment is opposed by many Australians. The enrolment benchmark adjustment is totally unrelated to the socioeconomic status funding system that the government has introduced. Various groups might support or oppose the new SES model, and in some ways it is quite unrelated to the enrolment benchmark adjustment. The EBA was a creature of this government's 1996 budget, which decided that the government would take money away from state departments of education if there were a change in the percentage level of students attending government schools. There are many organisations that are very active lobbyists for the various private school stakeholders, and they argue very strongly that the enrolment benchmark adjustment, the unfair EBA, has done nothing but promote great tension between government and non-government schools. Many non-government school organisations oppose it, even if they happen to support the new SES index. It is for that reason that we believe there should be a separate vote on the EBA and a separate vote on holding back the category 1 schools to their existing level of funding. Many of us on this side of the House have concerns about both the EBA and the new SES funding system, and it is for that reason that we believe members of the government should be held accountable for their position on both the EBA and the restrictions in funding for category 1 schools. I say to my colleagues the member for Rankin and the member for Reid that, if they wish to speak in this debate on the minister's motion to restrict us debating these amendments separately, I encourage them to speak for their full allocated amount of time. I intend to. Unless the government is prepared to give ground and allow a separate vote on these matters, we intend to use all of the time available to us in this debate to remind the House of this government's intentions on this legislation.The point to make about the enrolment benchmark adjustment is that it does not work on the number of students who are attending government schools or non-government schools. The unfair EBA has already taken $60 million away from public schools across the country, even though there are 26,000 extra students at government schools. The EBA works on a percentage formula. If the percentage of students attending government and non-government schools changes, the government takes money away from state departments of education. The point is that it is an unfair change. It not only recovers money from state education departments through the per capita formula; it is a double whammy, because the government comes back a second time and through the EBA takes money away from five of the six state departments of education. Like the minister, this EBA has only one-way action. It only takes money away from public schools. In Tasmania, there has actually been an increase in the percentage of students attending government schools, but they do not get extra funding because of the EBA. The EBA, like this minister, only takes money away from public education.It is no secret that concern about the EBA is not restricted to public advocates for public schools. The National Catholic Education Commission is one excellent example. The National Catholic Education Commission has been saying in the Senate committee process and in public statements that it supports the abolition of the EBA. If anyone other than David Kemp were Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, they would have repealed the EBA by now. If anyone other than David Kemp is Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs after Christmas, I am sure they will repeal the EBA.Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) put:That the question be now put.14:11:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 74Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.63Adams, D.G.H.Andren, P.J.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J..Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.JHoward, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Vaile, M.A.J.O'Byrne, M.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I recognise the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question that the House has carried is that the question be put. I do not know why the call would go to the minister.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I understand, and I must reassure the member for Dobell that I would have allowed the minister only to restate the question. But I will state the question. The question is that the Senate amendments be considered together and one question be put on the amendments.14:16:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.63Adams, D.G.H.Andren, P.J.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J..Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.JHoward, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Vaile, M.A.J.O'Byrne, M.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.14:18:0023645Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the amendments be disagreed to.The Senate has made more than 20 amendments to the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill 2000. The government does not support these amendments but believes that the bill which left the House on 6 September 2000 is fair and equitable and provides the best basis for Commonwealth funding for school education. I shall shortly provide the House with full reasons for the government's rejection of these amendments. The government is prepared to provide the opposition with a few minutes to state its objections to the government's actions.14:18:0023645Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—The opposition will be opposing the motion before the House, because we believe that it is an outrage that this government is seeking to provide $57 million a year to 61 category 1 schools. These amendments hold these category 1 schools at their current level of funding so that they are treated the same way as 70 per cent of non-government schools in Australia. Under our amendments, those 61 wealthy category 1 schools will be treated the same way as every Catholic systemic school in the country and the 272 non-government schools that would be worse off under this new funding formula. Our amendments ensure that those category 1 schools are kept at their current level of funding and then indexed according to normal government school costs.Our amendments also abolish the unfair and unjust enrolment benchmark adjustment. As I said before, the only education minister that would have kept the EBA after it had so much opposition is Dr David Kemp. If he ceases to be Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs in the reshuffle that is coming after Christmas, we can only hope that the new Liberal minister for education will consider abolishing the unfair and unjust enrolment benchmark adjustment. It is an outrage that Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria are losing funds under this enrolment benchmark adjustment and that Tasmania—where the percentage of students attending government schools is increasing—gets no extra funding under the EBA. Like this minister, the EBA acts in only one direction: to take money off public schools.The reason why we have pressed our amendments in this House and in the Senate is that we believe we would make this bill fairer by abolishing the enrolment benchmark adjustment. It has already taken $60 million away from public schools. By abolishing it in this parliament today we could reinject an extra $30 million a year into local public schools across the country. If we kept the category 1 wealthy schools at their current level of funding, we would free up $145 million, which Labor argues should be invested into special education—extra funding for students with disabilities so that they have a better chance to get a basic foundation through their education. It is for these reasons we believe that— Motion (by Dr Kemp) put:That the question be now put.14:25:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 76Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.63Adams, D.G.H.Andren, P.J.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J..Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.JHoward, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Vaile, M.A.J.O'Byrne, M.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the amendments be disagreed to.14:30:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 77Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.64Adams, D.G.H.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Vaile, M.A.J.O'Byrne, M.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the commencement of question time today until the conclusion of consideration of the Senate amendments to this bill.14:31:0023647Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—I would like to speak to this motion. The point I wish to make is that they allowed us 2½ minutes to deal with a bill that funds education to the extent of $22 billion. Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the question be now put.14:36:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 78Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.64Adams, D.G.H.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Vaile, M.A.J.O'Byrne, M.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Reith's) be agreed to.14:41:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 78Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.64Adams, D.G.H.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Vaile, M.A.J.O'Byrne, M.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.14:42:0023649Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to the Senate amendments. I move: That the reasons be adopted.14:43:0023649Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—Mr Speaker, question time would have been triggered automatically at half past two if the government had not suspended standing orders. It is the government's fault that we are in this position.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the member for Dobell addressing the question?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—It is an insult to the House to allow us only—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell will either address the question before the chair or resume his seat.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—The government has only allowed 2½ minutes to deal with a bill that allocates $22 billion. It is an outrage, Mr Speaker, and that is why the opposition opposes the reasons why these amendments are not being adopted.Motion (by Dr Kemp) put:That the question be now put.14:44:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 78Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.64Adams, D.G.H.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Vaile, M.A.J.O'Byrne, M.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Dr Kemp's) be agreed to.14:47:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 78Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Moore, J.C.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.64Adams, D.G.H.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Vaile, M.A.J.O'Byrne, M.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Ministerial Arrangements2365014:48:0023650Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that, owing to the late start of question time today, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister will be absent for the latter part of question time as they will be meeting their Indonesian counterparts in the Australia-Indonesia Ministerial Forum, commencing at 3.30. The Minister for Defence will answer questions on behalf of the foreign minister, and I will answer any questions on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Treasurer.Distinguished Visitors2365014:49:0023650Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—May I take the opportunity of welcoming our Indonesian visitors. They are present in the gallery. The Australia-Indonesia Ministerial Forum is an important bilateral ministerial exchange between our two countries, and I know that members on both sides of the House place very great store on this meeting and will wish the talks every success.Honourable members—Hear, hear!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I think it appropriate, having been the guest of the Indonesian Speaker about three weeks ago in Indonesia that, I, too, on behalf of the parliament, extend a warm welcome to our visitors from Indonesia. I thank the Prime Minister for his sentiments.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice236512365114:49:0023651Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you assure the House that the bipartisan approach to reconciliation reflected in the unanimous vote of the parliament to establish the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation will be continued by your government? Will you put this into practice by joining with the Labor Party in enacting recommendation 6 of the council's final report, which proposed that the Commonwealth enact legislation to put in place a process to consider some form of agreement through which unresolved issues of reconciliation can be resolved?23651Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I can certainly assure the Leader of the Opposition and all members of the House that the terms and conditions of the resolution that was passed by the parliament last year will be honoured and supported by the government. I have received on behalf of the government—as have the Leader of the Opposition on behalf of the opposition, the Deputy Prime Minister on behalf of the National Party, and the Leader of the Democrats on behalf of the Australian Democrats—the final report of the council. It contains a number of recommendations. We will consider all of those recommendations.Without in any way wishing to walk away from the spirit that was displayed at this morning's breakfast, I think the Leader of the Opposition knows that the government has certain reservations about the concept of a treaty. What I had to say this morning was seen as a clear statement of very strong support for reconciliation. What I had to say this morning was said against the background of the views that we had previously expressed in relation to a treaty, and those views remain. But I think it is important in this whole area to do what I sensed was the desire of the members of the council this morning, and certainly of the chairman of the council, Dr Evelyn Scott, who has given dignified and very strong leadership to the reconciliation movement, and that is that we try to focus as much as we possibly can on those areas where all of us agree, and there are many areas of agreement in relation to reconciliation. It is true that there are some different views about the concept of a treaty, and I notice that the Leader of the Opposition has focused on something where we disagree but I think it is more important to focus on those things where we agree. Those things where we agree on reconciliation are much greater, more important, stronger and more enduring that those areas where we disagree.2365114:52:0023651Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of the findings of the final report of the WTO dispute settlement panel into US measures against Australian lamb?23651Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for McEwen for her question. I am quite delighted to inform the House that the final report of the World Trade Organisation panel on lamb meat has found against the United States. This is tremendous news for Australian exporters. For the first time in living memory, to my understanding, there appears to be a modicum of international trade justice for the farmers of Australia. For too long, our primary producers have laboured under a world trading order which not only has discriminated against primary producers to the benefit of those who depend more heavily on manufactured goods but, even amongst primary producers, has written the rules to advantage the Americans and the Europeans to the detriment of Australians and New Zealanders.What was done by the United States in relation to lamb was indefensible. It was the subject of very strong representations at the time, by me and the Minister for Trade, to the American administration. Those representations at a political level were of no avail; but, to his very great credit, the Minister for Trade and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade supporting him did not give up. I want to thank the minister—who is once again overseas doing trade business on behalf of Australia—and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the great work that they did.The WTO panel has reaffirmed its interim finding that the United States is in breach of its World Trade Organisation obligations and that the tariffs it imposed on our lamb imports are unjustified. I understand that the report will be released publicly in the next few weeks. From the beginning of this dispute, the government has been pursuing actively the vital interests of Australian lamb farmers. We have always maintained that the American measures were wrong. I understand that it is still open to the United States to appeal against the report. If it does so, Australia will vigorously defend the findings. I also make the point that, when the process of appeal has been resolved and this matter is finally concluded in Australia's favour, we will expect of the Americans immediate action to remove the unfair quotas that have been imposed on our lamb exporters—just as they required of us immediate action in relation to the Howe Leather company. This is a very important victory for Australian farmers and it is a victory they deserve. It is a recognition long denied to them that there is some justice in the international trading system, and I hope that it is seen throughout the farming community as a token of the long-term value of pursuing more open trade. In the end, the salvation of Australian exporters is in a more open, liberal world trading system. Because of our size, we cannot retreat into protection and the imposition of quotas. It is tough, it is very hard and it is very unrewarding, but in the long run a country of Australia's size will benefit more than many others from an open, liberal world trading system.2365214:56:0023652Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, can you confirm that the Department of Transport and Regional Services commissioned Quantum Market Research to undertake $200,000 worth of public opinion research in non-metropolitan areas as part of the Regional Australia Strategy and that the results were provided to the government at the start of this year? Can you also confirm that this research included federal election voting intentions in Queensland, the results of which are set out on page 6 of the leaked report, which has been suppressed by the government? Was this report suppressed because it improperly contains partisan political research funded by the taxpayer? Will you now tell the House when you, your office or your department received a copy?23652Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I cannot confirm or deny anything—Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—in the Leader of the Opposition's question. What I will do, as is appropriate in these circumstances where I am uninformed, is to put the question on notice and, if there is anything I can usefully say or am able to say to the House, I will.2365214:58:0023652Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister advise the House of the public reaction to the government's Defence white paper?23652Moore, John, MPMr MOOREEI4RyanLPMinister for Defence10—I can respond to the honourable member's question by saying that there has been a very positive response indeed. She would have recognised this because her electorate embraces a very big defence area and, no doubt, her office has been getting phone calls this morning, as has mine, in response to yesterday's white paper which the Prime Minister announced. The response has particularly come from industry, who are extraordinarily appreciative of the planning and long-term commitment to investment and capability by Defence. Personnel have been overcome by calls to inquire as to what prospects there might be for new terms of engagement within the ADF. Members of the ADF have made inquiries to my office asking as to what particular benefits might be flowing to them. The general response across the board has been particularly good. I would also like to point out that the press have picked up on a couple of areas of this, and I picked up a random three quotes from the very many articles this morning that cover the Defence white paper. Firstly, the Australian carried a story by Alan Dupont under the heading `The white paper is a clear and outstanding work'. It went on to say:This is the best white paper on defence in the past 25 years. It provides a clear strategic roadmap... In the Age Tony Parkinson comments: ... the white paper is a measured document that carries no hint of ... bravado. It restores perspective to the debate.' Finally, I have read a third random sample of good news. The Financial Review editorial says:What is more significant is that the strategic planning outlook and the financial planning outlook in the new White Paper ... have more prospect of measuring up than has been the case in the past.They are just three random samples of good news and appreciation for what the Prime Minister has done with the white paper on defence.2365315:00:0023653Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services and follows on from the previous question relating to the research by Quantum Market Research commissioned by the government. Can the minister confirm that the Quantum Market research commissioned by his department found that fewer than one in 10 people felt that the government is doing a good job in the areas of health, education, environment, communications, transport, business and jobs? Can the minister also confirm that this research concludes that the government has failed to live up to expectations, particularly in rural and regional Australia? Was this report suppressed not only because it improperly contained partisan political research but also because it contained findings that are an obvious embarrassment to the minister and his government?23653Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I can inform the questioner only that I have not seen that research. Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—I have not.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Prime Minister has the call and will be heard in silence.4K4Mr ANDERSON—The government has a very long and impressive record of achievements in rural and regional Australia. The only thing I can tell the honourable member is that I have seen plenty of survey work—not funded by the taxpayer, I might say—that indicates that the ALP is most certainly not viewed as relevant to rural and regional Australia's needs.2365315:02:0023653Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer detail to the House what has been achieved in the area of tax policy during the past year and outline future plans for reform of the tax system?23653Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for his question. I can inform the House that the legislative reform of the Australian taxation system will be viewed as one of the great achievements of this parliament in the year 2000. The legislative achievement in tax policy enacted by this House and this parliament this year is larger than any other tax reform or financial reform put in place in Australia. On 1 July this year, income taxes were lowered by $12 billion, and 80 per cent of Australians now face a marginal tax rate no higher than 30 per cent. From 1 July this year, families were benefited by an additional $2.4 billion in family allowances. On 1 July this year, pensions were increased by four per cent and pensioners and self-funded retirees were paid savings bonuses. From 1 July this year, Commonwealth-state relations were reformed with the greatest reform in Australian federal history when the states secured a growth revenue base of 10 per cent of GST. On 1 July this year the wholesale sales tax was abolished. As enacted this year, capital gains tax was cut in half for individuals so that they need pay capital gains tax at marginal rates on only half their gains. Small business men and farmers who had held assets for 15 years, were 55 and intended to retire were given the opportunity to sell off that asset capital gains tax free. Investment in venture capital was encouraged, and foreign funds and pension funds were given the opportunity to invest capital gains tax free. Scrip for scrip rollover relief was introduced. Company tax rates were lowered from 36 per cent to 34 per cent and will go to 30 per cent next year. Refunds of imputation credits were introduced from 1 July 2000, and today the government introduced its simplified taxation system for small business. Not only have we implemented all of that and registered I think some three million entities with Australian business numbers but we have now received 1.6 million business activity statement returns. The level of legislative and administration change this year has been without parallel in the tax or financial area.All of Australia breathlessly awaits this Christmas the announcement of the famous roll-back policy. On the 7.30 Report on 23 February 2000, the Leader of the Opposition said:... people are entitled to know where the Labor Party stands on the GST ... They're also entitled to know exactly what we'd do in the next term of government with a GST ... People are entitled to know it and not be deceived.After making that comment on 23 February 2000, the Leader of the Opposition has done everything he can to hornswoggle to make sure that the people of Australia do not know where the Labor Party stands on GST. He has done everything he can to hornswoggle to make sure that they do not know what the Labor Party would do. He has tried to hornswoggle and deceive the Australian public about his roll-back policy. Australia now breathlessly awaits. Roll-back—the policy that the Labor Party has pledged to the people, which they are entitled to know in detail and about which they are entitled not to be deceived or hornswoggled by the Leader of the Opposition—needs to be explained. The Labor Party must put its cards on the table so we will have the opportunity to expose its lack of policy and the way in which all Australians know it has failed.2365415:07:0023654Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—My question is also addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to his endorsement in question time yesterday of the claim of the Commissioner of Taxation that existing law does not allow an employer and an employee to be the same person for the purpose of superannuation tax deductions. Isn't it true that this claim has been contradicted by legal opinions to the Taxation Office from Professor Richard Vann in August 1998, who recommended legislation to overcome the problem, and Sydney barrister Chris Bevan in February 1999, and further contradicted by the Australian Taxation Office Technical Liaison Committee in October 1998? Given this, why won't you make the legislation to outlaw the superannuation tax avoidance schemes retrospective to October 1998?23654Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I note that the Labor Party supports retrospective legislation. It is not something that as a matter of course governments have endorsed, and they certainly do not endorse it where the advice to them from their tax commissioner is that such legislation is not required. I referred yesterday to a speech from the tax commissioner on 15 November 2000. The commissioner stated there what is his advice to the government and always has been, that because a general anti-avoidance measure operates to strike down avoidance of taxation liabilities he intends to rely upon it. I also referred yesterday to his point that he has advice, which he accepts, from senior counsel as to its adequacy in dealing with these matters.We rely on and operate upon the advice of the Commissioner of Taxation. The member for Wills is well known for his personal attacks on the Commissioner of Taxation—some of the most disgraceful attacks that I have ever heard in this House. The Commissioner of Taxation I have respect for as an independent statutory officer, and I rely on his advice. The Commissioner of Taxation was first appointed by a Labor Party government that obviously, when it was in government, had confidence in him. Its attempts to now impugn his integrity are just another example of the depths to which Labor will descend.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You hypocrite!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition knows that that sort of language is unacceptable in the House and long has been. I ask him to withdraw it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I withdraw.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin Thomson—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the opinion to the tax office from Sydney barrister Chris Bevan, dated 26 February 1999. Leave not granted.2365515:11:0023655Fischer, Tim, MPMr TIM FISCHERDG4FarrerNP10—Mr Speaker, happy Christmas. My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the Australia-Indonesia Ministerial Forum taking place in Canberra today and the role that this forum will play in building the bilateral relationship between Australia and our neighbouring country Indonesia?23655Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—First, I thank the honourable member for Farrer for his question. Everybody knows of the great interest he has taken in the bilateral relationship with Indonesia and the enthusiastic support he has provided for Australia's interests in that relationship. As the Prime Minister has already said, we very warmly welcome our colleagues, who are sitting in the gallery this afternoon, from Indonesia—the delegation which will make up the Indonesian side of the Australia-Indonesia Ministerial Forum. We look forward to the forum beginning in the course of this afternoon and proceeding through to tomorrow.This forum takes place on top of some 10 ministerial visits this year in both directions between Australia and Indonesia. The forum does epitomise the breadth of our relations, bringing together on this occasion 16 Australian and Indonesian ministers who oversee the work of 10 specialised working groups covering areas as diverse as legal cooperation, education, mining and energy, and health. This dialogue is underpinned by, and it is intended to encourage, the very strong and growing people-to-people links between Australia and Indonesia. We have around 18,000 Indonesian students now studying in Australia, and during the last year our bilateral merchandise trade has grown by about eight per cent to $5.3 billion.It is well known that over the last couple of years we have had some differences with Indonesia, but it is important that the differences that we have be kept in a mature perspective. We do share a fundamental congruence of interests in the security and the prosperity of our region. Indonesia's territorial integrity, which we fully support, its prosperity and its respect for the rights of all its people are central to the achievement of this objective. We are committed to working with Indonesia to develop the relationship further on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect. As was affirmed yesterday in the white paper, we are committed to working with Indonesia to establish over time a new defence relationship that will serve our enduring shared strategic interests. Indonesia has gone through a welcome and historic transition to a vibrant democracy. That will mean in time that the relationship between our two countries is more natural and more durable than it has been in the past.Finally, let me pay tribute both to the Prime Minister and also to President Wahid for the constructive way in which they have approached their personal relationships over the course of this year. They have met on three separate occasions and, on each of those occasions, I think have worked very constructively in the interests of an appropriate bilateral relationship.2365515:14:0023655Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister. Do you recall the Prime Minister advising the House yesterday that One Nation should be placed last on all Liberal Party how-to-vote cards in Australia? Do you agree that One Nation should be placed last on all National Party how-to-vote cards in Australia and, if so, what action will you take to ensure that the National Party puts One Nation last on all its how-to-vote cards in Queensland?23655Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I do not support One Nation's approach to the difficulties being experienced in regional Australia, both real and those that they try to build up and the bogeymen that they try to present to, if you like, worry people about, and that will be always reflected in my approach to where they ought to be placed in terms of preferences. I do note, however, that I do not have total control over what state organisations do at the level of their parties.Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—I do not; it is a reality. We are not some sort of centrally controlled organisation, and I say it plainly.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—The National Party does not have a politburo.4K4Mr ANDERSON—We do not have a politburo. I am sorry about that, but we do not. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman! LS4Ferguson, Martin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Batman is defying the chair.4K4Mr ANDERSON—And nothing I have said, can I say to the member for Batman, would imply that I would do anything other than put my case strongly and forcefully on this matter—as did the previous leader. He did it successfully; I should imagine that I will be successful in the same thing.2365615:16:0023656Causley, Ian, MPMr CAUSLEY4K6PageNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House the government's achievements in the transport and regional services portfolio? Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware of any alternate policies?23656Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—We have had a very active year in the portfolio. To cover some transport matters to begin with, in the area of roads we are now seeing very significant new levels of investment in infrastructure. That has been highlighted by the announcement in recent days of $1.2 billion of increased funding for local roads and also $400 million for national highways and roads of national importance. In fact, that represents, as I said yesterday, a 12 per cent increase in road funding in overall terms. Indeed, next year, in 2001-02, the government's direct expenditure on road infrastructure will be around 16 per cent greater than it was under Labor, and for local roads in the next financial year we will spend 100 per cent more than Labor did in their final budget when they were in government. In aviation, we have had a very active year. We have actually seen—and it is often overlooked and easy to overlook—the transformation of the Australian aviation industry. As a result of the government's policies, Australia has two new domestic airlines successfully launched, with high load factors, and passenger movements along the east coast have increased by more than 25 per cent. At the same time we have just reached in this country our first open skies agreement, which is with New Zealand. The way in which we were able to progressively take that forward and then sign off is in stark contrast with the efforts of Laurie Brereton in the dying days of the ALP government in the way it dealt with New Zealand. It has to be said, too, that Sydney airport, including the air traffic controllers, performed magnificently during the Olympics, and they deserve recognition for it—despite the predictions of doom and gloom from the member for Batman, the old `tit for tatter' over there. Sydney airport recorded its busiest day in history on 2 October with over 1,000 arrivals and departures—all of the movements handled safely, all of them managed without changing or offending the curfew rules and all within the 80 movements per hour cap.In relation to rail, we have the Alice to Darwin railway. The Commonwealth has now formalised its $165 million contribution. Advice from the project developer is that final arrangements are to be settled before Christmas. Of course, $250 million has been dedicated to the Interstate Rail Investment Fund. With the ARTC, the Australian Rail Track Corporation, the Commonwealth has now overseen a very significant improvement in the performance of the interstate rail track which is making a real difference in terms of efficiency and costs. A couple of examples are that train lengths are increasing and temporary speed restrictions are being reduced from 27 per cent in Victoria to just two per cent today over the time that we have been in government. The Melbourne to Adelaide transit times for superfreighters have now been reduced by no less than two hours. We have progressed the NR sale. We do not believe in owning above-track operations. Like road, we think we will get the best efficiencies in transport, the best economic outcomes, if we own the infrastructure and the private sector competes above that infrastructure. So NR arrangements have now been agreed with New South Wales and with Victoria for the 100 per cent sale of NRC. The inland rail, or ATEC as it is known, has now seen the Commonwealth support work by the private sector which shows that this proposal is soundly based and economically and socially beneficial. We have touched on the waterfront in this place. There were all those allegations made by the defenders of poor performance in this country that it was impossible to reach an average productivity of 25 movements an hour. As we have now heard, it is as high as 28 at some ports in Australia, and we have reached an overall average of 24.9 lifts per hour. Australia is now finally obtaining the world-class waterfront that it deserves. So, in a whole range of areas, shipping reform included, we are making real progress. In terms of our approach to regional policy, it has been a very active year. We have had the $562 million Regional Health Initiative, which will finally meaningfully address the crisis of the shortage of doctors and specialists in rural and regional Australia. I again thank the Minister for Health and Aged Care for his outstanding support and work in that regard. There has been very significant movement on assistance for education, particularly for those in isolated areas. There has been an over $300 million extension of Agriculture—Advance Australia, $45 million for the dairy assistance program and major assistance for the restructuring of the dairy industry which came about because of the movement of the Victorian industry with the support of its government. And so the list goes on.This week, because we are in a strong position to be able to do so, we were able to meet the needs of flood victims in Queensland and New South Wales with a $216 million package. In terms of our long-term approach, that brings me to the final point I want to make. We are going to tackle the insidious problem of salinity in this country—which is a problem not just for agriculture but for communications, for town councils, for housing, for recreation and for a whole range of infrastructure issues in this country—with a $1.5 billion package. This is a very meaningful, very important and very much needed approach to a very serious problem for Australia.2365715:23:0023657Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Minister, do you recall saying yesterday in relation to the contract to run the Woomera Detention Centre: In order to allow adequate negotiations for an approach to the market if the ACS offer is not accepted, the department has agreed to extend the period of the current contract to 21 December 2001 on existing terms and conditions. Minister, exactly when was the decision to guarantee ACM an extra 12 months operation of Woomera made? Was it after allegations of rape, child sexual abuse, cover-ups and intimidation were brought to the attention of your department?23657Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I do recall the statement, and I believe it is a correct restatement of what I said to the parliament yesterday. I do not have the precise date with me. I will obtain it and I will let the honourable member know.2365715:24:0023657Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House of how the Howard government has continued to improve Australia's health care system over the last 12 months. How have Australians benefited from the government's reforms? Is the minister aware of any alternative health policies? 23657Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The last 12 months have been a big year of achievement in health care in Australia. The government has achieved in five predominant areas: rural health, public sector health, the private health sector, work with the professions and public health generally. The centrepiece of this year's budget was $562 million to address chronic problems in rural health care. This means that next year we will be spending about $300 million on rural health initiatives, up from $100 million when we came into government. I expect within a couple of weeks to be able to announce the location of new clinical schools in university departments of rural health, which is a historic change that will take perhaps 20 per cent of all medical training physically out of capital cities and forever put it in rural locations. Earlier this week I went with the member for Herbert to open a new medical school at James Cook University, the first new medical school opened anywhere in Australia in 27 years. This medical school will very much contribute to the future health needs of North Queensland. In public sector health, this year state governments had $6.3 billion of funding from the federal government, up $1.3 billion in just 2½ years since the last year of the previous Labor government's health care agreement. That is a 17 per cent increase in funding and an amount of money that is unprecedented at any time during the Medicare health care agreements. In terms of the private health care sector, we have been very successful with lifetime health cover and the 30 per cent rebate. There are 8.8 million Australians now in private health insurance, an increase of 50 per cent over what it was a bit over 12 months previously. No-gap products have taken off at a rate that has been unimaginable and 60 per cent of all in-hospital services are now covered by no gap whatsoever. These, again, are chronic problems that have not been able to be addressed by previous governments. In working with the professions, we now have agreement with the Committee of Presidents of Medical Colleges for fast track arrangements for getting specialist doctors into areas of need—something that has been a problem for more than 20 years. We signed the third five-year pharmacy agreement, which will enhance the professional role of pharmacy and we have set up a general practice training board that is the biggest change in general practice training since the family medicine program started 30 years ago. In public health, just in the last 12 months we have had major trials on bowel cancer, the National Depression Initiative and the National Child Nutrition Program. This year for the first time everyone over 65 got an influenza vaccine free and we have had a full phase-out of all tobacco advertising in Australia—something that no other country has been able to negotiate with international motor sport anywhere in the world.I contrast this with the normal carping, negative, whingeing bleating we get from the opposition. The opposition can be measured by their own standards. In July 1999 the opposition promised that by July 2000 they would have key policy achievements in areas of health. Let me read out to honourable members where the opposition said they would have detailed policies by July 2000. PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Jagajaga.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—They promised detailed policies to develop a publicly funded coordinated care program to supplement Medicare for the elderly. We have not seen anything. They promised to overcome major inequities in our health system with programs targeted at Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. We have seen nothing whatsoever. They promised to tackle the special needs of mental health—not a single policy idea. They promised to focus on health promotion and early intervention to reduce the long-term financial burden of ill-health. We have seen nothing whatsoever in that area. They promised to control the rising cost of medicine by ensuring that technology is used effectively—no ideas on that either. They promised greater access to information for consumers using the opportunities of new technology. So in their own areas, five months after they promised they would be in, the opposition have been completely unable to come up with any policy idea. It could be laziness. It could just be complete lack of ability.2365815:29:0023658Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. Are you aware of fresh allegations raised by Amnesty International referred to the Ombudsman and reported in this morning's Australian that an 11-year-old girl detained at Woomera was confined for nine days in a cell with no window, shower or toilets along with her father and 23 other men? Are you also aware that the young girl is reported to be psychologically scarred by this experience, suffering hallucinations and traumatic nightmares? Minister, will you now heed the call of Amnesty International and establish a full independent judicial inquiry into the ever growing number of horrific allegations concerning detention centres in Australia? 23659Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition for the question. I am aware of the reports in the newspaper today of the statements made by Amnesty yesterday. The first point I would make quite strongly in relation to this matter is that Amnesty conceded in today's Australian newspaper that these allegations are uncorroborated. I have said on a number of occasions—and I said it before—that when allegations involve children I take them seriously.5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—Then why don't you have an inquiry into this?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The point I make very strongly in relation to these matters is that there is a determined campaign at the moment by some people who want to unwind contractual arrangements and by others who want to unwind the mandatory detention arrangements. That is quite clear. The campaign has been going on for some time, and it is quite a malicious campaign which has been designed to demonise the people who have a job to do in relation to the detention policy. One of the points that I would make very strongly is that their task is not easy. There are some people involved who are innocents, but there are others who have quite malicious intent.5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—What about the victims?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—One of the points I would make about the situation is that we have Australians who are carrying out the detention task unarmed. These are not jails. If they were jails, there would be arms available to secure the facilities. We have a situation in which some people are deliberately involved in intimidating the staff. We have had weapons that have been manufactured—and I will table information for honourable members—in the detention centres, which evidences very significantly some of the threats that the Australian staff have to endure.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call and is responding to the question. I will not tolerate unprovoked intervention from anybody, including the member for McMillan.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Some of the staff are women employed by Australian Correctional Services. As I said before, they are unarmed with a job to do. One of the concerns I have is that this debate that you are progressing with unsubstantiated allegations and uncorroborated allegations, which I will deal with in greater detail in a moment, is changing very significantly the way in which detainees act in relation to the people who have these responsibilities. It is a matter on which there are people making very deliberate and very mischievous allegations, and they have been doing it for some time. Opposition members interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—I act when there is evidence on which there should be action, and I make that very clear. Let me deal with these matters, if I may, because these allegations are uncorroborated. The point I have made over a period of time is that anyone who has substantial information on abuse should make it available to appropriate authorities, and that includes the Ombudsman. The process of inquiries in relation to these matters is ongoing. The first matter is that children were allegedly being transported to Port Hedland and were not given food for 32 hours and one had leg restraints applied to him. Let me just make it clear: we have no leg restraints. We do have handcuffs, but leg restraints just do not exist and children under 16 are not restrained, even with handcuffs.Opposition member interjecting—0J4Mr RUDDOCK—First of all, the allegation is that children were being transported to Port Hedland, were not being given food for 32 hours and had leg restraints applied. I made the point that there are no leg restraints. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—So what is the question?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—It made reference to the allegations by Amnesty yesterday. That was the first allegation made. Further in relation to that matter, there has been no child restrained using leg restraints. These allegations have been raised before and no case has been identified. The reason no case has been identified is that there is no evidence of it ever happening.Let me deal with the food. Children were transported to Port Hedland from Villawood after there had been a significant hunger strike over a period of time which had become significantly unmanageable, and there were people outside the detention centre on megaphones and microphones encouraging them to deliberately behave in this way. That is what was happening, and it was necessary, in order to ensure the safety of other individuals who were involved—particularly the children who were involved in the hunger strike, which involved them being deprived of food for very much longer than 32 hours—for the groups to be broken up. Some were taken to Port Hedland, some were taken to Woomera, some were taken to Maribyrnong in Melbourne and some were relocated to Villawood in Sydney. Those who were transported to Port Hedland were given food. They were given food on the plane, but it was not partaken of in some cases by the children because the children were asleep. But the food was there. In relation to the time when they arrived at Port Hedland, further food was available to them. That provision was made at the time they arrived. It is very clear that that allegation has absolutely no substance.There was an allegation that a four-year-old girl at Maribyrnong suffered a broken wrist and waited two weeks before being X-rayed. If such an event had occurred, it would be well remembered. But neither the centre manager nor the ACM manager can recall any such incident taking place. They have checked all medical records and are continuing to check those medical records to see whether or not there is any substance in it. In relation to the further allegation that an 11-year-old girl and her father were kept in a confined space at the Woomera immigration reception and processing centre, the interview with Carolyn Graydon of Amnesty International seems to indicate that this was the secure compound, but details are unclear. The media notes that the allegation has been brought to the attention of the Ombudsman. Let me just say in relation to that that this fits the description of an 11-year-old Iraqi girl with her father who were in Woomera and that they have never been confined with 22 other men.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra—What about 21?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—They have never been confined with other men. Let me make this point clear: some very precise and specific allegations were brought forward in relation to the abuse of children, which were investigated by the police and by Family and Youth Services. In relation to each of those matters, the investigations confirmed that there was no necessity for the children involved to be taken into care—in other words, there was no evidence available of abuse upon which any charges could be brought or that would require separate arrangements to be made for the care of those children.We are inquiring into one specific matter, and we will know the outcome of the inquiry fairly shortly, because there will be a result from South Australia's Family and Youth Services. We will know the answer and I am reasonably confident as to what that answer will be, but I am not going to suggest that at this stage, because the inquiries are still afoot. But we will know. Because we were acting on good faith, we made one document available to the state department and the state department said: `We haven't seen that document before. We'd like to reopen the inquiry to have a further look at it.' That is the substantial issue and it relates to one specific incident, one specific document. That is the matter into which Mr Flood is inquiring. I do not regard it as satisfactory that a document that the state department thought was sufficiently important to have before them was not available at that time. That is why that investigation is being undertaken at the moment. Today, I further announced in relation to that that assistance will be provided to those people identified as having information which would assist the Flood inquiry. This assistance scheme has been set up to facilitate the provision of information from people identified by Mr Flood as perhaps having information which he believes is central to his inquiry. It will enable anyone who feels that they have information that they wish to make available to feel confident in putting forward that information to the inquiry. The scheme will cover reasonable costs of independent advice for them. I make the further point that any employee of the department or ACM who wishes to deal with Mr Flood and who has information to provide to him will be in no way restricted by any of the confidentiality provisions that were designed for another purpose, and the other purpose was simply to ensure that individuals making protection claims do not have their identity disclosed in ways which might jeopardise them or their families. That was the purpose of the confidentiality provisions and they were certainly very appropriate. The inquiry that is being undertaken is appropriate to the circumstances. The information that was given by Amnesty adds nothing.2366115:42:0023661Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister outline to the House the importance of agriculture to the health and prosperity of rural and regional Australia? Would the minister update the House on some of the unprecedented measures this coalition government has taken over the past 12 months to support our farmers? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies for Australian farmers?23661Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The honourable member for Grey knows, as all those who represent rural and regional Australia know, how important it is for rural industries to prosper if country communities are to grow strong. Indeed, the very best way that we can revitalise regional Australia is to strengthen its most important industry, and that is agriculture. This government has a very sound record of achievement, particularly during the last 12 months, which we look back on at the end of this parliamentary year with a degree of pride. The new tax system has delivered significant benefits to farmers. It has substantially reduced their costs.Over 70 per cent of primary producers will now be paying 17c in the dollar or less in income tax and their in-built costs will be reduced by this government's actions in relation to the abolition of the wholesale sales tax system and reductions in other elements of tax. The very fact that this government has repaid $50 billion worth of Labor's debt has meant lower interest rates, and that is particularly good news for farmers who are seeking to expand their production or, indeed, who need to meet the heavy costs associated with running a farm in this day and age. It has been independently estimated that the new tax system will result in savings of something like $5,500 for a medium grazing business and $18,000 for a cropping partnership. So those are very real benefits.But there have been other specific measures that this government has implemented during the past year to assist farmers. The AAA package provides a range of support for Australian farmers. The Farm Family Restart Scheme has assisted 4,000 people in agriculture. Some 30,000 have benefited from education and training programs through FarmBis. This year's budget provided another $300-plus million boost to those programs. We have introduced the new innovation in agriculture program, and the innovation council is having its first meeting in Canberra this week. So there has been a lot of work done in developing export markets and the opportunities that arise. The budget also provided additional funding for animal and plant health initiatives and continued the activities of the Natural Heritage Trust. We have been able to provide specific assistance to the sugar industry, the dairy industry, the pig industry and the sheep industry. We have provided a particular package in regard to the flooding that has occurred in New South Wales. The measures we have taken in relation to the lamb industry have particularly borne fruit today. The pretty lousy deal that Labor did in the WTO in relation to agriculture has provided very few benefits indeed to Australian farmers. At last now, as a result of the activities of the government, we have been able to redress some of the imbalance in that agreement as it affected agriculture in relation to lamb. Opposition members interjecting—GT4Mr TRUSS—The honourable member also asked whether there are any alternative policies. Opposition members are interjecting vigorously at the present time. Usually the noise is a demonstration that there are no alternative policies. That is abundantly clear. In fact, I have looked back in the past year, and the shadow minister for agriculture, who does not get much of a say when it comes to policy issues in the Labor caucus, has only asked me three questions in the entire year, and none of those were about policy matters. It is clear that Labor has no interest in policy. There has been no policy statement by the shadow minister on agriculture. He did not get a slot at the ALP conference in Hobart. Basically, there has been no interest in agricultural issues.There has been the odd comment on agricultural issues. The Leader of the Opposition said that, when it comes to spending money on the environment and the Natural Heritage Trust, it is a waste. Labor considers any money spent on rural heritage is a waste. When it comes to roads, that it is useless and unnecessary.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister is entitled to the same courtesy that every other member of the House expects to have extended to them.GT4Mr TRUSS—There has certainly been no policy activity whatsoever from Labor. It has been a classic case of the success of roll-back. They have rolled back their policy effort absolutely; it does not exist. 2366223662Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00 (3.47 p.m.)My question without notice is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, do you recall yesterday refusing to rule out the Kurnell Peninsula as the site for a second airport for Sydney? Given that you have previously said you would announce the government's decision on the second airport before Christmas this year, will you today rule out Kurnell as a possible site? If not, why are you prepared to sacrifice the people of Sutherland Shire and beyond just so you can save Minister Kelly?23662Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—In answer to the honourable member for Lowe, he is aware, as somebody who holds an electorate in Sydney, that the question of the future airport needs of Sydney is something that has challenged governments of both political persuasions over a long period of time.K26Latham, Mark, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Werriwa will withdraw that remark.K26Latham, Mark, MPMr Latham—I withdraw.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I do not mind saying to the member for Lowe that it is not an easy issue. When the Labor Party was in office, it did not find it an easy issue. Whatever option is chosen, the constituents in different electorates have different views. Your constituents have certain views about the matter—83DMurphy, John, MPZD4Mr HOWARD—By his reaction, the member for Lowe merely confirms the point I make. I represent people who had some strong views about the policies that were followed previously. There is a very strong argument in favour of the utilisation of Badgerys Creek. On the other hand, the evidence available to the government indicates there is very strong resistance—from not only the airlines but also many travellers, people who use aircraft frequently—to the use of Badgerys Creek. The question of the expansion of Bankstown is seen by many regional commuters as presaging the day when they might lose the convenience of being able to fly into Kingsford Smith. The government is examining all options in relation to this issue. That is why I said what I said yesterday—that I was not going to rule something out. It is an easy question for the member for Lowe to ask, as indeed it is an easy question for a lot of other people to ask. I want to say to the honourable gentleman that my recollection is that I indicated that something substantive would be said about this issue before Christmas. That still remains my intention. I do not pretend that it is an easy issue. We are looking at all the options. I would say to the honourable member and to all other members who are interested in this issue that, no matter what decision is ultimately taken, there will be a section of the community that will be unhappy with that decision. In relation to the issue of the curfew, I want to make it clear that it remains the firm policy of this government to maintain the curfew. In relation to noise sharing, it remains the view of this government that there should be a fair sharing of the noise burden among the people who live in Sydney. We do not believe, as some have believed in the past, that that burden of noise should be loaded onto one section of the community, with other sections of the community exempted.The other point that I would make to the honourable member, and I think it is something that is often lost sight of in this debate, is that we are very fortunate that the major international gateway into Australia—that is, Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport, the principal airport which people wish to fly into when visiting this country for the first time—happens conveniently and very beneficially to be located very close to the central business district. I happen to see that as an asset and not as a liability. It is an asset that we should try to expand, preserve and augment rather than, over time, plan to move away from. For that reason I see a continuing role for Sydney's Kingsford Smith airport. There are different ways of augmenting it and we are not ruling anything out. I think it would be unwise and contrary to good public policy to do so.2366315:53:0023663Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Community Services. Would the minister outline the successes of the government in family and community services over the last 12 months? How has the government improved services for all Australians and how does this contrast with Labor's record?23663Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I would like to thank the member for Bradfield. I know he has done a fantastic job in his chairmanship of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations and he has a very active interest in family and community services. I have got to say that the achievements of the Howard-Anderson government in the last year are certainly far more significant and far reaching than in the 13 years of Labor. As the Treasurer mentioned earlier, $2.4 billion extra has been given to two million families through tax reform. Pensions have been increased by four per cent this year. Pensioners are $28 a fortnight better off than if the Australian Labor Party had been in government. We have increased rent assistance by a maximum of 10 per cent. An extra $100 million has gone out in rent assistance this year. We have simplified the family tax payments, reducing the number of payments from 12 to three. The three payments are extraordinarily generous. With the tax cuts and the increase in family assistance, the Howard-Anderson government has delivered an extra $50 a fortnight for average families. We have delivered $900 million more in child care.There now are over 560 family assistance offices and over 1,000 Centrelink offices to provide services to both urban and regional Australia. For older Australians it will be interesting if the Labor Party chooses to roll back the savings bonus which they are terribly critical of: 1.8 million Australians have now received the aged persons savings bonus; 59 per cent have received in excess of $1,000 and 74 per cent have received in excess of $500; 233,000 self-funded retirees have received the supplementary bonus. Will the Australian Labor Party roll this back, particularly in regional and rural Australia? Moving on to youth allowance, from 1 July this year 75 per cent of farm and business assets will be exempt from the parenting means test—a very good initiative for parents in regional Australia. I have to say that Centrelink is doing a terrific job not only in delivering the sugar industry assistance package but also in delivering the flood relief package. There is also our stronger families and stronger communities package: $240 million. I compliment the Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Jocelyn Newman, on the welfare reform to which the government is absolutely committed. We will be delivering on that soon. What is Labor's record? What have they been doing to assist Australia? Absolutely nothing. Everybody is bored with Labor—there is no question about that. Did Labor support tax reform? No. Did they support it for older Australians? No—even the old boondoggler over there. Of course there was no support.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—It will be a plea for mercy. Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. There is a place in standing orders and in the daily business for ministerial statements, and any comprehensive outline of what the government thinks its policy is is appropriately located in that. This is just pure childish abuse.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.XJ6Mr ANTHONY—The only roll-back that has been going on is in Queensland where members of the Labor Party have been rolling over.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.2366415:58:0023664Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—My question without notice is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Does the minister recall stating that the purpose of his schools policy was to improve choice by reducing fees? In particular, does the minister recall his comments on Sunday Sunrise on 19 November that `our bill pushes fees down'? Can the minister now explain to the House why at least eight of Victoria's category 1 schools are planning to increase their fees—all of which are already $10,000 a year or more—by between five per cent and eight per cent even though these eight schools are sharing extraordinary increases of more than $10 million under your unfair new schools funding plan? Minister, will you now admit that your unfair schools funding plan has failed even by your own performance standards?3K6Cameron, Ross, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta might do well to do as I have done for the last week and look closely at previous Hansards and question time.23664Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I say to the member for Dobell that, yes, I have seen press reports about some schools in Melbourne raising their fees. They have been forced to raise these fees year after year as a result of the school funding policy that the Labor Party put in place. The school funding policy that applies to these schools at the moment is, in fact, the school funding policy which has forced many schools in Australia to raise their fees because, as soon as schools take the trouble to become well resourced and parents contribute to those schools, the Labor Party policy is that resources should be withdrawn from those schools by the government—they should be penalised and parents who invest in education should have a financial penalty imposed on them. The operation of that policy year after year has forced up school fees around Australia. Under the legislation currently before the Senate, there is a very strong incentive to lower fees and to keep fees down. For the first time we will see increasing pressure on all schools to open their doors more and more widely to parents in the lower socioeconomic levels. We have already seen a number of schools, including indeed some of the schools which have been forced this year by your policy to raise fees, that have made it clear that, when our policy is in operation, they will be reducing fees. That will be welcomed by parents. I say to the Labor Party that they should pass this legislation through the Senate as soon as possible to give the help to needier schools and needier families that they have long deserved. 2366516:01:0023665Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. With Christmas shopping in full swing, what effect has the tax reform package had on the price of toys?Honourable members—Ho, ho, ho!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I appreciate the fact the interjections are good natured, but no-one will hear any comment unless the House comes to order.23665Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Groom for his question. It is good news this Christmas for kids. It is good news for parents. Toys are going to be more than five per cent cheaper this Christmas as a result of the GST. Last year under the Labor Party's wholesale sales tax, toys were taxed at 22 per cent—kiddies toys at 22 per cent.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! I do not believe that it is necessary for the chair to intervene in what has been a good natured exchange, but some members—and I will not embarrass them by identifying them—have not been prepared to restrain themselves in an appropriate way, given the nature of the question and the answer.DK6Mr HOCKEY—We are talking about kids toys, here. Last year Australians spent $1.4 billion on toys.7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Prospect.DK6Mr HOCKEY—Around 60 per cent of this money was spent at Christmas time. In fact, every household in the country spent $195 on toys last year. With the introduction of the GST, Australians have saved $78 million in cheaper toys—5½ per cent cheaper. For example, when the member for Dunkley goes to Toy Kingdom in Langwarrin he will find that Tonka toys are cheaper.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—He's gone already.DK6Mr HOCKEY—He can start on the Scoresby corridor. When the member for McEwen goes to Toy World in Seymour he will find that toys are 5½ per cent cheaper. At Toys “R” Us at Garden City in the member for Moreton's electorate they are 5½ per cent cheaper—and at the well patronised Bundaberg Toy World in the member for Hinkler's electorate they are 5½ per cent cheaper. At Moss Vale Toys and Sports in Gilmore toys are 5½ per cent cheaper. Super Toys in Bateman's Bay in Eden-Monaro will be cheaper. At all of these, including All Occasions Toys and Gifts in Engadine in the member for Hughes's electorate—they might even have something for the Labor Party—toys will be 5½ per cent cheaper. Board games have come down 5.1 per cent—Monopoly, Scrabble, Guess Who? Construction toys, Tonka toys and Lego—some members on the front bench over there will enjoy this one—have come down 9.4 per cent. Dolls and Barbie dolls—you can imagine the Christmas tree at the Labor Party headquarters all stacked up with Barbie dolls and GI Joes, all with enrolment forms, all ready to change their names. They will be ready because they will be cheaper this Christmas. This is great news for Australian families. The kids are the winners out of this. Merry Christmas to everyone because the government has delivered cheaper toys this Christmas.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice236652366516:06:0023665Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I would like to add to an answer I gave during question time. The Leader of the Opposition asked me a question about a market research survey. I have not seen that survey. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Yes, you have—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has the call and he will be heard in silence.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I repeat: I have not seen the survey, but in the time that has been available, although it has been quite limited, it has been possible for my department to obtain a written response from Quantum Market Research. It is quite brief, so I will read the written response and then I will table it. It is addressed to Mr Greg Williams in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and it is signed by Mr Adrian Goldsmith, the Director of Quantum Market Research. It reads: In response to your query, I confirm that at no time did any of the market research work, qualitative or quantitative, conducted for the Department of Transport and Regional Services in relation to the Regional Australia Strategy Study ask about or focus on the voting behaviours or intentions of the respondents interviewed.On the face of it, if this communication is to be believed—and I have no reason to doubt it—what the Leader of the Opposition said was false. They will just say or do anything to try to get a line up. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Prime Minister intend to table the document?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—Yes.Personal Explanations2366616:07:0023666Mr BEAZLEY,MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Mr BEAZLEY,MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes, I have been misrepresented.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Mr BEAZLEY,MPMr BEAZLEY—The Prime Minister just said that I had misrepresented that document he tabled, but it had nothing to do with federal voting intentions. I draw your attention to page 6 of the Quantum Market Research. It says, `Labor, 34 per cent; inner Queensland, outer Queensland, Labor, 39; country Queensland, Labor, 34.' It looks awfully like it to me.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has indicated where he has been misrepresented and will resume his seat.7T4Crosio, Janice, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Only the charity that should accompany this time of the year makes it possible for me to maintain some dignity in the chair and not take action against the member for Prospect, as she must be aware. The member for Prospect will extend an apology.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—To whom?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—To the chair.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—I apologise to the chair.Questions Without Notice236662366616:10:0023666Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—During question time, I was asked by the member for Denison for the date on which my department entered into negotiations with ACM in relation to contract extension. The correspondence which initiated that matter was dated 18 October, and the firm accepted to enter into those negotiations on 19 October. The letter is commercial-in-confidence and I do not intend to table it.Personal Explanations2366616:11:0023666Ms MACKLIN,MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Jagajaga claim to have been misrepresented?PG6Ms MACKLIN,MPMs MACKLIN—I do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga may proceed.PG6Ms MACKLIN,MPMs MACKLIN—In question time today, the Minister for Health and Aged Care said that I had broken a promise made in a speech in August 1999 to develop policies in relation to several key matters by July this year. I concluded that speech in 1999 by inviting the nurses I was speaking to to contribute to the Labor Party national platform, which was adopted in August of this year.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: she has stated where she has been misrepresented. All she needs to do is repudiate it. She is clearly going on to have an argument about question time. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The member for Jagajaga and, I would hope, all members in the House know that I will not tolerate additional argument being entered into a personal explanation. I recognised the risk of the comments she was about to make, but I was prepared to hear her out because there was no reason to think she was going to do other than involve the nurses in part of the personal explanation. PG6Ms MACKLIN,MPMs MACKLIN—That Labor Party platform was adopted and covers all of the areas referred to in my speech. Labor has already announced two major planks in its health platform: the Medicare Alliance and Medicare After Hours.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Jagajaga knows that she cannot now go into this area and will resume her seat.Questions to the Speaker236672366716:12:0023667Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—Mr Speaker, my question relates to procedure surrounding the one-minute bells and hourglass. Earlier this afternoon—my recollection is that it was about 1.30 and I believe it was on the Interactive Gambling (Moratorium) Bill 2000—there was a series of some three divisions. After the first division, quite a number of members left both their seats and the House. In fact, I, the member for Adelaide, the member for Aston and the member for Kooyong were caught in the lift outside the doors.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: if the member wants to tell us why he did not make the division, that is one thing. This is not a question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip will resume his seat!OT4Mr CHARLES—My understanding is that, when we adopted the new one-minute procedure, the chair was to advise members to remain in their places. The Deputy Speaker who was in the chair at the time made no such announcement—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the member has been speaking now for nearly two minutes. He has not got a question; he is making an explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip will resume his seat! All members of the House ought to be aware of the fact that few things would suit me, as the Speaker of the present parliament, better than to confine the opportunities that members have to engage in questions to the chair. Indeed, I have been criticised on more than one occasion for the latitude I offer. I would have thought that members on my left would be as disadvantaged as members on my right if I were to be more rigid in the way in which I apply the standing orders. The member for La Trobe is asking a question about the ringing of the bells. He will come to his question.OT4Mr CHARLES—Could you, either now or later, clarify the position regarding how members are to be notified of a one-minute division? With that second division that I and my colleagues missed, it is my understanding that in fact a full count was taken because the procedure had not been followed properly.23667SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for La Trobe will resume his seat. All members will be aware that the one-minute provision was instituted in order to facilitate the counting of divisions in the House and the time taken. The understanding is that there is not normally debate between the four-minute and one-minute divisions. There have been occasions when debate has occurred. One of those occasions was today, and I happened to be occupying the chair at the time. I think it is entirely within the ambit of the occupier of the chair to determine whether or not it is appropriate to call a one-minute or a four-minute division. If a division is called in error, it can be recommitted, but what is self-evident is that the one-minute division provision is there and meant to be exercised only when there is no intervening debate. I do not intend to change the present arrangements.2366716:16:0023667Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. About a week ago I sent you an email request, seeking advice from you regarding the future of the stores and stationery office of the House of Representatives. I understand the Chief Opposition Whip has also written to you in respect of that matter. I hoped that we might have had a reply before the close of business of the House, so I am taking this occasion to ask formally because I would be grateful for your assistance in this matter. It is plainly a matter of great importance for backbenchers on both sides of House, but it is of fundamental importance for opposition frontbenchers for whom the stores are necessarily a place of recourse when the parliament is not sitting. We are concerned both in terms of the principle of outsourcing and privatisation and of the need for some consultation to ensure that the interests of all sides of the House are taken into account. I would be grateful for your assurance that no step will be taken over the break that would foreclose the opportunity of discussion in relation to that matter. 23668SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I, respectfully, invite the member for Denison to check his email, because I think my office has responded to all of those who have written to me on this matter. I am not blaming the member for Denison. I just want to indicate that I have signed a number of letters to members—I think the member for Stirling was among them, but I may be in error—about the question of what was likely to happen to the future of the stores office.My understanding is that there is a proposal for the way in which the stores office is currently staffed to be altered. The proposal will not disadvantage members in any way. Members will still be able to access stores, when the parliament is not sitting, through the attendants, who will get whatever stores are required. During parliamentary sitting times, the arrangements will continue as they do now. I must admit that I am now going by memory. If I am in error, I will come back and correct the matter. The changed arrangements have been so structured that staff who may have been affected will not be adversely affected in any way.2366816:19:0023668Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I have a question for you, Mr Speaker. Unfortunately, I want to raise a matter that I have brought to your attention three times already this year. On 13 April, 27 June and 6 September I raised, in accordance with standing order 150, the fact that the Minister for Health and Aged Care had failed to answer questions 460 and 461—questions that are now nearly two years old. I note that all four of the questions on the Notice Paper still outstanding from 1999—23668SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—The member for Jagajaga understands that she is asking me to take action under standing order 150.PG6Ms MACKLIN—I have a specific question. I understand that your powers under standing order 150 are limited. However, would you consider referring this failure to the Committee of Privileges for consideration in accordance with standing order 97A, Alternatively—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—You are lucky Paul Keating is not here. You never got answers from him.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House! The member for Jagajaga has the call.PG6Ms MACKLIN—Will you refer the current wording of standing order 150 to the Standing Committee on Procedure with a view to developing an enforcement mechanism that would require recalcitrant ministers to be publicly accountable?23668SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will of course take action under standing order 150 as the member for Jagajaga has requested. I will not take up the matter with the Committee of Privileges, but I will have a look at the feasibility of taking it up with the Committee on Procedure.2366816:20:0023668McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I rise to ask you to take action under standing order 150 in relation to questions 1518, 1519, 1520, 1521 and 1657. Could you please write to the Treasurer, seeking reasons for the delay in answering? I might add, Mr Speaker, that this is the third time I have asked you to do this. Perhaps in your letter you could say to the Treasurer that we would like a reply. 23669SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matters as the standing orders provide.2366916:21:0023669Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I rise to ask a question in relation to bark petitions. You would recall, Mr Speaker, that you received advice from the Attorney-General about the ownership of copyright in relation to bark petitions. I subsequently asked you whether or not you had considered that advice and how administrative procedures in relation to the management of the bark petitions might change, and you said that you would consider it and come back to us. Have you had time to consider it, and what is your response?23669SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will take the matter from the member for the Northern Territory on notice because, as he understands, it is a very complex matter. I would prefer, therefore, to come back to him with a detailed reply. I would prefer not to give him a superficial answer to what is a very serious matter.2366916:22:0023669Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—On 5 October, question No. 2026 to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services first appeared on the Notice Paper in my name concerning the Western Sydney orbital link and its relationship to a second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek, and now it is 63 days since that first appeared. Would you write, in accordance with standing order 150, to the minister?23669SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will take up the matter under standing order 150.2366916:22:0023669Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—My question to you is under standing order 150. I request that you write to the Minister for Health and Aged Care seeking reasons for the delay in answering question No. 1979 placed on the Notice Paper in my name on 3 October regarding Ritalin and the PBS, and also question No. 2015 placed on the Notice Paper in my name on 4 October regarding the cost of the government's private health insurance rebate scheme.2366916:23:0023669Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Yesterday I lodged a question on notice to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. I do not seem to see that question here on the Notice Paper. Could you clarify with the clerks whether there was a particular reason for that?23669SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will do that and come back personally to the member for Griffith, unless there are any implications that affect the entire House.Personal Explanations2366916:23:0023669Dr THEOPHANOUS,MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?QJ4Dr THEOPHANOUS,MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.QJ4Dr THEOPHANOUS,MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Yesterday in the debate on the disallowance motion the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs claimed that I had misunderstood the nature of the proposed regulations. He said:In the circumstances, I would hope that you would reread the regulations and simply graciously withdraw.Today I have received a letter from the minister—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The mere fact that someone says you have misunderstood is hardly a misrepresentation.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What would you know about misrepresentation?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—I know a lot about it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House is, of course, quite right. I was presuming that the member for Calwell was coming to some point on which he had been misrepresented, and I invite him to do so.QJ4Dr THEOPHANOUS,MPDr THEOPHANOUS—The minister claimed—he misrepresented me yesterday and I did not get the opportunity to reply—that I had the understanding of the matter wrong. I have received a letter from the minister today in which he says, `Following the disallowance debate yesterday in the chamber, it has come to my attention'— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will resume his seat.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If the chair were to equitably apply the standing orders, it would on many occasions fail to recognise points of order by the standards currently being applied by those on my left. The Leader of the House, of all people, has the opportunity at any time to raise a point of order. The Leader of the House has no less an opportunity than anybody else, other than that exhibited by those on my left over the last two minutes.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, my point of order is that the member is required to show where he has been misrepresented. You picked him up on it and he has gone back to the same matter. He simply wants to have a debate about it. Quite frankly, I do not mind a bit of latitude. But the minister is not here and it is clearly a debate. He just wants to have an argument and he should be ruled out. It is as simple as that.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, to the point of order: the standing orders overall are not particularly generous to Independent members. In this instance, given that it appears—of course I do not know what the member is going to say—that he is proposing that the letter to him is what demonstrates the misrepresentation, he must be allowed to read it. If you, in the course of his reading the letter, decide that he is not conforming with your recent more generous interpretation, then you should sit him down. But he should be allowed at least to commence indicating how the letter supports his case.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—Mr Speaker, to facilitate your ruling, this is a very simple matter. I received the same letter. It is quite simple. It is something which I took the minister's word for and supported the government on, on the basis of the minister's word. The minister, to his credit, has written to me and to the member for Calwell simply setting out that he did not misunderstand it at all. It is very simple. If he is allowed to table it, it is no big deal. I do not know what is wrong with you blokes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have made a genuine effort over two years to exercise some latitude and even generosity in the interpretation of the standing orders. I wish it had been a little more fruitful.QJ4Dr THEOPHANOUS,MPDr THEOPHANOUS—I have no intention to embarrass the government, but simply to correct the point. The minister himself wrote to me and said, `It has come to my attention that there are some unintended consequences arising out of the amendments.' He further said—and I am not reading the whole letter—`I will therefore be presenting further amending regulations to the Governor-General to remedy these consequences.' In other words, the minister has recognised that he was mistaken in saying that there was no issue yesterday. That is all that I wanted to say.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell has indicated where he was misrepresented. The member for Calwell is seeking leave to table a letter. Is leave granted?Leave not granted.Miscellaneous2367010000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—For the information of honourable members, I present a schedule of outstanding government responses to reports of House of Representatives and joint committees, incorporating reports tabled and details of government responses made in the period between 29 June 2000, the date of the last schedule, and 6 December 2000. Copies of the schedule are being made available to honourable members and it will be incorporated in Hansard.The schedule read as follows—THE SPEAKER'S SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO REPORTS OF HOUSE OF REPRES-ENTATIVES AND JOINT COMMITTEES(also incorporating reports tabled and details of Government responses made in the period between 29 June 2000, the date of the last schedule, and 6 December 2000)7 DECEMBER 2000 THE SPEAKER'S SCHEDULE OF OUT-STANDING GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO COMMITTEE REPORTSOn 6 December 2000, the Government presented its response to a schedule of outstanding Government responses to parliamentary committee reports tabled in the House of Representatives on 29 June 2000. The Government had earlier in the Parliament affirmed its commitment to respond to relevant parliamentary committee reports presented during the present Parliament within three months of their presentation and to clear, as soon as possible, the backlog of reports arising from previous Parliaments.The Government's commitment follows the undertaking by successive Governments to respond to parliamentary committee reports in a timely fashion. In 1978 the Fraser Government implemented a policy of responding in the House by ministerial statement within six months of the tabling of a committee report. In 1983, the Hawke Government reduced this response time to three months but continued the practice of responding by ministerial statement. The Keating Government generally responded by means of a letter to a committee chair, with the letter being tabled in the House at the earliest opportunity.The attached schedule lists committee reports tabled and Government responses to House and joint committee reports made since the last schedule was presented on 29 June 2000. It also lists reports for which the House has received no Government response. A schedule of outstanding responses will continue to be presented at approximately six monthly intervals, in the last sitting weeks of the winter and spring sittings.The schedule does not include advisory reports on bills introduced into the House of Representatives unless the reports make recommendations which are wider than the provisions of the bills and which could be the subject of a government response. The Government's response to these reports is apparent in the resumption of consideration of the relevant legislation by the House. Also not included are reports from the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, the House of Representatives Committee of Members' Interests, the Committee of Privileges, the Publications Committee and the Selection Committee. Government responses to reports of the Public Works Committee are normally reflected in motions for the approval of works after the relevant report has been presented and considered.Reports of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit primarily make administrative recommendations but may make policy recommendations. A government response is required in respect of such policy recommendations made by the committee. However, responses to administrative recommendations are made in the form of an Executive Minute [until recently a Finance Minute] provided to, and subsequently tabled by, the committee. Agencies responding to administrative recommendations are required to provide an Executive Minute within 6 months of tabling a report. The committee monitors the provision of such responses. The entry on this list for a report of the committee containing only administrative recommendations is annotated to indicate that the response is to be provided in the form of Executive Minute. Consequently, any other government response is not required. Any reports containing policy recommendations are listed as requiring a government response.7 December 2000 Description of ReportDate Tabled or Published1Date of Government Response2Responded in Period Specified3Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs (House, Standing)Unlocking the Future: The Report of the Inquiry into the Reeves Review of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 197630-08-99No response to date4NoAustralian Security Intelligence Organization(Joint, Statutory)ASIO's public reporting 04-09-00No response to dateNoCommunications, Transport and the Arts (House, Standing)Beyond the Midnight Oil: Managing Fatigue in Transport9-10-00Period has not expired5-Regional radio racing services: Inquiry into the impact of the decision by ABC Radio to discontinue its radio racing service26-06-00No response to date17NoCorporations and Securities (Joint, Statutory)Shadow Ledgers' and the provisions of bank statements to customers3-10-00Period has not expired5-Draft Financial Services Reform Bill Report, incorporating a dissenting report14-08-00No response to dateNoMandatory Bid Rule21-06-009-11-00NoMatters arising from the Company Law Review Act 199821-10-99No response to date7NoEconomics, Finance and Public Administration(House, Standing)Review of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority: Who will guard the guardians?06-11-00Period has not expired5-Review of the ANAO audit report 37 1998-1999 on the management of tax file numbers28-08-00No response to dateNoElectoral Matters (Joint, Standing)The 1998 federal election: Inquiry into the conduct of the 1998 federal election and matters related thereto26-06-00No response to date18NoEmployment, Education and Workplace Relations (House, Standing)Shared Endeavours: Inquiry into employee share ownership in Australian Enterprises9-10-00Period has not expired5-Age Counts: Inquiry into issues specific to mature-age workers14-08-00No response to dateNoFamily and Community Affairs (House, Standing)Health is life: Inquiry into indigenous health05-06-00No response to date21-Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade (Joint, Standing)Conviction with Compassion: A report on Freedom of Religion and Belief27-11-00Period has not expired5-Australian Government Loan to Papua New Guinea30-10-00Period has not expired5-From Phantom to Force: Towards a more efficient and effective army04-09-00No response to dateNoBuilding Australia's Trade Investment Relationship with South America04-09-00No response to dateNoWorld debt: A report on the proceedings of a seminar 27 August 199906-12-9907-09-00NoBougainville: The peace process and beyond27-09-9902-11-00NoDefence Sub-Committee visit to Defence establishments in Northern Australia, 26-29 July 199927-09-995-10-00NoMilitary justice procedures in the Australian Defence Force21-06-99No response to date6NoVisit to Bougainville, 15-18 March 1999 - Interim Report31-03-9912-11-00NoAustralia's trade relationship with India29-06-98No response to date10NoFunding Australia's Defence08-05-9811No response to date11NoAustralia and ASEAN: Managing Change06-04-98No response to date10NoLegal and Constitutional Affairs (House, Standing)Don't stop the music: A report of the inquiry into copyright, music and small business01-06-9802-11-00NoThe third paragraph of section 53 of the Constitution30-11-95No response to date4NoIn Confidence: the protection of confidential personal and commercial information held by the Commonwealth26-06-95No response to date24NoMigration (Joint, Standing)Review of Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No.2) 20009-10-00Period has not expired5-Not the Hilton-Immigration detention centres: Inspections report04-09-00No response to dateNoDeportation of non-citizen criminals29-06-9817-7-00NoNational Capital and External Territories (Joint, Standing)Island to islands: Communications with Australia's external territories22-03-99No response to date25NoNational Crime Authority (Joint, Statutory)Witnesses for the Prosecution: Protected Witnesses in the National Crime Authority6-9-00No response to date-Street Legal: The involvement of the National Crime Authority in controlled operations06-12-99No response to date13NoThird evaluation of the National Crime Authority06-04-98No response to date14NoNative Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund (Joint, Statutory)CERD and the Native Title Amendment Act 199828-06-00No response to date12-Primary Industries and Regional Services (House, Standing)Work in progress: Proceed with caution - Primary producer access to gene technology19-06-00No response to date22NoTime running out: Shaping regional Australia's future 13-03-00No response to date6NoPrimary Industries, Resources and Rural and Regional Affairs (House, Standing)Adjusting to Agricultural Trade Reform: Australia no longer down under22-06-98No response to date15NoDevelopments in New Zealand Agriculture - Report of a visit to New Zealand, 16-19 June 199701-12-97No response to date20NoManaging Commonwealth Fisheries: The last frontier23-06-97No response to date15NoProcedure (House, Standing)Second Chamber: Enhancing the Main Committee14-08-00No response to dateNoe-motions: The electronic transaction of questions, answers and notices of motion and related matters12-04-006-12-00- NoIt's your House: Community involvement in the procedures and practices of the House of Representatives and its committees22-11-9910-10-00NoPublic Accounts and Audit (Joint Statutory)Contract Management in the Australian Public Service (Report No 379)02-11-00Period has not expired5-Review of Auditor Generals' Reports 1999-2000 Second Quarter (Report No 378)01-11-00Period has not expired5-Financial information in management reports, Control structures of major Commonwealth agencies - Review of Auditor General's Reports 1999-2000 First quarter (Report No. 376)7-6-00No response to dateNoReview of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 (Report No 374)16-3-00No response to dateNoCorporate governance and accountability arrangements for Commonwealth government business enterprises, December 1999 (Report No. 372)16-2-00No response to dateNoTreaties (Joint, Standing)Thirty-sixth Report- An extradition agreement with Latvia and the United States of America on space vehicle tracking and communication12-10-00Period has not expired5-Thirty -fifth Report- Agreement for Cooperation in the peaceful uses of Nuclear Energy9-10-00Period has not expired5-Thirty-fourth Report- Two treaties tabled on 6 June 200028-07-00No response to dateNoThirty-second Report - Six treaties tabled on 7 March 200029-05-00No response to date19NoThirty-first Report - Three Treaties tabled on 7 March 200010-04-00No response to date10NoThirtieth Report - Treaties tabled on 8 and 9 December 1999 and 15 February 200003-04-005-12-00NoTwenty-ninth Report - Singapore's use of Shoalwater Bay, Development Cooperation with PNG and Protection of new varieties of plants06-03-005-10-00NoTwenty-fifth Report - Eight treaties tabled on 11 August 199927-09-995-10-00NoTwenty-Third Report - Amendments to the Schedule to the International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling23-08-9917-08-00NoTwentieth Report - Two treaties tabled on 26 May 1998, the Bougainville Peace Monitoring Group Protocol and treaties tabled on 11 November 199829-03-99No response to date10NoSeventeenth Report - UN Convention on the Rights of the Child28-08-98No response to date7NoTwelfth Report - Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimitation Treaty01-12-97No response required24NoEleventh Report24-11-97No response to date10NoEighth Report23-06-97No response to date10NoNotes:1. The date of tabling is the date the report was presented to the House of Representatives. In the case of joint committees, the date shown is the date of first presentation to either the House or the Senate. Reports published when the House (or Houses) are not sitting are tabled at a later date.2. If the source for the date is not the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives or the Journals of the Senate, the source is shown in an endnote.3. The time specified is three months from the date of tabling.4. In its paper presented to the House on 6 December 2000 (referred to hereafter as the 6 December 2000 paper) it was indicated that the `Government is considering the Report'.5. The three month period had not expired as at 6 December 2000.6. The Government response will be tabled as soon as possible.' (6 December 2000 paper)7. The Government response will be tabled in the 2001 Autumn sittings.' (6 December 2000 paper)8. The Government response subsumed in the response to the final report' (6 December 2000 paper)9. The Government response is not required as the Australia-Indonesia Maritime Delimination Treaty has been completely overtaken by subsequent developments in East Timor.10. The Government response is expected to be tabled shortly'. (6 December 2000 paper)11. The Government response is to be made in the context of the Defence White paper, due for release in December 2000. (6 December 2000)12. The Attorney General is considering the report.' (6 December 2000 paper)13. The proposals set out in the report are under consideration. It is anticipated that a Government response is likely to be tabled in the 2000 Spring sittings.' (6 December 2000 paper)14. The Government response was considered by the Inter Government Committee on the National Crime Authority at its meeting in November 1999, however, new issues have come to light necessitating a review of the Government's response and further consultation with the States. It si anticipated that the Government response will be tabled in the 2000 Spring Sittings (6 December 2000 paper)15. The Government indicated in its 6 December 2000 paper that a 'response is near completion and is expected to be tabled before the end of the Spring 2000 Sittings.16. This report contains policy recommendations and therefore requires a government response. 17. In its 6 December 2000 paper it was stated that the 'Government response has been delayed because of the need to further examine several outstanding issues more closely in consultation with the Australian Broadcasting Authority and the Australian Communications Authority. The Government expects to be able to respond to the report in the near future'. 18. The Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the 1998 Federal Election contained a significant number of recommendations on a broad range of issues. The Government wishes to give full consideration to the issues raised in the Report before responding. It is expected that a full response to the report will be tabled by the end of this year.' (6 December 2000 paper) 19. The Government is considering the report'. (6 December 2000 paper)20. The Government response to this report has been incorporated in the response to the report 'Managing Commonwealth Fisheries - The last frontier''. (6 December 2000 paper)21. The Government intends to table its response by the end of the current sittings'. (6 December 2000)22. The Government's response is near completion and is expected to be tabled before the end of the Spring 2000 Sittings.23. The Government response will be tabled in the 2001 Autumn sittings' (6 December 2000 paper)24. Many recommendations of this report have been overtaken by events since the Report was tabled. The Govt is currently revising its response to take account of new legislative and policy initiatives. The Government expects to table its response in the 2001 Autumn sittings.' (6 December 2000 paper)25. The Government response is expected to be tabled in the Spring sittings' (6 December 2000 paper)Documents2367623676Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following papers:Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet—Reconciliation Australia's Challenge: Final report of the Council for Aboriginal reconciliation to the Prime Minister and the Commonwealth Parliamentsubsection 63 of the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation Act 1991. (4 December 2000/4 December 2000).Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—Submission Report on ILO Instruments Adopted in 1999; Convention 182 concerning the Worst Forms of Child Labour; Recommendation 190 concerning the Worst Forms of Child Labour. (30 November 2000/30 November 2000).Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned23676Mr Reith, Peter,MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—I present papers on the following subjects, being petitions which are not in accordance with the standing and sessional orders of the House:Calling on the Government to grant health care cards to all adults with cystic fibrosis—from the member for Macquarie—12,850 Petitioners.Calling on the House to limit fuel excise rises—from the member for Makin—9,600 Petitioners.Requesting that the House ensure the Prime Minister honours his promise on petrol prices—from the member for Fraser—354 Petitioners.Matters of Public Importance236762367610000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the government to introduce a fair needs based system of funding for all Australian Schools.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—16:32:0023676Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—One of the things that those of us who have been in the Australian Labor Party for the latter quarter of the last century—or even a bit longer—are most proud of is that we settled, we thought for all time, a major issue of sectarian divide in the Australian community when we ended a debate that had taken place for years and years about those parents who chose primarily, but not only, for religious reasons to send their children to private schools. We did not want that decision handicapped, dishonoured or devalued by inadequate resources for the children who attended those schools. We put in place needs based funding for the Australian school system across the board—whether students attended government schools or private schools—and thus ended a massive sectarian debate in this community and a terrible debilitating divide in the Australian nation. That was an achievement of which the Whitlam government was legitimately proud and, until this day, that system has been sustained. It has been sustained on the basis of a very high level of national unity, including acceptance by parents of students in and teachers in the public school system of this country—which is, after all, the system in which the majority of our children are educated and trained. The unique genius of this Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and this government have destroyed this consensus and this essential element of harmony in the Australian community. It has been the task of the Labor Party over the past few months to expose what has happened and to provide solutions and alternatives.Later today the legislation will pass through the Senate. The minister has howled in question time after question time about the circumstances in which he has found himself. As a result of his pig-headedness, the other day the Senate sent back more messages to this chamber on a single matter than were sent at any time in the history of this Federation. That is an indication of how seriously the Australian Labor Party regards the destruction of important equity principles in education and the damage done to cohesion in our community as a result. The legislation will pass today basically for three reasons. The first is that, at the end of the day, Labor will not produce the education equivalent of the 1975 blocking of supply. Given the pig-headedness of this government, we will not create a situation whereby children attending poorer private schools in particular—I am quite sure that the category 1 schools could carry the burden for a term or two, if not forever—find the gates closed next February because the system cannot afford to sustain education in the face of doubt as to whether schools will receive important Commonwealth funds. We also cannot permit a situation to develop whereby those who send their children to state schools, while not facing the prospect of closures, would see state governments deprived of about 12 per cent of funding for those schools, with probable consequences for the provision of teachers and other school services on day one when the schools opened in February. As I have said, that would be the education equivalent of blocking supply—an act and a day in 1975 that live in infamy. We do not wish to add our reputation to the reputations of those who participated in that constitutional coup against the Whitlam government. That is the first reason.The second reason is that the largest group within the private school sector that receive funds from this bill have effectively overthrown the government's view and insisted upon the continued application of the needs principle to themselves. They have obtained a continuing adjustment under the old formula of government school related costs—albeit at a slightly higher level of provision than they had previously—but rejected the funding formula placed before them by the Commonwealth government. They do not believe that funding formula is equitable, nor do they believe it compatible with the efficient administration, the fair administration, the just administration of a school system in the private sector. And we would see no point in penalising a group, the majority of those going to private schools, who are receiving funding at a level and on a basis which we support. Nor do we—again on this second reason as to why we have not rejected it—take the view that the few, but nevertheless important, Christian schools, Muslim schools or orthodox schools that have received additional funds should be denied those funds. We have no problem with what they have picked up. Nor do we have a concern for those schools which are effectively grant maintained.Indeed, if our amendments had passed and the category 1 schools had been therefore removed from these processes, and if you counted the Catholic schools in with the grant maintained schools, this much vaunted formula of the minister—which he defends as the grand new era for the private school sector—would probably have applied to about 15 per cent of private school children. This is a formula so terrific, as far as the private school sector is concerned, that you either have to be grant maintained or run from it, if you want a just outcome. That is not a position from a government school perspective; that is a position from a private school perspective. But, because we had no quarrel with the position that has been arrived at by the grant maintained schools or by those in the Catholic sector or with the increased resources for the poorer Christian schools, that is a second reason why we would not perform the equivalent of a 1975 blockage of supply. But there is a third reason why we chose to take that course, and that is because the Australian Labor Party are the alternative government in this country and because we do not consider anything that is done by this government as immutable. We consider that anything this government does can be tested at the next election campaign. As it is the case that parliaments last no more than three years, a very short span of time in this country, it is possible to correct error that is only 12 months old in some circumstances—not necessarily in all circumstances. But in some circumstances it is possible to correct error, and in this circumstance it is very possible to correct error.So, as an earnest of our good faith that we are not going to run away from the positions we put down in amendments, I have given notice in this House today of a school funding amendment bill 2000, a private member's bill. That private member's legislation will do what we intended to do with the amendments to the government's legislation and what we will implement if our private member's bill fails to pass during the next 12 months. This will start the restoration of equity in the schools system. It will do, in particular, two very important things. First, it will end the enrolment benchmark adjustment whereby, irrespective of their increasing numbers—and they have increased since the EBA has been in place—government schools lose resources for every additional kid that goes into a private school. That is a symbol of this government's hostility to the public school system, which I believe in large measure emanates from this government's educational background.When it comes to educational background, we have the most uniquely privileged government in the history of this nation. There has never been a Labor or Liberal government whose schooling background has been so weighted to the minority experience in Australia—the 1½ per cent who go to category 1 schools. It is not even representative of those who go to the private school sector, let alone those who go to private and government schools. Two-thirds of this cabinet went to category 1 schools: 66 per cent of them compared with 1½ per cent of Australians. What we have here is a massive cheerio to the privileged—an absolutely massive cheerio to the privileged. So we will end the prejudice that is reflected in the enrolment benchmark adjustment.Secondly, we will remove the extra funding to the category 1 schools that has been put in place by this government. This has seen an additional $3.1 million for Trinity Grammar, $1.5 million a year for the King's School, $3.9 million for Wesley College and $3.6 million for Caulfield Grammar. They drag down upon themselves like a defeated army the carcasses of the dead to protect themselves from their enemies by pointing to what they are supposed to have done for the poorer private schools with this legislation. For example, the Prime Minister has used the Thomas Hassall Anglican College as an example of a school which receives greater funds—$458 extra per pupil a year. The Tyndale Christian School in Blacktown will receive $144 per pupil. Contrast those two positions—one three times less, the other nine times less—with King's, which gets an extra $1,351 per pupil. What has been happening since this legislation has been seen as certain of passing is not a response by these schools that they have lowered fees. Why would they? There is no incentive to lower fees in this legislation at all. You do what you darned well please! We have already had the circumstance where at least eight—eight that we know of—category 1 schools in Victoria, where most category 1 schools lie, are increasing their fees next year by between five and eight per cent. Remember that we have an underlying inflation rate of about two to three per cent. What they will be receiving from this government is $10 million. What I have said is this: we will persist with our funding bill to amend this government's bill. We will ensure that this bill stays on the Notice Paper and is regularly debated all next year. If the government is so blind in its prejudice that it will not pass it and change its own practice, it will become part of our education policy next year, a part of our education policy that will restore justice, that will restore needs based funding and that will end that sectarian divide that this government has levered open again after 30 years.16:47:0023679Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—In that pathetic speech by the Leader of the Opposition we heard why the Bulletin magazine this week has on its cover `Beazley doomed'. Beazley is doomed because he simply does not understand these issues; he does not do the work that will give the Labor Party a policy on these issues; he demonstrates in everything that he says that he lives in a fantasy land. I am intrigued by this statement that somehow or other the government has revived a sectarian debate. That rang a bell with me, so I looked at what the member for Werriwa had to say about the Labor Party policy that it took to the last election. The member for Werriwa, members will remember, resigned as the shadow minister because he would not put up with the policy that the Leader of the Opposition's office and his advisers had drafted for the Labor Party. It is very interesting to see the reasons why the member for Werriwa rejected that policy. I will read his comment about the policy the Leader of the Opposition wanted to take to the last election because it shows the enormous weakness of the Leader of the Opposition and why he is digging himself into so many impossible situations that the national magazine, the Bulletin, is now describing him as doomed. This is what Mark Latham, the member for Werriwa, said:Mike Pezzullo, chief policy adviser, and John Angley, who worked for Kim as finance minister and had no involvement in the education area, rewrote the bloody thing, all under the approval of McMullan. So they stuffed it up and in the end the schools policy stuff had to be clarified in letters from Gary Gray to the different school sectors—and listen to these next few words:who were outraged that we produced a sectarian definition of school policy. In other words, the member for Werriwa said that the Labor Party's policy drafted by Kim Beazley's advisers was sectarian. Yet today we have the Leader of the Opposition in here saying that Labor had got rid of sectarianism in schools policy. They had not. They were quite prepared to put before the electorate a disgraceful sectarian policy at the last election, and they were caught out by their own shadow minister. That is how much credibility the Leader of the Opposition has in this matter. He had therefore to hunt around for somebody who was prepared to be the spokesperson for this disgraceful sectarian policy, and the person who put up his hand was the member for Dobell, the current shadow minister. So we have direct evidence of the complete policy incapacity of the Leader of the Opposition.The Leader of the Opposition also claimed in his remarkably thin speech that Labor had provided solutions and a policy on education. As I have mentioned before, if the Leader of the Opposition has provided solutions, it is strange that no-one seems to understand what those solutions are. The shadow minister himself knows how he has been hammered in both party meetings by his own backbench for his policy failure and by many of those in the education sector for his failure to produce credible amendments to this legislation—and nobody thinks the ones produced are credible. But the Leader of the Opposition has failed to provide any solutions to any problems that he purports to have identified. Indeed, what this debate has highlighted is the weakness and failure of the Leader of the Opposition himself. The tactics that the Labor Party have employed in their opposition to this bill are quite remarkable in that they have managed to stir up problems for the Leader of the Opposition on every side. Let us just go through the Leader of the Opposition's tactics on this bill. He shows the characteristic Labor unwillingness to address any of the real issues. It has all been just empty rhetoric. First of all, he has alienated the entire non-government sector, and the parents of one million children. The parents who send their children to almost 3,000 schools have heard the Labor Party talking in ways which have absolutely no credibility. They have heard the Leader of the Opposition threatening to take money away from schools, and he repeats that threat today. All of the non-government school sector supports the government's position. The National Catholic Education Commission and all the Australian Catholic Bishops support the bill that the government has brought forward. They regard it as fair and equitable. This is the sectarian policy, according to the Leader of the Opposition, yet it has the support of all the Australian Catholic Bishops and the National Catholic Education Commission. But not only that. It has the support of all the independent schools sector as well—the Christian schools, the Lutheran schools, the Muslim schools, the Montessori schools, the Steiner schools. The entire non-government sector has come out and backed the government and bombarded the Labor Party with complaints about its appalling treatment of the legislation and of the parents who send their children to the non-government schools. That is the first great achievement of the Leader of the Opposition—he has alienated the parents and schools associated with one million Australian schoolchildren. But he has done more than that. By misrepresenting the legislation he has stirred up fear in some sections of the government sector who now cannot understand why he has taken the position he has on the legislation. Within and around the Labor Party he has so alienated the Australian Education Union that that they have nothing but contempt and disgust for him. He made the mistake of accepting their ideological criticisms, their false and fallacious criticisms, of the legislation. Why did he do this? He did this because he had no policy. The member for Dobell had left him bereft of a schools policy. So when it came to the crunch, and he had to decide what stance he was going to take on this legislation, he looked around, as he usually does, for someone in the Labor Party, some faction or some interest that had enough concern about the issue to put a position. Of course, that was the left wing of the Labor Party and the Australian Education Union, which said, `There are some problems with this legislation. The problems are with the EBA. The problems are with money for wealthy schools. You had better go ahead and present your policy as based on these problems with the legislation.' These are not problems with the legislation. They reflect the lack of understanding, the political ideology and the antagonism that runs through the Australian Education Union against the non-government sector. In the absence of anything else, the Leader of the Opposition picked them up. In picking them up but failing to carry it through, he has now alienated the union and the Labor Party backbench. You will have noticed how silently they listened to his speech today on this matter of public importance. They listened so silently because they were hoping that the Leader of the Opposition might be able to persuade them that the stance he has taken is a sound stance. But it is not. To cap it all off, he has now announced that he will go to the next election threatening to cut funding by between $1,000 and $2,000, in many cases, for parents sending their children to non-government schools, many of which are in Labor and coalition marginal seats. So in the next election campaign the Leader of the Opposition will be storming around Australia telling parents of his great new education policy, which is to cut school funding. He will be cutting school funding in a number of seats. The Leader of the Opposition will be going into Jagajaga, where there are several of these category 1 schools, and saying, `We are going to cut funding to all the students, to all the parents who send their children to Ivanhoe Girls Grammar.' He will be going into the marginal seat of Isaacs and telling the thousands of parents who send their children to Mentone Grammar—which nobody could call a wealthy school; it is a grammar school that parents have built up, but not a wealthy school—that he is going to cut their school funding. How are they going to respond to this? Many of these parents, I am sure, would in the past have been Labor voters, but they will not be Labor voters when they hear what the Leader of the Opposition is going to do to them and their schools. He will be going into many other marginal seats around the country, to the seat of Gilmore, for example, and telling St Joseph's school in that seat, which has an SES score of 106, that he is going to cut their funding by about $1,000 per head. He will be going into Queensland and telling them that he is going to cut the funding for the community school at Warwick. This is one of his so-called `wealthy' schools. Anyone can see the insanity of the position that the Leader of the Opposition has now outlined and vigorously defended in the House today. He has lost support across virtually the entire sector and he is going to make sure that he loses even more support as he goes into the next election campaign. He has manoeuvred the Labor Party into this position. He has announced they are going to pass the legislation. He hates it so much that he is going to pass this terrible SES legislation and he is going to keep the SES funding system that he hates so much. The only thing is that he is not going to apply it fairly to some schools, because they are on the political hit list of the Australian Education Union. What a pathetic hit list it is! It is such a mixed hit list. It has no coherence. It has no integrity to it, and the Labor Party and the Leader of the Opposition have no integrity.As we come close to Christmas, we look at the Leader of the Opposition's record across the year 2000, and what do we find? We find that he spent the first six months of the year talking about how frightful the GST was, how unfair it was, how it was going to destroy businesses across Australia and how the Labor Party would roll it back. Then, on 1 July, the system that he hated so much became Labor Party policy and we have not heard much about roll-back since. Now we have the roll-back policy on school funding. They are going to roll back the funding to the category 1 schools, and he is going to fight this right through the election campaign. He is going to be out there in Labor marginal seats, standing up for the policy and threatening to cut thousands of dollars from the support the government gives to Labor Party parents sending their children to independent schools. What a great policy this is going to be! I can see him carrying this through.In health policy, we remember the horror he expressed at the fact that the government was giving support to people who took out private health insurance. What a terrible policy this was! But now of course the Labor Party supports the policy. This is a leader who has never in his entire political career developed a credible policy. He has been in politics now for a long time. You just need to reflect and ask yourself: what are the policies that Kim Beazley has stood for? What has he ever stood for? Where are his legislative monuments from those 13 years when he was a minister in the Labor Party government? Where are Kim Beazley's legislative achievements?VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—Submarines that do not work!BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMP—Submarines that do not work, as the member for Corangamite has mentioned. The Leader of the Opposition wrote the contracts for the Collins class submarines. The only portfolio he ever liked was Defence. When he got Employment, Education and Training, we remember he said he lost motivation and energy, because there was less to do in that portfolio. He liked Defence, but there were no achievements. There are no achievements. He has never had a policy. (Time expired)17:02:0023681Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—It is the last sitting day before Christmas, and this is possibly the last speech this minister will give in the matter of public importance debate as the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. There is an enormous amount of speculation going on in the corridors of this parliament. I think we should, in the spirit of Christmas, wish the minister a very enjoyable Christmas lunch and a very enjoyable Christmas pudding. He will be sitting there in his lounge room by the phone, wondering whether he will get the call from the Prime Minister. Every time the phone rings on Christmas Day, he will be wondering whether it is John Howard ringing with the news that he is no longer minister for education. We all know there is a major reshuffle coming. The Minister for Health and Aged Care wants to become the Minister for Finance and Administration. My prediction is that John Fahey will become the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and David Kemp will become the Minister for Aged Care. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The member for Dobell knows that he should address members by their correct titles, even in the spirit of Christmas goodwill.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Even Bronwyn Bishop is heading for New York.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—That is it! No more!MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—With that new hairstyle, we suspect she is certain to be heading for the New York set. We wish them all well for Christmas. We know the minister will have a very nervous Christmas lunch as he waits to see what phone calls he gets and what Santa might put in his stocking on Christmas Eve. We say that, if this minister is judged by his performance in the last 12 months, he does deserve to be moved. If this minister is judged by the calibre of the legislation that is before the parliament at the moment, he deserves to go—and the sooner the better. The reason this legislation is so unfair is that 61 category 1 schools get increases totalling $57 million a year. Under this minister, there are increases of almost $1 million a year for these category 1 schools.The minister creates the impression that, when we mention the King's School in Parramatta or Geelong Grammar, in some way only one or two schools amongst the category 1 schools get such large increases as the examples we have been quoting. But, if you go through that list of category 1 schools, 61 out of 61 are better off and the average increase for these schools is almost $1 million a year. This happens at the very time that there are other very needy government and non-government schools that have much greater claim to those scarce education dollars. So our first criticism is that these increases are being distributed in such an unfair way.The other criticism we make is that there is increased funding of $700 million for non-government schools, but there is no matching increase in funding for government schools. Day after day, the minister comes into this chamber and misleads the House. Day after day, the minister comes into the chamber and claims that there is an increase of 25 per cent in federal funding for government schools. Day after day, he comes into the House and misleads it by claiming that there is an increase of $1.4 billion for government schools. The truth is that there is automatic cost indexation for funding for government and non-government schools. When he talks about funding for non-government schools, he never mentions the cost indexation. I am sure there are some members of the House who remember that, when he was criticising the former Labor government, he claimed that there was no funding increase for category 1 schools for the life of the Labor government.The reason he makes that claim is that he completely ignores the automatic cost indexation when he is talking about the category 1 schools, yet he seeks to claim credit for the alleged 25 per cent increase in funding for government schools which is driven by the automatic cost indexation legislation. The truth is that, when you take away the automatic cost indexation and the changes in funding because of changes in school enrolments, the average increase for every government school in the country is a measly $4,000. King's gets $1.4 million a year. Parramatta High gets $4,000 a year. How could anyone think that was fair? How could anyone think that the needs of King's exceeded the needs of Parramatta High by such a margin?What is worse is that this minister has sought to gag debate in the House of Representatives on this legislation. We have had the gag applied to us on numerous occasions this afternoon and this morning. We have had the gag applied to us on many occasions in recent weeks. In fact, when you go back over the Hansard record, it has taken us months and months to get out of the minister essential information that was crucial to this debate. The proposal was announced in the budget in May 1999. This minister sat on his hands for 416 days before he even had the motivation to bring the legislation into the parliament. It then took us months of questioning, both in the Senate and in the House of Representatives, to force the minister to release the information on how each school benefited from these changes. I am sure my colleagues remember how—and I am sure this was no coincidence—this information was released three days before the end of the summer Olympics in Sydney, when the minister was hoping that everyone's attention was diverted. Despite the minister claiming that our figures were incorrect on how great the funding increases were for the category 1 schools, when he was forced to release that information during the Olympics it proved that the increases going to the category 1 schools averaged almost $1 million.Since the figures were released, the opposition in the House of Representatives has had a total of 57½ minutes to discuss this bill. This afternoon, we had 2½ minutes to discuss a bill that deals with an education funding package of $22 billion. That is about $9 billion a minute—this is all this minister is prepared to give to us. The interesting thing about this whole debate—and I am sure this occurs to my colleagues—is: can you remember one government backbencher who has had the courage to stand up and defend the minister and to defend this unfair package since the figures were released? You will not be able to remember one of them—you will not remember their name and you will not remember their electorate—because not one Liberal or National Party member has had the courage to come in, to stand up in their place and to support David Kemp, the minister for education. They have left it all to him, because they know what a mess he has created with this legislation.On our side of the House, the total time that the Leader of the Opposition, three of my colleagues and I had was 57½ minutes. There were plenty of opportunities for government backbenchers to come in and speak in this debate but not one of them was prepared to come in and support you, David.AK6Gash, Joanna, MPMG4Lee, Michael, MPMr LEE—Even the member for Gilmore, who you say is going to be so happy about the amendments that Labor is opposing, did not have the courage to come in and participate in this debate. It is important that people like the member for Gilmore have the opportunity to place their views on the record, because we are going to hold her accountable and we are going to hold people like the member for Parkes accountable for the fact that they are supporting increases totalling $57 million a year for the category 1 schools when local public schools in Gilmore and Parkes are getting an average of $4,000 a year, apart from the cost indexation and the changes in enrolments.The point we make is that we will hold this government accountable for this outrage every day throughout 2001. The private member's bill that the Leader of the Opposition has given notice of today demonstrates that our amendments were not just a strategy for a Senate debate but a policy for a Labor government. We make it clear that the Labor Party will, in addition to that, be making further announcements about ways that we can increase Commonwealth support for public schools across the country. Having increased funding for non-government schools by $700 million, the problem is that there is no matching increase in support for our public schools, where there is so much need.The Leader of the Opposition has committed that Labor will end the Howard government's bias against public schools. A Labor government will reverse the trend of declining Commonwealth support for public schools. A Labor government will introduce education priority zones and will put extra Commonwealth support into areas of educational and social disadvantage. It is through education priority zones that Labor will be funding extra remedial teachers and putting money into new mentor programs to encourage more kids to finish year 12. It will be through education priority zones and our other initiatives that we will be putting more investment into teacher training and teacher professional development. It will be a Labor government that will abolish the enrolment benchmark adjustment. We will not know by the time this parliament breaks whether the minister for education will get that call on Christmas Day. We will not know whether or not he will be the minister for education when we come back. We do know that, in the time he has been Australia's minister for education, he has been on a crusade to undermine public education. He has taken $1 billion from our universities. He has abolished the growth funding for vocational education and training. He has unleashed this massive state aid debate in funding for schools by providing such outrageous increases to the category 1 schools. Through the EBA, he has unfairly treated public schools. We hope that call comes through: we need another minister for education. (Time expired)17:12:0023684Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—It is with some sorrow that I rise to speak on this matter of public importance. Contrary to the assertion of the Leader of the Opposition that this side of the House is bringing sectarian division into the House, it is quite clearly the opposition that is bringing this sectarian division into the House. This side of the House believes in people getting a fair go and a fair schooling opportunity. I am talking about people who do not have much money but who happen to want to go to an Islamic, Christian or Catholic school and who cannot afford it or people who live in a remote area who have not been able to afford it. This government has increased the assistance for isolated schoolchildren. This government's policies are the ones that are delivering fair and equitable education to the people in Australia. If nothing else, it should be said at this point in the debate that there is more money going to government schools in this latest announcement than there has ever been before.Right through this debate, the opposition have attempted to mix and match arguments. If ever an issue should have been given bipartisan immunity from the unsavoury symptoms of our adversarial political system, it is the education of our children. The Leader of the Opposition does not know where he is at. He opposes the SES but he is going to support it. He actually opposed the GST but now he is going to support it. He opposed the fuel grants scheme—we are not really sure whether they are going to support that half a billion dollar scheme for rural and remote areas. It is not clear at the moment whether the Leader of the Opposition is going to support that or not. He opposed the diesel fuel grants scheme that reduced the cost of fuel to transport operators in rural and regional Australia by 24c a litre. He opposed that and yet has the gall to come into the chamber and create debate about whether a 1c excise increase or decrease should be applied. He is opposed to medical bonded scholarships. We do not know what he is going to do with those. He said that Roads to Recovery was trivial and unnecessary. This is a leader who is so equivocating in his response to all policy areas that nobody takes him seriously, least of all his backbench.It is a well-known reality that the state and territory governments are responsible for 85 per cent of the funding for government schools. The Commonwealth contributes about 15 per cent. Of course, it follows therefore that the Commonwealth bears the bulk of responsibility for maintaining the funding for the non-government sector. Every government school student is funded in their education by at least 90 per cent when state and federal contributions are taken into account. In non-government schools, parents provide about 45 per cent of the total funding, although they pay exactly the same in income tax rates. The coalition has maintained a strong and consistent position to promote choice, equity and improved outcomes for all students in all of our schools, not just in one sector. The 2000-01 budget makes available an extra $22 billion in total school funding in the next quadrennium. This is a 32 per cent increase over the 1996-2000 quadrennium. When the Labor Party was in, perhaps a 32 per cent increase would not have been that significant, because we were talking about inflation rates of eight and 10 per cent. But when you have inflation rates of one or two per cent, a 32 per cent increase over four years is an enormous increase. Let me talk about government schools. This year the federal government is spending $402 million more on government schools than Labor did in its last year. As I said, that is an increase of 26 per cent. In fact, public spending per student is, on average, $5,600 for a government school student. The equivalent figure, on average, for a non-government school student is only $3,750. For students at wealthier schools, the figure can be as low as $1,100 per student. The new socioeconomic status funding arrangements being put in place by this government bring equality and social justice never before seen in education in this country.Some of the so-called wealthiest schools that the shadow minister refers to have students from western New South Wales attending, where parents have made a conscious decision that education for their children is of the highest priority. In many cases they have borrowed a fortune—mortgaged their houses and their farms—so they can provide that education for their children. People on this side of the House recognise that and we want to provide assistance for those people. Under Labor, they would be denied the government assistance that they deserve.This funding model allows schools whose pupils come from poor families to receive Commonwealth funding, giving parents from working-class families—who the opposition used to pretend they supported—a greater choice in educational opportunities. Recently I glanced through some of the funding announcements that relate to education in the electorate of Parkes and saw a disproportionate amount of funding being delivered to government schools by this government when compared to non-government schools. The Dubbo South public school is funded by almost $3 million to improve the facilities at that school; Parkes High—$1.36 million; St Laurence's Catholic school in Forbes—$1 million; and Buninyong public school and Mudgee High—$5.7 million and $6.7 million respectively.These were projects involving major building and renovation work, along with disabled areas, extended learning areas and, importantly, improvements to the School of Distance Education to try to deliver some fairness and some equity to those who are studying from a distance. When we are speaking of fairness in distance education, we should remember that it was this government that also provided extra funding for hostels which house students from isolated areas attending schools in Dubbo, Forbes and Broken Hill. As has been the case for many years, Commonwealth schools funding legislation has a particular emphasis on non-government schools. Labor gave more money from the federal government to non-government schools simply because it is the primary responsibility of the state governments to fund government schools and of the Commonwealth government to fund non-government schools. The important thing in this debate is that there are schools serving wealthy and poor communities in both sectors. The Commonwealth is changing the funding model so that schools whose pupils come from poor families will receive additional Commonwealth funding, giving working-class parents greater choice and educational opportunities for their children.The old system promoted by the ALP—promoted alone by the ALP—just did not work. The school that my children go to, which is a little Catholic school—just a very small Catholic school—was invited by the public school across the road to come over and use its computers. Is that equity? The public school was inviting children from this so-called privileged independent school to come over so that they could actually experience the computers and learn on the computers. That is not a system that works. The new system provides an objective and transparent basis for funding for non-government schools, yet replaces the system that was open to manipulation—and it was manipulated by the opposition—by penalising schools whose parents put money into those schools. If you take all the other rhetoric aside, can anybody justify a government penalising parents for assisting their students in their schools by taking away funding if the parents had the gall to try to raise money for their schools. The SES works by the parents of children attending the school providing their addresses, which are matched up to Bureau of Statistics figures. A score is given relative to the ability of the parents to pay school fees to the school. What could be fairer than that? Under the SES arrangements, that funding to non-government schools serving the most needy school communities will be significantly increased. I think this is conceded by the opposition. These schools will now receive maximum general recurrent funding of only 70 per cent of the average cost of educating a student in the government schools. In addition, schools which extend their services to lower income communities will benefit financially. On the other hand, the minimum entitlement for serving the most well-to-do communities is only 13.7 per cent of the amount received by a government school. Let us look at needy schools. The estimated average cost of educating a student in a government secondary school in 2004 will be $8,173. This is the `disastrous' formula that is quoted by the opposition. At the same time as a government school costs $8,173 per student, the most needy school in the private sector will receive $5,721 for secondary students. Let us talk about the well-to-do schools. It is the same thing. The average cost for educating a secondary student in a government school is $8,173. In the well-to-do secondary school, the estimated funding in 2004 will be $1,120.This is what the opposition are up in arms about. Government funding for a student in a secondary school in the government system will be $8,100. In the most well-to-do schools it will be $1,120. Their argument really must be that they want nothing. In my electorate the total taxpayer contribution to a government secondary school is $8,000. For a certain Christian school in my electorate, it will, at the end of 2004, be $4,185. A mid-range coeducational boarding school near the electorate of Parkes will have a taxpayer subsidy of $3,776 per student. What the opposition have failed to do is to look at the end result. They focus on change. It was an unfair system in the past. The end result is the thing that is important and the end result is fair. The end result is supported by every independent school body in the nation. The only people who do not recognise that are the opposition. (Time expired)10000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Order! The time allotted for this discussion has now expired.Personal Explanations2368617:23:0023686Mr LEO McLEAY,MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER(Mr Andrews)—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?4I4Mr LEO McLEAY,MPMr LEO McLEAY—Yes.10000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Please proceed.4I4Mr LEO McLEAY,MPMr LEO McLEAY—Today in the New South Wales Legislative Council a Liberal member, Charlie Lynn, asked the Treasurer a question relating to a suspect in a number of murder inquiries in Sydney, Mr Mohammed Dib. In part, he asked the Treasurer:Can you confirm that this is the same Mohammed Dib who attended the meeting of the ALP Lakemba Day Branch meeting in the Federal electorate of Watson in late 1996 as a member and/or enforcer for Leo McLeay?I reject this allegation absolutely and comprehensively. To the best of my knowledge, I have never met Mohammed Dib and I note from newspaper reports in Sydney that he lives in Telopea Street, Punchbowl, which is not in my electorate. I have no knowledge of whether Mohammed Dib attended the one meeting of the Lakemba Bay branch of the ALP, which was held in December 1996. I did not attend this meeting and actively opposed the formation of this branch. I was actively involved in the decision of the Labor Party Administrative Committee not to grant this branch a charter. I am advised by the ALP office in Sydney that Mohammed Dib is not currently a member of the Labor Party. Coincidentally, earlier this week the Minister for Sport and Tourism asked me across the chamber if I knew Mohammed Dib. I told her I did not and that Telopea Street, Punchbowl, was not in my electorate. Clearly she failed to pass this on to her friend Mr Lynn. Once again I comprehensively deny any knowledge of or involvement with Mohammed Dib. Miscellaneous23687Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That notice No. 6, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day.17:25:0023687McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—The Manager of Opposition Business is caught up in another meeting so I will be dealing with these matters for him. We do not have any objection to this proposal and are happy to support it.Question resolved in the affirmative. Miscellaneous23687Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That notice No. 6, government business, be posponed until a later hour this day.17:25:0023687McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I thank the minister for postponing the measure and I hope that he is postponing it for a long while.Question resolved in the affirmative. Miscellaneous2368717:26:0023687Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—I move:That, with effect from the first day of sitting in 2001, standing orders 133, 142, 148 and 211 be amended to read as follows: Notice of motion—how given 133 Notice of motion shall be given by a Member by—(a) delivering its terms in writing to the Clerk at the Table, or(b) stating its terms to the House during the period of Members' statements made under standing order 106A and delivering its terms in writing to the Clerk at the Table. The notice must be signed by the Member and seconder and show the day proposed for moving the motion. A notice of motion given by a Member in accordance with paragraph (a) which expresses a censure of, or want of confidence in the Government, or a censure of any Member, shall be reported to the House by the Clerk at the first convenient opportunity. Questions to Ministers142 Questions may be put to a Minister relating to public affairs with which the Minister is officially connected, to proceedings pending in the House, or to any matter of administration for which the Minister is responsible. Questions may be asked orally without notice for immediate reply or in writing on notice and placed on the Notice Paper for written reply. Question on notice148 A Member shall submit a question on notice to the Clerk in sufficient time, in the opinion of the Speaker, to enable it to be published in the next issue of the Notice Paper. The question shall be in writing and signed by the Member. Initiation of bills211 (a) A bill (unless received from the Senate) shall be initiated by a motion for leave to bring in a bill specifying its title, by an order of the House, on the calling on of a notice of presentation, or in accordance with the provisions of standing order 291. Notice of presentation—how given (b) Notice of intention to present a bill shall be given by a Member by either: (i) delivering its terms in writing to the Clerk at the Table, or (ii) stating its terms to the House during the period of Members' statements made under standing order 106A and delivering its terms in writing to the Clerk at the Table. Form of (c) A notice of intention to present a bill shall specify its title and the day for presentation, and shall be signed by the Member and, at least, one other Member. Application of standing ordersThe standing orders shall, to the necessary extent, be applied and read as if a notice of presentation were a notice of motion.These proposed amendments to the standing orders are intended to minimise impediments in the existing standing orders to the use of electronic means like email for transacting certain business of the House. Members are making increasing use of information technology in their parliamentary work and it would be unfortunate if they could not benefit from its convenience and efficiency because of unnecessary restrictions imposed by the standing orders. Expressions like `fairly written' and `fair copy' are anachronisms in an age of word processors, electronic mail and the Internet.Four amendments are proposed. Standing order 133 is reworded to facilitate the electronic lodgment of notices of motion. Standing order 142 is amplified to clarify the manner in which members may put questions to ministers; that is, orally or on notice. Standing order 148 is reworded to facilitate the electronic lodgment of questions on notice. Standing order 211 is reworded to facilitate the electronic lodgement of notices of intention to present bills.It is appropriate that the House adopt these amendments as it enters a new century. I do not wish to add to the motion other than to thank members of the Procedure Committee who have looked at these issues and made recommendations. This motion and the amendments we propose follow upon the recommendations of the committee. In general terms, the government has given much priority and significant resources to bringing the new technologies available to improve access to all sorts of government services and it is appropriate that we make best use of these facilities that are now available to us through the new technologies. I thank the members of the committee. I should also say that the government has, all through its period, been very open to suggestions of reforms to the standing orders. We think this is for the convenience of the House and the more efficient operation of the House. I commend the motion to all members.17:28:0023688McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—The opposition does not disagree with these proposed changes to the standing orders. Taking some of the anachronistic wording out of the standing orders will make it easier for everybody, and allowing members to transmit things electronically is a very sensible way for us to do things in the new century. We are happy to support the proposal.Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees23688236882368817:29:0023688Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—I move: That:(1) the House authorises:(a) the publication of all evidence or documents taken in camera or submitted on a confidential or restricted basis to the Committee of Privileges and that have been in the custody of the Committee for at least 30 years; and(b) the transfer of these records to the National Archives of Australia to enable public access to the records; provided that, where the Speaker accepts advice that the release of a particular record would affect the national security interest, or represent an unreasonable intrusion upon the personal affairs of any person, alive or dead or would otherwise be an exempt record under s.33 of the Archives Act 1983, if that Act had applied to the record, the release and transfer of that record is not authorised by this resolution;(2) this resolution has effect notwithstanding the provisions of any other resolution or standing order of the House; and(3) this resolution has effect from 1 January 2001 and that it continue in force unless and until amended or rescinded by the House in this or a subsequent Parliament.This is quite a significant matter. Since its establishment in 1944, the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges has taken much of the evidence on its inquiries in camera and that evidence has never been published by the committee or the House. In the 1970s and 1980s the committee published the evidence of some of its inquiries when it tabled its reports on those inquiries. However, the evidence of other inquiries remained in camera. From 1987, the committee discontinued its practice of taking all evidence in camera and the evidence to a number of inquiries was taken in public. In November 1999, the Standing Committee of Privileges reported on the in camera evidence given to one of its more well-known inquiries—the 1955 inquiry into articles published by the Bankstown Observer. The inquiry related to allegations of breach of privilege against the proprietor of the Bankstown Observer, Mr Raymond Fitzpatrick, and the journalist who wrote the articles, Mr Frank Browne. Mr Browne and Mr Fitzpatrick were found guilty of a serious breach of privilege by publishing articles intended to influence and intimidate a member of this House, the member for Reid, Mr C.A. Morgan. The committee recommended that the House take appropriate action and, after hearing Browne and Fitzpatrick at the bar of the House, sentenced each to three months imprisonment. Having examined the evidence to the inquiry and taken legal advice, the Privileges Committee in 1999 recommended to the House that the in camera evidence given to the Bankstown Observer inquiry be authorised for publication and released through National Archives. The committee's recommendation has stimulated an interest in the public for the release more generally of the in camera evidence given to the Standing Committee of Privileges. There is an annual release of the 30-year-old confidential records of executive government with the exclusion of particular records specified in the Archives Act which, among other matters, represent `an unreasonable intrusion upon the affairs of any person alive or deceased'. It has been suggested that there could be a similar annual release of the 30-year-old in camera evidence to the Standing Committee of Privileges with the same restrictions placed on documents so they may be excluded from the release. This motion would give effect to a procedure for the annual release of 30-year-old in camera records of the Standing Committee of Privileges. The procedure would involve the secretary of the Privileges Committee advising the Speaker on the release of records in accordance with the exemption referred to earlier, provided for under the Archives Act. To ensure consistency of approach, it is envisaged that the secretary would consult with the Director-General of Archives, then with the chairman of the committee before formally advising the Speaker. The process would, as far as practicable, mirror the process followed for the release of executive government records which is done in January each year. It is envisaged that the 30-year-old evidence of the committee, including the Bankstown Observer inquiry records, would be ready for release in January 2001. Agreement to this motion would mark a historic day in the House of Representatives. It would finally see the release of in camera evidence of the Privileges Committee and is consistent with the policy on cabinet records and open government.I do wish to acknowledge the work and cooperation of the Privileges Committee in this matter, in particular the chairman of the committee, the Hon. Alex Somlyay, for his determination to ensure that the views of the committee were reflected in the government response. It is another indication of this government's willingness to look at issues on their merits. It was something that could have been done under the previous government but, of course, was not. It will be interesting to hear the comments of the member for Watson, who seems keen to address the House. I commend the motion to the House. I think it is a sensible course of action. I myself have not seen these records, obviously enough. It will be a matter of historic interest to all members of the House and members of the general community.17:33:0023689McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I have great pleasure in supporting this motion, with one caveat that I will come to in a few moments. This is the last great secret of the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia—the only piece of deliberation of any real significance that has gone before this parliament since 1901 which is not known. In the part of Sydney where I live, the Browne-Fitzpatrick case has always been something that people talk about. Charlie Morgan, who was the member for Reid at the time, lived in Belfield, which is in my electorate, and his son Charlie Morgan lives in Belfield as well. I first became aware of the intricacies of this issue when I was the Speaker and Charlie Morgan Jr came to see me when he was writing a family history. He wanted access to the records of this matter because he felt that it was a matter that was quite significant in his father's parliamentary career. I as the Speaker wanted to release the documents at the time but deferred to the advice of the Clerk of the House of Representatives, Lyn Barlin who, up until these matters are released in the next month or so, is the only person who was alive at that time who had read these documents. While Lyn was the Clerk of the House of Representatives in the 1990s, back in those days he was the Secretary of the Privileges Committee. He had a safe in the corner of his office in which he used to keep these documents. Nobody except Lyn Barlin was allowed in those days to see them. Lyn cared so passionately about these matters not being revealed that I deferred to his decision. Some time later when I became a member of the Privileges Committee I pursued this matter and also what I thought was a secret we had which were the records of a secret sitting of the House during the war. It turned out that we never kept the records of that, so there is no documentation about that secret meeting.It is to the government's credit that this has come about after some considerable toing-and-froing to the Leader of the House who, because of his lawyerly background, was interested in one of the ramifications of this matter—which is that there are some reflections made on a judge in the evidence. That judge is now dead, but some consideration was put to me when I was Speaker—and I have no doubt put to the Leader of House when the Privileges Committee wanted to release this matter—that we should not release these documents because they reflected adversely on that dead judge. We may be able to keep people's secrets all their lives, but I do not think they become all that interested in them when they are dead. So I am very pleased that we are going to release this information. I said at the beginning that I had a small caveat on this motion, and that is that I get a little worried about the second part of paragraph 1(b), which says:... provided that, where the Speaker accepts advice that the release of a particular record would affect the national security interest, or represent an unreasonable intrusion upon the personal affairs of any person, alive or dead ...That was always the reason that was given why you could not release the Browne-Fitzpatrick papers: because they reflected on this poor dead judge. I am always happy to have incremental change and I am happy to support this motion.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—You'll have to wait until January.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—I have been waiting years to read this. I will be trying to get the government and maybe future governments to look at changing that section of it. I think the same rules that apply to cabinet documents should apply to the records of this House, and I do not think the cabinet documents have the same provision which says that they should not adversely affect anyone alive or dead. Otherwise, every year when we come around to having those cabinet records released, the newspapers could not write stories about how someone was right or someone was wrong 30 years ago. I think the minister is going to accept some advice. If the cabinet documents have that provision in them, I am happy to say that maybe I ought to try to change some things that are bigger. I would hope—and maybe the minister could reassure us—that we are applying the same standard to our records as are applied to the executive government's records.As I said at the beginning, Charlie Morgan's family will be very happy to see these documents publicly released. Mr Morgan is still alive and he will, I am sure, have a little drink tonight. I congratulate the Leader of the House. You do not often find me saying something nice about him—and he is looking rather embarrassed about this already—but, for once, he has done the right thing and I congratulate him for it. I thank the Privileges Committee, of which I am a member, for taking up this matter. As I said, I am glad to have finally had something to do with releasing these papers. Maybe I should not have deferred to Lyn Barlin's entreaties earlier. I would like to mention Lyn in this matter because he held very passionately the view that we should not release these documents, but I think we will all be interested now in knowing what he knew. As I said at the beginning, today we are authorising the release of the last secret of the House of Representatives. 17:39:0023691Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—by leave—Without closing the debate, I wish to say this: I understand that this motion will put in place, with the same criteria, the process which we have for cabinet. I myself asked exactly the question which was the subject of the Chief Opposition Whip's caveat. If that is not the case, I am happy to say we should look at the matter again in the new year, but I believe that to be the case and I thank him for raising it.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—I thank the honourable member.17:40:0023691Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—As Chairman of the Privileges Committee and with the member for Port Adelaide, who is the Deputy Chairman, we have had the opportunity to read these documents from the Browne-Fitzpatrick case. I guess we are the only two people in this parliament who have seen them. The honourable member for Watson mentioned that Lyn Barlin is the only person alive who has also seen those papers, but I recall that Sir Reginald Swartz was a member of the Privileges Committee in the mid-1950s that dealt with this matter. I think Sir Reginald is still alive and he also is familiar with this case.I thank the Leader of the House for his cooperation in achieving what I believe to be a historic moment in the life of this parliament where we are releasing documents which have been kept secret until now. The pressure to release these documents has come from the member for Watson, the member for Banks and historians and archivists. As a parliamentary representative on the archives council along with Senator John Faulkner, who is the other representative, we have brought this request from the archives council for the release of these documents, and I am pleased the government has agreed to this motion. I want to commend the Speaker and the current Clerk, Ian Harris, who gave the Speaker advice that this matter should be referred to the Privileges Committee. Our recommendation of last November has now come to fruition. I thank the House.17:42:0023691Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I rise to support the motion before the House. I have had an interest in having the Browne-Fitzpatrick papers released because this case has been legendary in the city of Bankstown, from which I hail. I think it is important that these records are finally unlocked some 45 years after an event that was quite controversial in its time. Page 1662 of the Hansard record from 10 June 1955 reveals that the House voted on a motion of the then Prime Minister to jail Mr Fitzpatrick for a period of three months, and that vote was 55-12. On page 1663 of the Hansard of 10 June 1955, the vote to jail Mr Browne was 55-11. The significant thing is that the parliament at that time acted as judge, jury and executioner but did so with not all of the material before it. All of the material before the Privileges Committee at that time was not before the parliament at that time. Indeed, that evidence was never tabled. Today, in supporting this motion, which obviously will go through unanimously, we unlock the door to all that material. There have been many suggestions made as to why the parliament voted the way it did. I know that the Labor Party at that time had a free vote, a conscience vote.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—We do on all privileges matters.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM—I am told by the member for Watson that we do on all privileges matters. Frank Green, who was Clerk of the House of Representatives from 1937 to 1955, revealed in his book Servant of The House that the then government did not have a conscience vote. There was a binding vote of the cabinet and, indeed, of the caucus. On page 159 of his book, he says: Later that night I learned that the decision was not to be left to the House; Cabinet had already decided that the two men were to go to gaol; the government coalition parties would endorse this decision of Cabinet, and they had a majority in the House.Mr Green says in his epilogue on page 163:The day on which the House of Representatives sent two men to gaol for an alleged breach of parliamentary privilege was my last day in the House, and a few days later I left the service of Parliament for ever.I had been dedicated to upholding parliamentary democracy against the interests controlling the Executive; now I saw myself as a failure and Parliament as something meaningless, just a `front' for the dead democracy. As for Parliament House, I saw it as Frank Anstey had finally seen it—`The House of dead hopes; the habitation of Dead Souls.'I welcome the release of these papers. It is my legal background, of course, as a former legal aid solicitor and public defender but, in reading the papers, I was quite riveted as to the way the case was conducted by the parliament at that time. On page 1625 of the Hansard of 10 June 1955, Mr Fitzpatrick, having been brought before the House, is quoted as saying:Mr Fitzpatrick.—I would like to apply for permission for Mr. Mason, my counsel, to act on my behalf.Mr. SPEAKER.—The resolution of the House entitles you to speak personally, not your counsel.Further:Mr. Fitzpatrick.—I would like to apologize to the House for what I did. When the article was published in the newspaper I had no idea that it was against parliamentary privilege. I humbly apologize.Mr. SPEAKER.—Have you anything further to say?Mr. Fitzpatrick.—No.Further on, Mr Browne is brought before the bar of the House and says:Mr. Browne.—It is considered the right of every Australian citizen charged with an offence that he, first, must be charged; and secondly, he must have legal representation. That is denied to me even here. He must have the case against him proved, and he need not answer incriminating questions. Then there is the fact that he must have the right to cross-examine his accuser. And lastly, he must have the right to appeal. There is also another inherent right which is always observed in every court in this Commonwealth, and every court where there is any reasonable conception of justice—that he shall present his case in an atmosphere which shall not have had the effect of prejudging him before he comes in.Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask you how what has happened to me this week squares up with that. First, I have been convicted and never charged. Secondly, at no time have I had legal representation. Thirdly, the case against me has not been properly proved. Fourthly, I have never had the right to cross-examine my accuser. And fifthly, I have no right to appeal. As far as the last is concerned, it is the inherent right for a man to have his case taken in an atmosphere that does not allow him to enter the court-room with the hatred, not only of spectators but of practically every one in the court-room, including the jury, stirred up against him to a point where, if this was a community of another type, I doubt very much whether he would get into the court at all; he would be lynched on the way in.Further, on page 1626, Mr Browne says:What happens to Frank Browne in this assembly does not matter very much. He is an obscure and inconspicuous figure in the community—not a newspaper baron, sir, not a man who can command a mighty organ with which really to intimidate a member if he tried.Further:All I ask for is that the general public be shown, sir, that you do not bring people here to Canberra to deprive them of their rights, that the law-makers do not set themselves above the law, and do not place their good name better than that of the constituents they represent. Surely that is not too much to ask, sir.What is more disturbing is that, whilst it appears that there was the unanimous view of the parliament as it then was constituted that there was a breach of privilege, the former Clerk of the House, Mr Green, in his memoirs, in relation to his view of the matter, reveals—and I quote from page 156 of his book:Usually the Clerk of the House advises the Committee of Privileges whether in his opinion privilege is involved. In this case I had no hesitation in advising the Committee, in writing, that it would be absurd if parliamentary privilege protected a member against allegations in respect of his actions outside the Chamber of the House; it was not a matter of privilege; and the civil courts were open to him. Further, on page 158, after having read an article by Mr Browne entitled Things I Hear in relation to comments about former Prime Minister Menzies, Mr Green says:After reading this I saw the light—Menzies was after revenge. However, in the hope that reason might prevail, I prepared a further and more detailed opinion in which were set out some House of Commons cases in which successive Speakers had refused to allow matters of privilege to be raised in respect of allegations against members of improper conduct and even of criminal offences in their professional and business activities. I also addressed a memorandum to the Chairman of the Committee stating that, in my opinion, the Committee should report to the House without delay that no breach of privilege was involved.The committee disregarded my advice and summoned Fitzpatrick and Browne to appear before them.On pages 159 and 160 of Mr Green's memoirs, he says that he also approached the then Prime Minister to try to have Mr John W. Shand and Mr A.F. Mason represent them. He says:I asked him to see Shand and Mason before the House met. He said he would let me know in a few moments.Further on:I waited for five minutes, and then Menzies came out and said: `No, I won't see them; I know all their arguments.'Why am I concerned? I am concerned that this evidence be released so that we have the full picture, because under section 7(1) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 we still have the power to imprison for a period not exceeding six months. I hope that, with the release of these papers, the historians get to look at them, that this case is revived due to the interest in it and that we learn from the mistakes of the past. I have no hesitation in saying that, despite the vote of the parliament at that time, I believe that it was inappropriate for those people to have been sent to jail for three months. I thought it was a harsh and excessive imprisonment. In this respect I thought it was fatally flawed because not all the material was before the so-called jury of the parliament at that time. All the material before the Privileges Committee was not before the parliament at that time. That is why I take great pleasure in this motion and that is why I have been on the case. As a lawyer still having a practising certificate, I believe that proper process and proper procedure should apply, even in this place. On 1 January 2001, almost 45 years after the event, we will finally get the complete picture. I congratulate all those involved.I think it is appropriate to point out that this motion was not really necessary, because on 11 October 1984 there had also been a unanimous resolution of the House that would have allowed these papers to have been released by now. It is only as a result of the efforts of some members of this House, including the member for Watson and the Chairman of the Privileges Committee, the member for Fairfax, Mr Somlyay, that this issue has again been agitated. I think today we have achieved an appropriate result. I support the motion before the House because it lays down the guidelines. I do not think that there should be any secrecy involved after a period of time in relation to our deliberations or the deliberations of committees of this House. I think we need transparency so that we who are the successors can go into the minds of our predecessors—if at all we can—or have all the material that resulted in decisions being made at a particular time. I commend everybody involved. I thank the House and the government in particular for facilitating this motion. Last week, when I raised my third question on it, I thought it would be too late. We are missing out on this century, because 1 January 2001 is actually the next century. That is when the new millennium starts, not last year. So, unfortunately for historical purposes, these records will have been locked up this century but only released next century. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.236932369317:55:0023693Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Site filling, stabilisation and construction of infrastructure at the Defence site at Ermington, New South Wales. These site preparation works are to be undertaken by the Department of Defence at the former naval store site at Ermington in Sydney prior to its disposal. The 19.6 hectare site on the northern shore of the Parramatta River was declared surplus to Defence requirements in 1990. Until then, it was utilised as a naval stores depot and subsequently leased for commercial car storage until the end of 1996. In 1943, the site was resumed by the Commonwealth for Defence purposes. Originally intended as a camp for over 10,000 United States servicemen during the Second World War, it was found to be more useful as a supply store for the United States Army. After the United States Army vacated the site, the Royal Australian Navy utilised the site as a storage facility for non-explosive materials. In 1996, as part of disposal planning, the Department of Defence initiated a proposal to change the land use of the site to one that permitted a range of residential uses. The New South Wales planning minister gazetted the new residential zoning in 1998, permitting development for up to 700 dwellings.The Department of Defence is keen to ensure that the revenue returned from the sale of the land is optimised, and comprehensive land economic advice confirms that this will be achieved by reducing any uncertainty perceived by prospective purchasers by undertaking these works prior to the sale of the site. The site filling works will raise the land to a level that will permit residential development. This will require the import, placement and compaction of fill. Other works will treat soft alluvial ground conditions in parts of the site to ensure a stable foundation exists which is adequate to support subsequent residential development. The installation of trunk infrastructure, including drainage, roads, sewer, water and telecommunications, will allow the site to be sold in a number of super lots or groups of lots which will further enhance disposal revenue. The outturn cost of the proposed work is $31.6 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, the works will commence at one end of the site early next year and progress across the site. As the stabilisation works are completed, the installation of infrastructure will follow. I commend the motion to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.236942369423694Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—As required by resolutions of the House, I table copies of notifications of alterations interests in a statement of registrable interests received during the period 29 June to 6 December 2000.236942369423694Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the 22nd report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate.Report—by leave—agreed to.Bills23694R119723694Message received from the Senate transmitting the following resolution agreed to by the Senate:That the National Crime Authority Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 be referred to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the National Crime Authority for inquiry and report by 1 March 2001Bills23694R97123694Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments— (1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 4), before item 1, insert:1A Subsection 55(2)Repeal the subsection.(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (lines 4 to 8), omit paragraph 195AE(2)(a), substitute: (a) to insert or affix, or to authorise the inserting or affixing of, a person's name in or on the work, or in or on a reproduction of the work, or to use, or to authorise the use of, a person's name in connection with the work, or in connection with a reproduction of the work, in such a way as to imply falsely that the person is an author of the work; or (3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 9 (lines 23 to 26), omit paragraph 195AF(2)(a), substitute: (a) to insert or affix, or to authorise the inserting or affixing of, a person's name on the film or on a copy of the film in such a way as to imply falsely that the person is the director, producer or screenwriter, as the case may be, of the film; or(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (lines 6 to 9), omit subsection (4), substitute: (4) If: (a) a cinematograph film; or (b) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work as included in a cinematograph film;has 2 or more authors, the authors may enter into a written co- authorship agreement by which each of them agrees not to exercise his or her right of integrity of authorship in respect of the film or work, as the case may be, except jointly with the other author or authors.(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 15 (lines 16 and 17), omit paragraph (2)(h), substitute: (h) whether the work was made: (i) in the course of the author's employment; or (ii) under a contract for the performance by the author of services for another person; (i) if the work has 2 or more authors—their views about the failure to identify them.(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 16 (lines 21 and 22), omit paragraph (g), substitute: (g) whether the work was made: (i) in the course of the author's employment; or (ii) under a contract for the performance by the author of services for another person;(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 16 (line 24), at the end of subsection (2), add: ; (i) if the work has 2 or more authors—their views about the treatment.(8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 17 (line 31) to page 18 (line 8), omit paragraph (2)(b), substitute: (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—the owner complies with subsection (2A) in relation to the change, relocation, demolition or destruction.(9) Schedule 1, item 1, page 18 (after line 8), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) This subsection is complied with by the owner of a building in relation to a change in, or the relocation, demolition or destruction of, the building if: (a) the owner has, in accordance with the regulations and before the change, relocation, demolition or destruction is carried out, given the author or a person representing the author a written notice stating the owner's intention to carry out the change, relocation, demolition or destruction; and (b) the notice stated that the person to whom the notice was given may, within 3 weeks from the date of the notice, seek to have access to the work for either or both of the following purposes: (i) making a record of the work; (ii) consulting in good faith with the owner about the change, relocation, demolition or destruction; and (c) the notice contained such other information and particulars as are prescribed; and (d) where the person to whom the notice was given notifies the owner within the period of 3 weeks referred to in paragraph (b) that the person wishes to have access to the work for either or both of the purposes mentioned in that paragraph—the owner has given the person a reasonable opportunity within a further period of 3 weeks to have such access; and (e) where, in the case of a change or relocation, the person to whom the notice was given notifies the owner that the person requires the removal from the work of the author's identification as the author of the work—the owner has complied with the requirement. (10) Schedule 1, item 1, page 18 (lines 18 to 34), omit paragraph (3)(b), substitute: (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—the owner complies with subsection (3A) in relation to the change, relocation, demolition or destruction.(11) Schedule 1, item 1, page 18 (after line 34), after subsection (3), insert: (3A) This subsection is complied with by the owner of a building in relation to a change in, or the relocation, demolition or destruction of, the building if: (a) the owner has, in accordance with the regulations and before the change, relocation, demolition or destruction is carried out, given the author or a person representing the author, or the authors or the persons representing the authors, whose identity and location the owner knows, a written notice stating the owner's intention to carry out the change, relocation, demolition or destruction; and (b) the notice stated that the person to whom the notice was given may, within 3 weeks from the date of the notice, seek to have access to the building for either or both of the following purposes: (i) making a record of the artistic work; (ii) consulting in good faith with the owner about the change, relocation, demolition or destruction; and (c) the notice contained such other information and particulars as are prescribed; and (d) where the person to whom the notice was given notifies the owner within the period of 3 weeks referred to in paragraph (b) that the person wishes to have access to the building for either or both of the purposes mentioned in that paragraph—the owner has given the person a reasonable opportunity within a further period of 3 weeks to have such access; and (e) where, in the case of a change or relocation, the person to whom the notice was given notifies the owner that the person requires the removal from the building of the author's identification as the author of the artistic work—the owner has complied with the requirement.(12) Schedule 1, item 1, page 18 (line 35), omit “and (3)”, substitute “, (2A), (3) and (3A)”.(13) Schedule 1, item 1, page 19 (lines 7 to 24), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) if paragraph (a) does not apply—complies with subsection (4B) in relation to the removal or relocation.(14) Schedule 1, item 1, page 19 (after line 24), after subsection (4A), insert: (4B) This subsection is complied with by the remover in relation to the removal or relocation of a moveable artistic work if: (a) the remover has, in accordance with the regulations and before the removal or relocation is carried out, given the author or a person representing the author a written notice stating the remover's intention to carry out the removal or relocation; and (b) the notice stated that the person to whom the notice was given may, within 3 weeks from the date of the notice, seek to have access to the work for either or both of the following purposes: (i) making a record of the work; (ii) consulting in good faith with the remover about the removal or relocation; and (c) the notice contained such other information and particulars as are prescribed; and (d) where the person to whom the notice was given notifies the remover within the period of 3 weeks referred to in paragraph (b) that the person wishes to have access to the work for either or both of the purposes mentioned in that paragraph—the remover has given the person a reasonable opportunity within a further period of 3 weeks to have such access; and (e) where the person to whom the notice was given notifies the remover that the person requires the removal from the work of the author's identification as the author of the work—the remover has complied with the requirement. (15) Schedule 1, item 1, page 20 (line 17), after “omission”, insert “—films or works in films”.(16) Schedule 1, item 1, page 20 (after line 17), before subsection (1), insert: (1A) This section applies to a work that is: (a) a cinematograph film; or (b) a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work as included in a cinematograph film.(17) Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (after line 9), after section 195AW, insert:195AWA Author's consent to act or omission—work that is not a film or included in a film (1) This section applies to a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work other than such a work as included in a cinematograph film. (2) It is not an infringement of a moral right of an author in respect of a work to do, or omit to do, something if the act or omission is within the scope of a written consent genuinely given by the author or a person representing the author. (3) Subject to subsection (4), a consent does not have any effect unless it is given: (a) in relation to specified acts or omissions, or specified classes or types of acts or omissions, whether occurring before or after the consent is given; and (b) in relation to either of the following: (i) a specified work or specified works existing when the consent is given; or (ii) a specified work, or works of a particular description, the making of which has not begun or that is or are in the course of being made. (4) A consent may be given by an employee for the benefit of his or her employer in relation to all or any acts or omissions (whether occurring before or after the consent is given) and in relation to all works made or to be made by the employee in the course of his or her employment. (5) A consent given for the benefit of the owner or prospective owner of copyright in the work or works to which it relates is presumed, unless the contrary intention appears in the consent instrument, to extend to his or her licensees and successors in title, and to any persons who are authorised by the owner or prospective owner, or by such a licensee or successor in title, to do acts comprised in the copyright.195AWB Consent invalidated by duress or false or misleading statements (1) If a person applies duress to an author, or to a person representing an author, in connection with the giving of a consent for the purposes of section 195AW or 195AWA, the consent does not have any effect. (2) If: (a) a person makes a statement to another person; and (b) the person makes the statement knowing: (i) that the statement is false or misleading in a material particular; or (ii) that a matter or thing has been omitted from the statement without which the statement is false or misleading in a material particular; and (c) the person makes the statement with the intention of persuading the other person to give, or not to give, a consent for the purposes of section 195AW or 195AWA;the consent does not have any effect.(18) Schedule 1, item 1, page 21 (lines 23 and 24), omit “the author's legal personal representative”, substitute “a person representing the author”.(19) Schedule 1, item 1, page 28 (line 32) to page 29 (line 5), omit subsection 195AZO(2), substitute: (2) Subject to subsection (3), the right of integrity of authorship in respect of a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work, other than such a work as included in a cinematograph film, subsists in respect of a work made before or after the commencement of this Part.(20) Schedule 1, item 1, page 29 (lines 7 and 8), omit “a work under paragraph (2)(a)”, substitute “a work referred to in subsection (2) that was made before the commencement of this Part”. (21) Schedule 2, page 31 (after line 1), at the end of the Schedule, add:10 After section 195AVInsert:195AVA Matters to be taken into account In determining whether a person has authorised the doing of an act that is an infringement of moral rights, the matters that must be taken into account include the following: (a) the extent (if any) of the person's power to prevent the doing of the act concerned; (b) the nature of any relationship existing between the person and the person who did the act concerned; (c) whether the person took any reasonable steps to prevent or avoid the doing of the act, including whether the person complied with any relevant industry codes of practice.195AVB Communication by use of certain facilities A person (including a carrier or carriage service provider) who provides facilities for making, or facilitating the making of, a communication is not taken to have authorised the doing of an act that is an infringement of moral rights merely because another person uses the facilities so provided to do such an act.Motion (by Mr Brough) agreed to:That the amendments be agreed to.Bills2369823698Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.23698Bill (on motion by Mr Brough)—by leave—read a third time.Ministerial Statements236982369823698Order of the day returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the papers presented.Debate (on motion by Mr Brough) adjourned.Bills23698R112723698Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for a later hour this day.Delegation Reports236982369818:06:0023698Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—by leave—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Brazil and Argentina from 15 to 29 October 2000. This was an extremely successful visit, which I think has done a lot to further relations with both Brazil and Argentina. I think it could be summed up as a visit of opportunity: the opportunity to improve trade and to generate new investment between the two countries—particularly with Australian interests in those countries. I think those opportunities are terrific.The visit followed a report that was tabled in September by the Trade Subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. This report provided a focus for the delegation, and we were able to progress a number of issues by reinforcing the findings of that report and emphasising some of its recommendations during our meetings. I might add also that the deputy leader of the delegation, the Hon. Neil O'Keefe, the member for Burke, was also on the Trade Subcommittee and was extremely helpful in his contribution to the delegation, both in what he had learnt from the previous trip and also with his full knowledge of that report.Clearly, the opportunity to improve awareness between the two countries will be very beneficial. It was obvious too to the members of the delegation that our recent success of the Olympic Games in Sydney had been well and truly noted in both countries and had created a very favourable impression of Australia. The challenge we do face, though, with both countries, Brazil and Argentina, is to extend their focus beyond their traditional areas—which, of course, are North America and Europe. At many meetings we emphasised the opportunities that Australia does present, particularly as a financial centre and with its connections through into Asia. The delegation was very impressed with the changes that are occurring in those countries, with their economies improving and their political system adopting a democratic way. Clearly, with the economic recovery, the recession of the late 1990s is now behind them—Brazil in particular—and I think constitutional democracy is well entrenched in both countries. We had the opportunity to meet with many key people, including Vice-President Maciel in Brazil and Argentina's Acting President Losada and many ministers, senators, deputies and so on from each congress. The enthusiasm with which the delegation was received showed that there is a keen interest in Australia, and we can but build on the opportunities that the delegation created.There are many things we could talk about and, in the short time available, I recommend the report to all honourable members. Of the many common interests that were there, obviously one of the highlights was the visit to Bariloche in Argentina and our talking with some very senior people in INVAP who are going to build the new nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights—only one of many opportunities to get further insight. I would like to emphasise that this was an extremely successful delegation. All members worked in a very harmonious fashion. It was probably one of the most successful delegations I have ever been on, and certainly it was a great honour to be asked to lead it.I conclude by thanking, in particular, our people in the posts: Ambassador Conroy in Brazil, Ambassador Minahan in Argentina, Trade Commissioner Gerard Seeber in Sao Paulo and the staff of the various embassies. Finally, I thank my delegation colleagues— the member for Burke, Neil O'Keefe, who was deputy leader of the delegation; the member for Petrie; the member for Blaxland; and Senator Tierney—all of whom made a very positive contribution. I particularly thank Elton Humphery, the delegation secretary.18:11:0023699O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—by leave—I will make some brief remarks to follow on and support those made by Mr Hawker, the member for Wannon, who was the chairman of the delegation—and he conducted those duties very admirably, I might say. The delegation had a particularly sharp focus arising out of earlier experiences of the visit of the Trade Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade to South America. It reinforced completely the strong view put to this parliament that we have simply missed the opportunities that exist for dialogue, trade and development in our relationships with the South American continent. That message has been well and truly reinforced and enjoined by parliamentarians on both sides—from the federal parliament of the Australian continent and from their parliaments—and I think will be reinforced both by this report and by our experiences as we engage more and more in these activities.Very briefly I would make the point that I personally did develop a travel illness on the way to South America. I want to formally place on the record of the parliament my appreciation of the other members of the delegation who helped me out so much and understood my situation. For the assistance that was provided to me, I thank Ambassador Garry Conroy and his wife Cheryl in Brazil and Ambassador Sharyn Minahan in Argentina and the respective staff in both those embassies. I make the point very quickly that I discovered the Brazilian Congress has its own hospital. Compared with the facilities that are available to us here in Parliament House, we have a long way to go in developing medical support for members of parliament and others in this place. I also place on record my acknowledgment of the great support and assistance that I received there. I reiterate the chairman's comments about the Parliamentary Relations Office and the support that was provided to us by people at all levels. I just finish by concurring with those comments of the chairman, leaving time for the member for Petrie to make some further comments on the trip.18:14:0023700Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—by leave—I would like to add to the comments of the member for Wannon and the member for Burke and also congratulate the leader of the delegation, the member for Wannon, for his inclusiveness and the leadership that he showed both when we were preparing for the delegation and when we were in Argentina and Brazil. I acknowledge the wonderful support by the Parliamentary Liaison Office and people like Elton Humphery, and also by the Department of Foreign Affairs here as well as at our posts overseas: Ambassador Garry Conroy and Sharyn Minahan in Argentina, the Trade Commissioner in Sao Paulo, the embassy staff in Buenos Aires, the Austrade officers and Edward Sellars, Sarah Roberts and Radek Divis.The trip was a very timely one, following the Olympics and also following a trip by the Trade Subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The delegation was very well received, and I must comment on the cohesive way that the delegation as a group was able to get together and highlight the topics that were of particular interest. We achieved considerable success in highlighting that more work needed to be done to strengthen our trade and investment opportunities, and the delegation was able to ensure that scientific and business interests, foreign relations and multilateral issues, agriculture, trade and investment were highlighted to the utmost level. A number of Australian companies have already taken the plunge, and I was very pleased to be part of the delegation and to have the ability to promote some of my local companies, such as AI Scientific, and a number of other companies who wanted to trade with South America.Bills23700R1127Consideration resumed.2370018:16:0023700McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill reinforces the government's powers to safeguard the public interest in the management of electronic addressing services, such as Internet domain names. Electronic addressing services have become a crucial element of national infrastructure. The registration of a domain name is now a gateway to e-commerce for many Australian businesses and crucial to the branding of an online presence. As these services are a public asset, it is important that they are managed in the public interest. The absence of an appropriate competitive environment, adequate consumer safeguards, or technical competence and efficiency could have negative flow-on effects for the development of the information economy in Australia. For this reason, the government has developed this bill to clarify the powers of the Australian Communications Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission in relation to electronic addressing services.The bill has two elements: firstly, a clarification of existing provisions in the Telecommunications Act 1997 for the ACA to declare a `manager of electronic addressing', and for the Australian Communications Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to subsequently give directions to that manager; and secondly, a new mechanism in the Australian Communications Authority Act 1997 for the ACA to undertake the management of electronic addressing services, on the instruction of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts.Under the first measure, the ACA could determine that the service is being managed in an unsatisfactory manner, or the ACCC could determine that a manager of an electronic addressing service is not promoting adequate levels of competition or consumer protection. In either case, the ACA would be able to declare this manager under section 474 of the Telecommunications Act 1997, and either the ACA or the ACCC could then issue legally binding directions to rectify these problems. Under the second measure, the minister will be able to instruct the ACA to assume direct responsibility for electronic addressing services, including domain names. The amendments will allow the ACA to recover its costs of managing the service. This mechanism will serve as a safety net for use in the event that a self-regulatory body at some time in the future proves incapable of managing an electronic addressing service in the public interest. While the government continues to promote responsible self-regulatory management structures for electronic addressing services in Australia, it is important that these clear backstop provisions are in place in case serious problems arise.This is very important legislation, because the bill recognises the government's powers to safeguard the public interest in the management of electronic addressing services, such as Internet domain names. Electronic addressing services have become a crucial element of national infrastructure. The registration of an Internet domain name is now a gateway to e-commerce for many Australian businesses and is crucial to the branding of an online presence. As these services are a public asset, it is important that they are managed in the public interest. The absence of an appropriate competitive environment, adequate safeguards or technical competence is not in the public interest. Consequently, we needed to clarify the extent of government jurisdiction and powers in this area.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr Griffin—Absolutely!XH4McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURAN—It is a matter that I know is of interest to the honourable member, because we do clarify the government's existing powers so as to safeguard the public interest. There is much to commend this bill to the House. All members are as caught up in the electronic, telecommunications, Internet and online revolution as are the people we seek to serve. We certainly cannot afford to be left behind. Historically, the government has not needed to be involved with domain name management, as there are a lot of capable individuals around the world who oversee this network. These days, however, there is a wider community interest in domain names. Domain names often have a significant value to businesses establishing themselves in the new economy. So self-regulatory frameworks have much appeal and, of course, in principle, are supported and endorsed by this government in preference to heavy-handed legislation.In drawing my remarks to a close, I again urge the House to embrace this forward-looking, innovative legislation by the government—as the Senate has done without contest. I commend the bill to the House and submit the explanatory memorandum.Leave granted for second reading debate to continue forthwith.Sitting suspended from 6.23 p.m. to 8.30 p.m.20:30:0023701Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—The House has before it the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. This bill was considered by the Senate earlier today under non-controversial legislation, which reflects the opposition's general support for the legislation proposed to be enacted by the government. That is not to say that we do not have some concerns which, in due course, I will place on the record. This bill provides safety net mechanisms for the management of electronic addressing through the Australian Communications Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. The government has stated that the safety net mechanisms are designed to be invoked in the event that attempts at self-regulation prove ineffective in managing electronic addressing.The government's bill contains two schedules that implement those safety net mechanisms. The first schedule provides the circumstances in which the ACCC or the ACA can intervene in the management of electronic addressing. The second schedule establishes an alternative mechanism by which the ACA can be given responsibility for managing a specified type of electronic addressing if direct ACA management is the only viable alternative to management by a self-regulating body. The government supports industry self-regulation for the management of electronic addressing services, which includes domain name allocations. Consultative processes for the formulation of a self-regulatory regime are currently being undertaken by auDA—the dot au domain name administrator. Regrettably, attempts at industry self-regulation have consistently failed over the past few years and there are genuine concerns that the current proposals for a new self-regulatory regime may not be successful. This matter was considered by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Legislation Committee, which reflected a range of views, many of which expressed some concern with the approach. The detail of the differing views is discussed in the Labor senators' minority report on the bill. The view of the opposition is that, while the government's approach may not be sufficient to adequately respond to concerns of some within the industry about electronic addressing, and whilst the bill fails to respond to concerns on related issues, such as the need for protection against cybersquatting, the bill does provide a sufficient mechanism by which deficiencies in the government's processes can be addressed as required at a later date, either by the current government or by a new government. In particular, the bill provides a mechanism by which the ACA can intervene should the government's self-regulatory mechanism fail, and this would provide a platform for a future government to reregulate electronic addressing should that be determined to be appropriate.Whilst the opposition does not oppose the bill, we do note some concerns which have been raised by the industry as to whether the government's favoured approach to industry self-regulation will resolve these problems. In particular, in the Labor senators' minority report to the bill, the issues raised before that committee and reflected upon in the Labor senators' minority report include the following: the bill does not address the issue of existing domain name registries being monopolies; the bill does nothing to ensure adequate competitive pricing; competitive pressures will adequately regulate domain name allocation naming policies and consequently it is argued by some in industry that there is no need for the regulation; the existence of the bill's safety net mechanisms might undermine the cooperative self-regulatory process; and, finally, the role of the ACA and the clarity of the circumstances for invoking the safety net mechanisms are not necessarily sufficiently defined.Having said that, this matter was dealt with by the Senate in non-controversial legislation earlier this morning. The opposition is happy to not oppose this legislation. The history of this matter is that, in some respects, we are now grappling with the reverse of what has become known in corporate affairs legislation as `state based business names regulation'. So far as company business names are concerned, because of the history of the development of corporations, the regulation of business names has been determined by legislation through public authorities right from the outset. The history of the development of the Internet and Internet industries is that this has essentially been industry based and industry determined from the initiation and the development of the Internet industry. It may well be that, at some point in the cycle, we get to that point where the maturity of the industry is such that the determination of domain names registration becomes the effective modern-day equivalent of business names registration. The government's legislation provides that safety net mechanism and provides the opportunity for a future government to determine whether those circumstances have been arrived at.If I had one general criticism of the government's legislation, it would be that this bill does not deal with the issue of cybersquatting. That is not necessarily fatal to the determination of this bill, but that is an issue that the government needs to grapple with much more adroitly than it has to date. Whilst placing those concerns on the public record, the opposition does not oppose this legislation. It will provide safety net mechanisms for the ACCC or the ACA to intervene, at the request of the government of the day, in the future should certain circumstances prevail. On that basis, having placed those caveats on the record, we have no objection to the legislation as presented to the House. 20:36:0023703Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am sure all on this side welcome the endorsement from the member for Perth for the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. From the comfort of opposition, it is understandable that he would put those caveats on the record. The government has to deal with matters because we are in government. We have responsibility for trying to get good policy frameworks in place in an ever evolving, constantly changing, dynamic industrythe Internet industry. To try to keep pace with the change that is driven by technology, as I have said on many occasions with similar matters, is a very big challenge for government in 2000 and beyond.The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 establishes the sort of safety net framework that you would expect from a responsible government that understands that private initiative, private endeavour and the private pursuit for reward for effort will be more likely to drive matters such as who gets what particular part of cyberspace. Cybersquatting was an issue raised by the member for Perth. I guess as speculators are always going to be in marketplaces as they develop, cybersquatting is something that will not necessarily be easily handled by any government, at this point in time anyway.What is important is that the ongoing, effective and consistent work of the government to meet its goals and commitments in relation to establishing some legal and regulatory framework and an environment for this industry to grow in is contained within this bill. The information economy is growing at an exponential rate. It is the economy of today and of the future, and I pay tribute to the stewardship of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Alston. His dedication to inspiring all of his ministerial colleagues to get their departments online has made this country, and the government that is administering this nation, stand out from the crowd of nations. We are online in ways that no other nation around the world is online. So this government understands very well the importance of the information economy.We also want to send a signal to people in this industry that, if they cannot get their collective acts together and if they cannot actually come up with a way and a means to properly allocate the dot au categories, be it dot net, dot com or dot org—and some of them are more difficult to get than others—the government will be there. So, if that industry self-regulation does not work or the administration is mismanaged some time between now and the future, there will be some safety net in place. So this legislation is all about providing some certainty as those small and sometimes large steps in this sector take place. The government is reinforcing its powers to safeguard public interest in electronic addressing services, such as Internet domain names. It is crucial to our national good and the future of businesses—fledgling as so many of them are—as electronic commerce and its addressing systems will become the basis of identification for so many transactions that ordinary Australians make with those businesses.Getting a domain name is in itself the absolute necessary step if you want to go through that gateway and into the world of e-commerce. Macgregor High School, Mount Gravatt High School, Macgregor Primary School and so many other schools in my electorate have gone through that gateway. They understand that they have to present themselves and their products to not just the people in the local area, not just the people in the city of Brisbane and not just the people in the state of Queensland or those in Australia, but those around the world. People are able to find schools—not just non-government schools, but government schools—in my electorate that are effectively using e-commerce as a means of marketing their very splendid services. That in itself is where the world is heading. So the government is right to look in a cautious way at just what should and must come, and, if it does not come, to make sure there are some safeguards there for those who expect the safeguards to be in place. It is not just the opposition which is supporting this bill. Supporters of the initiatives in this bill include the industry, the Internet Industry Association, Melbourne IT, which is the predominant domain name registrar in this country, and auDA, the au domain organisation established by this government as we made those series of steps towards certainty. It is worth having a look at this organisation, and honourable members can find them at a very easy web site, www.auda.org.au. They are a not-for-profit organisation and fully self-funding. They were established by the government in 1999 to address so many of the concerns and to ensure that the development of this sector was done in a good way so that competition could be properly established on a solid basis and that the industry itself would be in a position to run its own game, so to speak. I compliment the organisation on their accountability and their transparency, because basically everything this organisation have done is on the Net. Isn't it a tremendous advance to see that something established by government to serve the people of Australia is easily accessible and totally and completely accountable, not just through the parliament but also through the Internet? The key achievements of this organisation to date in meeting various objectives set out by the Howard government are many and are worth noting here on the parliamentary record. Contracts have been executed with delegates for the second level domains—.net.au, .asn.au, .csiro.au—and the registrar for .com.au, generating a revenue in excess of $840,000. So they have certainly met that self-funding criterion established by the government. They have a healthy and sustainable revenue stream based on a sound financial and business plan. Planning is under way to ensure that this organisation will be fully funded in a post-competition market.Another one of their objectives was to be inclusive of, and accountable to, members of the Internet community including both the supply and demand sides. They have adopted a membership structure which encompasses all aspects of the Internet community. Members of each class are guaranteed representation on the board. The board has striven to ensure that business is conducted in an open and accountable manner, and that is certainly evident by their Internet site. They have adopted completely that open, transparent and consultative process. The `aim to enhance benefits to Internet users through the promotion of competition, fair trading and provisions for consumer protection and support' was another one of their objectives established by this government. To do that, they have established various panels to specifically examine competition and name allocation issues, and they are looking to implement the recommendations of these panels once those recommendations are forthcoming. As a result, they are also looking at additional panels to address fair trading and consumer protection issues, including dispute resolution and service levels. All the various other objectives that this organisation have set about establishing are also on their Internet site.It is worth recording in the Hansard my appreciation of the efforts of this organisation in realising so many of the aspirations that the government set for them just a couple of years ago. We are well down the path to getting a very responsible system in this particular part of telecommunications policy, despite the constant challenges that technology is providing to us as legislators. We are always going to be a few steps behind technology, so it is right that we give the industry a chance to self manage. It is right that industry, which best knows where things are going to go to next, and which part of what seems like science fiction will become practical fact, decide what is actually going to be adopted. It is not really up to us as legislators to prescribe certain technical outcomes, just as we did not in the seventies prescribe that everyone should have Beta video cassettes, which were technically superior to VHS. How wrong we would have been if we had gone on the technicals in those days. Rather, we allowed the industry to self manage.I look forward to the continuing work of auDA. I look forward to the continuing commitment of this government to realising good and sensible legislation, such as that which is before us today. I appreciate the support of members on this side, through the government's backbench policy committee for communications, IT and the arts, of which I am the secretary and of which the honourable member for Hinkler is the chair—and a very effective chair he is. I also place on record my appreciation of the opposition's support for this sensible legislation before us tonight. 20:46:0023705O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—Initially, I would like to reinforce the comments of the member for Perth, Labor's shadow minister for communications, and the observations he has made about our position relating to this legislation. I would like to take the few minutes that are available tonight to talk about the broader issue of telecommunications as I see it, particularly through the eyes of someone who has had extensive experience here in the parliament and in this industry over the years, and who has also been a country member of this place and so has had a chance to look at it from that perspective.One of the things that has saddened me about this industry in the last three or four years has been what I regard as a loss of sense of direction, particularly in the Telstra organisation, and that is entirely due to the fact that the show has been partly privatised. There was a very clear position within Telstra for many years, based on full public ownership. They were told that they had to smarten up their act in terms of consumer service; in terms of investing in modern communications systems in country areas as well as city areas; and in understanding that, while they were fully owned by the then Labor government, it was not going to put up with them trying to wipe out the cross-subsidy to rural constituents. They understood the game and they understood that they needed to provide the leadership in this industry.The model that was set up said to them, `We are going to keep you in full public ownership. We are not going to set you up with one half of your board trying to please the government and the other half of the board trying to please the shareholders.' It was always obvious that that in itself was creating a dilemma that was impossible to resolve. To put it in very simple terms: it does not matter whether it is sophisticated Internet communications—such as those being provided for in this legislation—or basic telephones. Ten years ago our primary objective was to get fibre-optic cable spread out across the nation to enable a modern communications pipeline to be established. As with every modern technology question—it does not matter whether you are making a decision at home, in a company or in a school, or whether you are making a decision as a country—when you sit down to make a decision and ask: `What shall we adopt?' you stop and think, `Do I take something that is tried and proven, do I take something that is state of the art today or do I wait another five years until the next generation arrives?' We all go through this at whatever level. But whenever you take the decision, you say, `That is the decision I am taking, and I am not going to worry about the fact that I might have missed the next invention that arrives tomorrow.' You get on that path. Recently I was in Brazil and noticed a really interesting trend developing. It is a country of 180 million people, and it is about 15 years behind us in embracing this technology. They are now in a position to forget all about fibre-optic cable. Instead, they are looking at the whole issue of, `How do you reach people right across a large country?' People have fallen in love with mobile phone technology. Five years ago, there were 10,000 mobile phones in Brazil; last year there were 12 million; in 12 months time, the marketers say, there will be 25 million—growing at 13 million units, virtually exponentially. We are talking about a country that 10 years ago did not have a mobile phone; that has much the same GDP as ours—although with a much bigger population—which in one year sells more mobile phones than we now have right across Australia. That is no big deal, except Brazil is now moving to satellite delivered, digitally compressed signal in order to provide a national network of mobile phone technology.We are now kind of locked into fibre-optic cable and finding systems that move off that. There is nothing wrong with that, but what has happened to Telstra in the last five years is that they have lost sight—or the government has allowed them to lose sight—of some key factors about their existence. They were the industry leader and investor, and they had a responsibility and a role to drive this industry in Australia. We were at the forefront of investing in modern technology. Australian companies were at the forefront of telecommunications technology and they were winning export contracts all over the place as a result of it. We are moving into a situation now where Telstra is in this maelstrom, trying to work out whether they are going to take a Hong Kong or a Singapore partner and wondering how on earth they can satisfy the government's panicked demands that they turn their attention back to rural Australia. Remember what has gone on here. The show was set up for full privatisation and this was all supposed to flow smoothly off the back of a survey telling the government that people were satisfied with the level of service that they were receiving. When I was first elected to this place, I used to have to apportion one of my staff full time to solving Telecom complaints. In other words, it was a publicly owned show and we were responsible for consumer complaints, and one of my three staff was working full time on Telecom complaints. That was the situation in the 1980s. That is why the show was shaken up. That is why Optus was introduced as a private sector competitor and partner in rolling out the cable network. A competitor smartened up the service from Telecom. As the service smartened up, the complaints died. I can honestly say to the parliament that between about 1990 and 1996-97—before the privatisation—the level of Telecom complaints to my office fell to almost nothing. They are back there now in their hundreds.We all remember the farce—and I just do not understand how the chief executive and chairman of Telstra could be so stupid—of them trying to satisfy their investor master after they had already done all this restructuring by announcing this record profit, this huge bucket of money that they had made, and then having to show up here in Canberra the following day to explain how they were going to cull the next 10,000 jobs out of the show, and most of them were going to be in regional areas. That is when the National Party finally started to understand just what sort of a dog it was trying to wag the tail of.What has happened is that the government has panicked and its whole privatisation program has been put away because that country service has not been delivered. And it has not been delivered because Telstra's majority shareholder, the government of Australia, has not taken the role it should have taken in requiring Telstra to remain the industry leader in Australia, to drive industry development and research and development in Australia and to keep us at the forefront of the technology developments in this industry. They have not had the minister get on the phone and say, `What are you doing down there?' That is what has gone wrong. They are caught between trying to satisfy the investor, who wants the profit, and the community, who expect—and rightly so—the service.This rural cross-subsidy issue is not going to go away, and certainly not before the next election. Put in very simple terms, if Telstra lays out 50 kilometres of fibre-optic cable in Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide or Perth, that 50 kilometres will probably have 50,000 customers—people in houses, units and offices. With 50,000 customers all hooking onto the Internet and using their mobile phones—all using the communication system—it would make a huge profit. The same 50 kilometres of cable in Ballarat or Bendigo in central Victoria, an area I represent, might produce 5,000 customers. It might break even with 5,000 customers. But the same 50 kilometres invested in and around the area of the small town of Heathcote, where I lived for 20 years until recently, might produce 500 customers and it would make a loss. So, of course, the Telstra shareholder says, `I'm not interested in the money being invested up there. I want it invested in the city, where it is going to make a profit.' Here is the board of Telstra caught in this dilemma created by this government and the National Party running around purporting to understand these things and purporting to represent the interests of country people, taking five years to understand what the rural cross-subsidy really meant. I am very sad about what has happened to the industry in Australia. The situation is reflected in the Telstra share price and in the Optus share price. Nothing will change until we address the leadership question in relation to the major player in the industry in Australia. Make no mistake, there will be no further privatisation of Telstra. The government says that it is off the agenda—it will not be able to get away with that—and we will certainly take it no further. So future Australian governments will have to get on the telephone; ministers will have to sit down with the board and say, `This is what we expect you to do to resume the leadership role in this industry and get Australia back to the front in expertise, in research and development and in job creation.'I will conclude by offering some direct family knowledge about this subject. My eldest son is a senior computer engineer and programmer who now works in the US—he is part of the brain drain—with a company that is at the forefront of the next generation of mobile phone technology. The service will be delivered not by fibre-optic cable but by compressed digital signals and low-orbit earth satellites. My son used to work for Ericsson at its Broadmeadows office in Victoria and he went overseas to be part of the company's research and development team in Canada. When he decided to go he said that, although he did not like leaving Australia, he wanted to move into the lead area of the company where he would be working with, and learning from, some of the best in the world. My son had been away for only six weeks when he phoned me and said `Dad, we have no idea how good we are at this stuff in Australia. I have people e-mailing me from all over the world to solve their problems and there are young people in Australia who could do this job better than anyone.' Where are they now? They are going overseas in droves. There is no more direct experience than first-hand experience. I visited the plant where my son works down in San Diego, and I understand it absolutely: young Australians are being sought all around the world for their skills in the IT industry. In London, Ireland, Europe and the USA young Australians are being offered all sorts of packages to work in those countries because of the investment that was made in this industry in the early 1990s. Those young Australians cannot resist both the opportunity and the dollars that they are paid. This government must take the responsibility for two things: first, for walking away from making Telstra play its role out front in that industry; and, secondly, for walking away from driving research and development investment in this country. Tonight parliament may pass this bill, which provides for another phase of IT development in this industry, but we do so in the knowledge that we have made some bad mistakes and lost valuable ground. I hope that government members will pick up on some of the information that I have offered.21:05:0023707Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—This Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 is a legislative measure that will bolster, not reduce, the self-regulatory nature of Internet administration in Australia. It is a measure that will both promote competition and consumer protection and secure the future of electronic addressing in Australia. The context in which this bill is introduced is one of an extraordinarily high take-up of technology—particularly Internet-enabled technologies—in this country. The high growth rate for Internet access in Australia continues unabated. Figures indicate that more than 33 per cent of Australian households have access to the Internet, and that in just the two years to May this year the proportion of adults accessing the Internet increased from some 26 per cent to 46 per cent. In fact, the percentage of Australian adults living in cities and connected to the Internet compares with that of the top 20 US cities according to an online publication from our National Office for the Information Economy entitled Current State of Play—November 2000. Canberra leads the US cities with 62 per cent of the population online compared with 61 per cent in San Francisco. I noted with interest that my home city of Perth was the ninth highest connected city behind Canberra, San Francisco, San Diego, Washington DC, Seattle, Portland, Darwin and Boston, with Sydney and Melbourne ranking 13th and 15th respectively. In OECD terms, Australia ranks consistently among the top three or four—it is always within the top 10—in terms of information and communications technology, expenditure as a percentage of GDP, secure services for e-commerce, Internet multimedia content, PC ownership and the total online population. Those few statistics put in context the environment in which the measures in this bill are introduced: it is an exploding, exciting time as new technology opens up new frontiers. We have seen, with the introduction of a number of bills in relation to online services—whether it be about classification of content or online gambling—that the Internet phenomenon raises many public policy challenges; and policy making today takes place in this changed commercial environment where the Internet can generate new wealth and create new markets and innovation in production, marketing and sales. Policy makers find themselves at the thorny edges between protection and freedom, between public and private, between competition and mandated monopolies.This bill will establish an effective safety net for self-regulation by the Internet industry in the area of electronic addressing. We are all familiar with domain names which locate an entity on the Internet. The domain name system is the way that Internet domain names are located and translated into Internet protocol addresses, the unique numerical address. Top level domains are divided into generic and country code—for example, .com, .org—and country codes domains—in our case, .au. In the event that industry administration of the .au country code is not successful or that administration is defective, the Australian government will have the authority under the amended Australian Communications Authority Act 1997 to assume control of .au.In such an event the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts may instruct the Australian Communications Authority to prepare to assume the role of manager of a specified electronic addressing service—and such an instruction would take the form of a disallowable instrument. In the event that the ACA's preparations were completed, a further ministerial instruction would activate the ACA's statutory responsibility for domain name administration. The bill will also clarify existing provisions in the Telecommunications Act for the ACA to declare a `manager of electronic addressing' and for the ACA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to subsequently apply directions to that manager—and that is an initiative that will be of significant benefit in fostering competition and consumer protection.Notwithstanding this safety net, the Australian government supports the quest for a self-regulatory solution to the management of electronic addressing in Australia, including .au, the country code top level domain. It is anticipated that such a solution will in the first instance take the form of the nonprofit company .au Domain Administration or auDA, which was established by the Australian government in 1999 to serve the following purposes: to operate as a fully self-funding and nonprofit organisation; to include, and be accountable to, members of the Internet community; to adopt open, transparent and consultative processes, to enhance benefits to Internet users through the promotion of competition, fair trading and consumer protection; and to establish appropriate dispute resolution procedures.By way of interest, in June of this year auDA established the Name Policy Advisory Panel, composed of industry professionals, lawyers, academics and corporate representatives, to publicly review domain name allocation rules within the .au domain. Some weeks ago the panel released its public consultation report, including draft recommendations that, firstly, aspirants for a domain name must declare a bona fide intention to use that name for the purpose envisaged by the relevant subdomain: for example, .com.au, or .edu.au; secondly, generic name rules, which prevent the allocation of generic terms as domain names, should be retained and extended to all open subdomains; and, thirdly, the rule restricting entities to one domain name should be removed. I would urge interested persons to visit www.auda.org.au to read the report in full and see how to provide a submission in response. There has been much reported on the issue of cyber-squatting, the reservation of an Internet domain name for the purpose of selling it on to a company or person who wants to use it, the speculative value being the hope of extracting a premium for the name from an established company or identity. Indeed, the member for Perth raised the issue of cyber-squatting. It will be auDA that will address this important issue of cyber-squatting through its consideration of the most appropriate dispute resolution procedures for the industry. We need only consider the Amazon.com suit in the US Federal Court against Amazon.gr—that is, Amazon.Greece—to appreciate the legal and economic challenges in domain name registration; and I believe that there can be a sensible regime of dispute resolution suitable for the Australian context.So I make it clear that this legislation is not an intrusion by the Commonwealth of Australia into matters of Internet administration; it is not a measure to deal with cyber-squatters. In addition to the Name Policy Advisory Panel, the Competition Model Advisory Panel is in the process of determining the most appropriate competition model for domain name services, and a report from this panel is due in mid-2001. Before auDA will be given the endorsement of the federal government to take administrative control of the .au domain, significant progress towards the objectives that I have noted will have to have been made. I assume that we all hope that such a transition will be smooth and that the back-up provision that is established in this bill will go unused. I note that this bill has the support of auDA, the support of the Australian Internet Industry Association and the support of Melbourne IT. Accordingly, I commend it to the House.21:14:0023709Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—I welcome the opportunity to contribute in the debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. Essentially, the bill provides safety net mechanisms for the management of electronic addressing through the Australian Communications Authority and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. This is no small thing, and more and more people are understanding that it is the regulations relating to this industry which are going to increasingly play a major role in business development and in the way in which businesses relate to one another. I say from the outset that we in my electorate—and, I am sure, those in other parts of rural and regional Australia—want to be a part of the Internet revolution. We want to be a part of those changes and the development which takes place which brings down the walls and barriers between cities and countries, and enables people to have a new range of opportunities—opportunities which they have never really had before.In my constituency substantial steps forward have been taken over the years to being a part of the new economy and being a part of the Internet world that we are talking about today. When it comes to this industry, not only do we need to be ever vigilant but we must always try to be one step ahead of the game. It is interesting to reflect on the fact that something like a third of all Australians now are connected to the Internet or have the Internet connected at their homes. This is an amazing figure, considering the situation just five or six years ago. When I think about the people with whom I was knocking around just five or six years ago, probably hardly anyone at all would have had access to the Internet or used it. Nowadays it is quite commonplace for me to communicate with friends and colleagues and to do quite a bit of business over the Internet. So it is a substantial revolution. It affects people's lives. This is not an academic thing. This is not something which we are considering in the abstract at all.As I have said, in my constituency in the early 1990s substantial steps forward were taken to being a part of the new economy. I remember well the decision which was made in the early 1990s by the then Labor government to establish the Australian Securities Commission, as it then was, and locating its information processing centre in Traralgon. That created, I think, around 450 or 500 jobs. This was a substantial fillip, as you would understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the Latrobe Valley. Also, I think around $4 million was put in by the state Labor government at the time to secure that development there. People recognised that the Latrobe Valley—a region which had a strong manufacturing base and which had for many years been dominated by the SEC as the major employer in the district—needed to have another part to it for its local employment. That is why people invested strategically and made that important decision to establish that new economy centre of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. It remains a significant employer in the Latrobe Valley but employs now, I think, only about 300 people. Also, it probably takes up only about two-thirds of the space that it used to. That reflects the change that has taken place in new communications and new and different types of technology that have come about in those nine or 10 years since it was first established. The point that I am making is that we need to be constantly looking at ways in which we can link rural and regional Australia into those new developments—the new and exciting things which are happening in the Internet economy, in technology, in research and in science—so that we do not get left behind. It is not just good enough to put an information processing centre in a rural area and then allow it to become old technology and to eventually have to close it. We must plug ourselves into the Internet world and into that new economy so that we can be a part of the new jobs growth and development associated with it.Substantially as well, Monash University has a campus in my constituency in Churchill. It is an outstanding campus, made up of some fantastic academics and teaching staff. One of the most important developments the university has involved itself in has been the establishment, some years ago now—it must have been, I think, six or seven years ago—of a centre for electronic commerce. Once again, when we think about where things were, where ideas were five or six years ago, this was probably a substantial and, in some ways, radical step for a university in a regional area to take. However, the university obviously had done its research, taken the time to investigate this thoroughly and decided that, strategically, it was important to make sure that it had an electronic commerce course and degree available at the Gippsland campus in Churchill. The university has offered a widely successful program, and it has changed the way that people view business. It has moved people away from those traditional forms of doing business into those more modern business forms which we are talking about today.Importantly as well, in 1995 Simon Crean, the then Minister for Employment, Education and Training, made a strategic investment in the Latrobe Valley by establishing the Gippsland Regional Ecology and Environment Network Incorporated, or GREEN Inc., as we call it, which is a small business high-tech incubator established on land adjacent to Monash University at Churchill. Once again, if we look back at that time, 1995-96, with people talking about a high-tech environmentally sustainable new economy incubator, I guess people would say, `Well, this isn't a natural mix, it isn't a natural fit with a regional area'—or, for that matter, in particular the Latrobe Valley. But that strategic development has been incredibly important to us. We have seen some great successes come out of GREEN Inc. I think it would be fair to say that, in recent time, it has come into its own and we have seen the fruits of that strategic investment which was made by Simon Crean when he was the Minister for Employment, Education and Training.More recently, there has been some good work done in establishing the Internet Working Dog Project. This was a public awareness campaign, which aimed to provide people with information about how they can use the Internet to improve the way that they conduct their businesses, and how they can use the Internet to conduct some of those things that they need to do as part of their ordinary lives. That has been a great success. I understand that in the Gippsland region, whilst we do not have an Internet usage rate or a household usage rate as high as in parts of Melbourne or Sydney, we certainly do have a higher than average Internet usage rate when you compare that with other parts of rural and regional Australia. Similarly, our local schools have taken substantial steps forward in using the resources which they have to try and encourage a change in community attitudes towards new technology like the Internet. I applaud these schools in the efforts they are making through programs like `School at Night', which encourages parents of schoolchildren to come into secondary colleges at night and undertake some basic training in how to use the Internet, how to navigate the Internet and how to conduct some of their ordinary affairs using that Internet technology. These are substantial changes to people's lives. Many people would perhaps be surprised to know that more and more grandparents who I know and who I come across at senior citizens clubs and the like are telling me that they regularly communicate with their children and grandchildren using email technology. This is one of the great things about this type of technology—it brings people a bit closer together.For many people the idea of using a computer, to start with, and the Internet, more specifically, is something they feel very uncomfortable with, but my experience has always been that once they have got on to it, once they have had a bit of a look around, it is a bit like riding a bike: you never really forget how to ride a bike and it is just getting over those initial wobbles. I think it is a magnificent thing to see that this technology is being used to keep families together and to keep that communication up. Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, you and I both know, representing rural areas as we do, that one of the biggest problems we have is that more and more of our young people in rural Australia are leaving and going elsewhere. It is nice to imagine that this technology plays a key role in keeping people in touch with one another.I think it is important when talking about the new economy not to forget the important role in that economy that existing industries can play. I represent a district with a lot of manufacturing. What people need to understand is that when we are talking about the new economy and new technology that does not mean we are not talking about traditional manufacturing. In fact, it has been said—and I think it is true—that the great driver of information technology and the new economy is manufacturing. I think that is right. If you ever go into a modern manufacturing plant, you will see the advanced robotics and the extensive use of computers, information technology links and modems—very advanced communication technologies. It really is that large manufacturing sector which feeds the information technology sector in Australia. I think we have a lot of untapped potential, in the Latrobe Valley in particular, in our existing industries and how we might better connect them to the information technology revolution.I think it is worth mentioning tonight that I would support a proposal which would see the combined resources of the likes of GREEN Inc., Monash University and the Central Gippsland Institute of TAFE. I would welcome a project from those groups, bringing together all of their resources and skills and some of their students, aimed at working with local manufacturing businesses in particular and other businesses more generally to try and determine exactly where they are at in their take-up of this new technology.Whilst some companies, I think, are doing extremely well, I am concerned that some are being left behind. Unfortunately, those companies that get left behind will be the ones that will be most likely to close, which would put a substantial dent in our regional economy and of course put people out of work. In an area of high unemployment like mine, that would lead to prolonged long-term unemployment and obviously some dislocation and pain for these people's families. We do not want to see that happen. So I think a project of this nature which could identify the opportunities that a business, be it manufacturing, retail or otherwise, might gain from taking up this new technology and having this group of people working with them to implement that new technology would make sure that our local businesses were not left behind in being a part of the new economy and being able to take advantage of the opportunities provided by the Internet. It is amazing to reflect on the fact that we now have businesses which sell cakes and other produce, like delicatessen food and all the rest, online. This is just in small country towns in my constituency. They are not massive businesses by any stretch of the imagination, but they are online and they are doing business online. People place orders nowadays with these small businesses using email or other opportunities provided to them through accessing the web site of these various businesses. We are already seeing that take place in my constituency, but more of it needs to happen if we are not going to be left behind.I think Telstra, in particular, have a very important role to play in this as the national company in telecommunications and in forming the undisputed dominant part of the telecommunications sector which is still majority owned by the Commonwealth. This is the company we look to to provide leadership and to make sure that people are not left behind. The only news we have had from Telstra in my district over the last little while of what they are doing is their announcement that they plan to shut the Telstra call centre at Morwell. Morwell is a town with about 18 per cent unemployment and there are about 65 people employed at the Telstra call centre there. We do not want to see that call centre close. We want Telstra to take up the opportunity which I and other community leaders in the district have offered them to build a mega call centre there so that we can see that jobs growth we need as well as make sure that our community gets plugged into the new economy. Just as we did in 1991, when the Australian Securities and Investments Commission was put in the Latrobe Valley, so too in the year 2000 the federal government needs to take decisive action and ensure that the Telstra mega call centre, which would employ some 400 to 450 people, is put into the Latrobe Valley so that we do not get left behind and those 65 people do not get put out of work in Morwell but, rather, opportunities are provided for additional people to get work.We are not opposing this legislation, although we have indicated that we have some reservations in relation to industry self-regulation. We will of course reserve our right to consider this in more detail in the future, after we have observed the implications of the legislation that we are passing today and we are in a better position to determine how effective industry self-regulation has been. We in the Latrobe Valley and throughout the other parts of my constituency want to be a part of the Internet revolution. We want to be a part of the new economy, and we want to take advantage of the opportunities which it provides us with. This government have done nothing to make sure that people in rural areas, such as the area that I represent, are not left behind. I encourage them to take some note of the comments which I have made today in terms of utilising the resources which are already there to work with existing businesses and companies, whether they be large or small, to make sure that they do not miss out on the opportunities which are provided to them by the new economy, by the Internet and by emerging electronic commerce technologies.We need an interventionist minister. We need someone who has an interest in rural and regional areas just like mine. We need someone who is prepared to be tough with the Telstra board and say, `We don't want to see the Telstra call centre at Morwell closed; rather, we want you to make a strategic decision, make a strategic investment in the people of the Latrobe Valley and build a Telstra mega call centre there so that people can get an opportunity to work there and be part of the new growth in the new economy.' So we will not be opposing this legislation, and we would encourage the government to take a more interventionist line in making sure that the new economy is not left to people in the capital cities but rather is something which people in rural areas, such as those people in my electoral district, can be a part of and can participate in fully.21:32:0023712Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 is an interesting piece of legislation. Most speakers tonight have commenced dealing with the topic of how we protect the names of our sites and our Internet contacts. Everybody has a name—it is called a domain. How do we make sure that I do not steal Jackie Kelly's name, the name of Mr Harry Quick or even the Yahoo name, which would be a very lucrative name to steal. It is one that I would value greatly if I were to have it. So the name of a web site or a contact on the Internet can be a prized commercial commodity. How do we as a nation protect those domain names? How do we ensure that people are not corrupting a very popular name in a fashion that confuses the public and makes them think that they are actually logging on to a very valuable site but in fact it is not the one they expected? It is like the registration of companies or business names so that Australia can operate freely and with confidence, knowing that the name you hit is the name you get, that somebody cannot steal your name and that there will not be duplications. This bill is titled the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. It is a pretty exciting name, isn't it? Looking at the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 really opens up magical vistas of the imagination. I know everybody in the gallery is pretty excited by the name of the legislation we are dealing with tonight, but I bet that most of you are on the Internet and I bet that most of you want to know—and you do too, Mr Deputy Speaker—that when you hit a name you will get the person you are looking for. That is what this bill does. It underpins the names of those domains with a legal framework.There have been various reports brought to the parliament seeking to drive Australia ahead in the area of telecommunications, and we have moved hugely over the last few years. I have just a few statistics. I know they mostly drive people crazy, but we have to realise where we are and how we are going compared with the rest of the world. Recently released figures indicate that, in the first quarter of this year, the year 2000, over 35 per cent of all Australian businesses had some form of online presence. This compares pretty favourably with the statistics for Europe. The UK lead the way in Europe. They have only 25 per cent of businesses online, so we are way ahead of the Brits, which is terrific. We are not as competitive with every nation on earth, but we are always in the top 10. In the statistics for secure service per million inhabitants, Australia figures third in the world. The top country in the world is Iceland. They have got winter nearly all year round—10 months of winter—so what do they do? They stay in their igloos and get on the Internet. The second country is more serious, and that is the United States. We basically run second to the United States, with New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland and so on following us down the list. We do pretty well in those stakes.In the statistics for the transformation or movement to the digital economy, we figure about middle of the field. We are a bit behind Canada, Finland and the US there. Another interesting statistic is the percentage of the population connected to the Internet. This gives the top countries in August 2000, just a few months ago. No. 1 is the USA, No. 2 is Iceland, No. 3 is Norway, No. 4 is Australia and Sweden follows that. We are ahead of Canada, Singapore, Finland and Denmark. That is a pretty good field to be in, and we are doing quite well. Some of those European countries are beating us and, as I said, climatic conditions may affect the attitudes of some.I believe the Australian government must take the role of actively supporting Australian business and the community to go online. I also think that ensuring a sophisticated and cost competitive communications infrastructure—I am talking about how we can go online, and the cost of doing so is a critical factor in us being competitive—and pushing ahead, developing further Australia's information technology sector, is a critical role for any government.Our infrastructure—that is, all of the lines, fibre optic cable and satellite facilities lumped together—was assessed in a survey conducted by the National University of Singapore last year. They rated Australia's telecommunications sector as the most competitive in the Asia-Pacific region. They rated it ahead of Hong Kong, ahead of Japan and ahead of Singapore, so we are in the Olympic events there. We are up to our PB, our personal best, but we have to go better than that if we are going to stay ahead of the rest of them. The Business Council of Australia has also presented a number of reports to the parliament. They are entitled New directions, Avoiding boom and bust, Macroeconomic reform for a globalised economy and Innovation: unlocking the future. These are valuable contributions to the thought of where Australia might be going and the opportunities for Aussies. Those reports say definitely that we have to keep the pressure on this area of information technology, the use of the Internet and the way in which we communicate.There are a number of areas and ways in which we communicate, but it all comes back to this jolly domain and being able to get onto the Internet. Once you have that, a number of avenues are gradually unfolding. Email is a very simple means of communication—just sending printed text over the wire or by satellite—but then there are other advantages. We are moving to a point of playing videos down the wire. I have watched conferences in the United States with both sound and vision from here in Parliament House. The movement is a bit jerky and the sound is pretty good, but you can do it. I know of people in Sydney who occasionally tune in to Parliament House and can see your smiling face, Mr Deputy Speaker Quick, as you are in the chair, as clear as it is possible to be, over the Internet. You might be on the Internet being watched by thousands right at this minute, but you would not know it. That is why we need to be setting examples here with our conduct in this House, and I know that is something you believe in, Mr Deputy Speaker.Not only is the telecommunications sector just the idea of, `Let's blow our brains with some interesting information.' It also has a very significant business application. The Australian government is putting together what it calls Networking the Nation. At the moment, there is a contract out for $150 million for somebody to provide a free-call system for people in Central Australia. There are about 40,000 users in this contract, so it is a big contract by world standards. The government has said that it wants companies to present the most imaginative package possible for $150 million and it will award the contract.I know some are talking about fibre optic cable and some are talking about satellites. Some are talking about getting the message down copper wires, which is the traditional thing in the bush. But, recently in Kalimantan, which is in Borneo, I had a look at some of the new technology being used by Cable and Wireless. It is a satellite communication system and it is extremely fast, faster than what we have here in Parliament House. I could watch a video film from Hong Kong at normal speed and with normal sound, without its being jerky or cut up. It is extremely fast and very cheap. So the availability of those satellite contacts ought to be able to allow us as Australians to have complete communications for everybody in the nation, with no person missing out. No matter how remote they are, they ought to be able to have a telephone, they ought to be able to have a fax line, they ought to have a connection to the Internet, they ought to have free-to-air television over the Internet, they ought to be able to have pay television over the Internet and they ought to be able to access the World Wide Web.What does that mean to a remote bush family? It means that Dad can come in at night, he can look at the stock markets in any city in Australia, he can look at freight prices, he can look at grain prices, he can look at the Chicago market and see how it is doing, he can assess what is happening in Europe, he can look at sugar markets if he is a sugarcane grower, he can look at sugarcane markets worldwide and he can look at the beef market in Europe to see how that is affecting Australia's prices. He can do that any time of the day or night. He can come in after a late night working on a header, plug into the Internet and look at the grain markets. He has an idea, as he is stripping his crop, of what that crop is going to be worth—something he has never had in the past. He can decide whether to hang on to the crop, put it in the silo or sell it in the paddock. He can make decisions that are beneficial to both him and his family.That is the business aspect of it, and there is also the purchasing side. That is the selling side. What about being able to trawl around the markets in the capital cities after fence posts, equipment and machinery, to get the best prices? If our country towns do not take notice of what is going on, they will be left behind and people will be doing all their shopping in the major cities and the capital cities. They will bypass those country towns. If they can get a better deal and a faster deal in the capital city, they will bypass their local country town. The small businesses in those country towns had better get with it and form their own intranets so that they can in fact make sales to their local farmers and local businesspeople. There is the prospect of business, both purchasing and sales. There is the prospect of social use—of women, children and men being able to converse. There is the prospect of little kids being able to get on the Internet and send emails to their neighbours, even hundreds of miles away or across the world, and being able to conduct sensible communications. One of the schools in my electorate, before the Olympic Games, was sponsoring the wonderful Principality of Monaco. So that was a wonderful place to have contact with. They were sending photographs over the Internet, they were sending little essays and they were learning French. I think that is a brilliant opportunity for kids' socialising and education.Ultimately there is the educational use, and that is something that will allow the bookkeeper, usually the wife or the partner on the farm, to be able to stay up with things like the goods and services tax, to be able to submit their BAS return on time, to be able to do a bookkeeping course, to be able to even do an arts degree if they wish, and so open up for the first time the lives of people in remote areas where the tyranny of distance is just wiped out in a second as the message flies from the computer through the aerial to the satellite and back to the base station. It is very easy, very simple.I am proud of the Australian government for what it is doing. I just hope we let the contract to the best people. I know that is being looked at now. I do not want to make comments about who they might be or what their capacities are. We must have the best system for our people in the bush. Anything that is a make-do result is not good enough. Our people in remote Australia deserve to be able to use their domains the same as people in the cities. They must be able to communicate in the same way as the people in the cities. There must be no disadvantage. In fact, I would like to see it work the other way and see some advantage given to people in country areas. The whole opening up of communications goes back to this legislation—being certain that you have, if you like, a registration plate on where you live so that anybody looking for you in cyberspace can find you. People will be certain of finding your home, your computer, your family. That is what this legislation is doing tonight. It is basically saying that you can pick your own name but that there is a legal system underneath it all that stops people cheating on the system, abusing the system. It will stop confidence tricksters out there trying to corner a whole lot of smart names so they can sell them at big profits at a later stage. We live in an exciting time. These are exciting pieces of legislation with dull names, but they are going to build a wonderful future, a future of innovation. They will help unlock the future, as the Business Council of Australia says. They will give us new directions. They will provide the information technology and communications infrastructure and outlook that AXISS of Australia indicates we need. I commend the bill to the House. I can understand why the Australian Labor Party are not opposing it, although one would not think that was the case from listening to their speeches. They are half full of whinges and criticism, with a grudging recommendation at the end. I commend this bill to the House. It is important.21:47:0023715Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—It gives me great pleasure tonight to be able to contribute some of my views and thoughts on this very important piece of legislation, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. The reason is that it touches so much on every part of our lives and every part of the world, of the country, of business, of leisure—virtually everything we do. This is a really important bill. All the previous speakers have touched on different areas—on legalities, frameworks and the range of views in the bill, particularly the fact that Labor is not opposing it. I might start by saying that, while we do not oppose the bill, it does not quite fulfil all the original intent. There are a number of holes in it. I will talk about those in a minute. The bill basically provides what is a safety net mechanism for the management of electronic addressing. It does that through the Australian Communications Authority, the ACA, and also the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, the ACCC. What the government has stated is that these safety net mechanisms are designed to be invoked, but only in the event that industry self-regulation does not work. That is a key feature of this bill—that these safety mechanisms we are talking about are in place not specifically to regulate what happens in the industry but to be a backstop, to be there just in case something does not work. Right from the start, you could make the interpretation that there is an expectation that self-regulation will not work, because it has been ensured in this bill that, in case it does not, there is something to fall back to. That does not give me a great deal of confidence about the prospects of the bill actually doing what it is intended to do. As we have stated before and as I say myself, I do support the bill but I think it has a number of holes in it.The bill contains two schedules that will implement the safety net mechanisms. The first one provides the circumstances in which the ACCC or the ACA can intervene in the management of electronic addressing. The second schedule establishes an alternative mechanism by which the ACA would take a management role and the responsibility of managing specific types of electronic addressing if direct ACA management is the only viable alternative to management through the self-regulatory system put in place. Again, that does not give me a great deal of confidence that what we are going to see down the track with this bill, with this amendment, is it actually working. When you start looking at an amending bill, the most important thing is to ask what we are going to get out of it, what its outcome is going to be and whether it is going to work. Obviously, the thinking here has been quite clear: `Look, we're pretty sure it's not going to work, so let's put a couple of safety nets in just in case.' That is also going to cause some problems in terms of the industry looking at it and saying, `There's the benchmark. That is what we fall to. That's where we aim at. There is the line in the sand.' That is what this bill is about. It is about the fall-back principle, the backstop. It does not give me a great deal of confidence.Attempts at self-regulation in this industry have in the past proved to be a failure. There have been a number of them over the last few years. There are genuine concerns about the proposal and about the new self-regulatory regime, and concerns that quite possibly it will not be successful. Recently, submissions to the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts Committee reflected a number of views. Some were supportive of the government approach; others argued that the self-regulatory mechanisms could be endangering the enactment of the safety net mechanisms proposed in the bill; and others wanted a much more interventionist approach. Others thought it probably just would not work.The Labor members on that committee put in a minority report, and I want to touch on that in just a moment. As I said, while the government's approach may be barely sufficient, it is adequate to begin to touch on these issues. But I still feel that it fails to respond wholly to what this industry is about. There is a lack of understanding about how you might regulate some of the complexities. We saw some of that confusion or lack of understanding come out in one of the bills that was discussed earlier today dealing with Internet gambling. I feel that people had a real problem trying to distinguish between this and how you regulate something under traditional boundaries, under our nation state. As people will know, when you are on the Internet traditional boundaries, traditional nation states, in practical terms do not exist. We have had explanations—and I will not go through them all—about the statistics of how good we are with Internet use compared with America. They are all great statistics, and I appreciate the previous speakers for bringing those to light, but the reality is that Internet and domain names, the URL, are the key indicators. They are how you get where you are going and find where you want to go. There are a range of issues about who owns them, who buys them, who regulates them and how they are managed. That is what this bill is about but, as I said, it does not quite address all those issues. I turn to the issues that were brought out through the Labor minority report and some of the submissions that criticise the bill. The bill does not address the issue of monopolies. It has been raised as a criticism through submissions that if you want to get a dot com au—the `au' stands for Australia—the only place you can get it is through Melbourne IT. That situation will be addressed in this bill but there will be only two mechanisms by which it can happen; the other will be through the auDA mechanism. The bill does nothing to ensure that there will be a competitive framework or competitive pricing. We have seen a reflection of that in the share price of Melbourne IT, which has dropped off pretty badly. That is probably a combination of things, including a lack of confidence in tech stocks. The actual cost of buying a name is quite high. In Australia it costs about $140 to purchase a name. If you want to buy a name—something related to a business activity you carry out or something related to yourself, something you can identify as being yours, because there are some rules as to what names you can buy: you cannot use somebody else's name, for example, you cannot just decide you are going to become Sony or Canon or something like that—it costs about $140. It is actually quite expensive. In the US they have gone a little bit further. They have said, `We're going to have real competition.' You can actually buy a name through an automated system and it can cost you as little as $6. So, if you are an ordinary punter and you want to get yourself an Internet name, why not? Just about everyone who is on the Internet these days has got a home page. Why should it cost you so much money? Again, this bill does not address those issues: monopoly, competitive pricing, and competition to try to bring down some of the cost.Again, there were submissions that criticised the bill's safety net measures in terms of how they might undermine the cooperative nature of self-regulatory processes, which I thought was quite interesting. The role of the ACA was another criticism. Another criticism was the clarity with which the circumstances of invoking the safety net measures were defined. So, while we have got all these issues, they are not actually dealt with in this bill. I have here an article from the Australian dated 30 August 2000 which says: `Alston acts to evict net squatters'. It was certainly the belief of the media and the Australian newspaper, and it probably was the expectation of a lot of people in the community, that something would be done in this bill about cybersquatting; about people who basically buy a whole range of names, sit on them and hope that down the track they will be able to make a dollar out of selling them on to somebody else who wants them. But it is a pretty touchy area because we do not have a good definition. It is not like a company name or a copyright—it is not defined. As an example I will quote a real case: Madonna.com. There is a lawsuit currently going on in the USA because somebody has bought the name Madonna.com and Madonna the singer has decided she wants Madonna.com. She feels that it is hers, so there is a court case going on. I think that situation highlights one of the problems about cybersquatting and the legal traps you might get into. Who is to say who owns the name? Madonna is a person's name. Does Madonna the pop star have more right to that name than Madonna the person down the road or Madonna the hairdressers or Madonna the restaurant or Madonna whatever you want it to be? There are some real issues about who gains control, and I think that is a really important aspect that is not addressed in this bill. It is an aspect that will be a driving force behind further amendments that I know Labor will be keen to address in the future.It also highlights, I think, some issues about Internet voting. Recently I spoke about Internet voting in this House on a private member's motion. When I did some research for that particular debate I realised that the Internet is going much further than just basic e-commerce or basic business to business or business to consumer and further than just information. There is much more out there. We in this place know that because of the use we make of it in our work here. I do not think anybody here could say they could live without email, for example—it is too important to the work we do every day. But Internet voting is, I think, another issue. Another issue is people's rights in relation to the Internet—not just the rights around what names people purchase but their rights in relation to how they are identified and their rights on the Internet. In the few minutes I have got left I want to mention some of the things that are happening in my electorate of Oxley and how the Internet, technology and new industries are taking a huge leap forward. I have to say I am pretty proud of Ipswich city as a city of innovation. It is a city that is moving ahead, a city that takes the lead. It is a leader in a whole range of areas but particularly in information technology and Internet use. Ipswich city council was the leader in another area: it developed a system called Global Information Links. Through a tech library they set up their own ISP and they have their own local intranet, their own local network. It started off on a city basis and has now gone national. Now they are looking at international business as well. It highlights the importance of this industry and how it can put you on the map.One of the great businesses I have in my electorate is a business called Claypave. Those from Queensland should know who Claypave are. They have won a number of Queensland business awards—Queensland Business of the Year, and a range of things. They make pavers, obviously, and bricks. You would not think that a paver manufacturer, a brick manufacturer, would be into high technology or that they would have a web page or that they would win an award and do a range of business through the Internet, but they do. They have established a web site. You can go on to their web site, pick the paver you want, order it through the web and have it delivered to your home. That sounds a bit simple, but they go further than that. They say, `We can match the colour brick you want on your screen.' They have a colour matching system; you go out the back, pick up a paver you want to match, bring it inside, take it to your screen and basically hold it up and match it up with one of their pavers. They have used this technology to do business not only here in Australia but also internationally by being able to link up with companies overseas that are looking for particular tenders and orders. They say, `Here is a company we can deal with online and get the product almost online. We can look at the colours.' They rate it; they do a range of things.One of the important things with any discussion about technology is the importance you place on it. The Internet super highway relates to a number of issues in my electorate. When we talk about super highways, you cannot go past how important highways and roads are. I remember reading some time ago that the most important invention of the 20th century was the road. The simple road was the most important invention. It is an important invention because it links people together—it links communities together and it networks people. That is what the Internet does; that is what the web does. In relation to roads, while I was very pleased that the government put together a Roads to Recovery package involving $1.2 billion, and though it was very welcome, I have to say that there was a range of criticisms about that. One of the criticisms I have relates to a National Party Roads to Recovery package release. Helen Dickey from the National Party says in this release:This package is the most significant achievement of the National Party in modern times.When I read that, my mind straight away went to the time I read about the road being the most important invention of the 20th century. If this is the most important thing that the National Party have done in modern times, that is pretty significant. I thought: how did they come to this? To have a package that is so significant in modern times, they must have been working on it for 80 years. Fifty years? Twenty years? Ten years? So I thought I would have a look at it and see how this package came about. I discovered that this package was not something that the National Party and the coalition had been working on for years and years. It looked to me more like a knee-jerk reaction to a lot of bad press about fuel prices. It looked to me as though a few people were sitting around the cabinet room and they were saying, `How are we going to get over this really bad do-do sandwich that we have to eat?' So they said, `Let's come up with absolutely the best package that we could ever come up with in modern times.' So the National Party have said, `Why don't we put together this Roads to Recovery package?' So we all appreciate this package very much. Oxley was treated quite well in the package. In the official documents it said $40 million. I have to say that I was pretty happy when I saw it—$40 million. I thought: this is fantastic. I thought I would go and have a look at it myself to see exactly what that $40 million would get me. In the electorate of Oxley we obviously have Ipswich, which is going to get about $5,336,844 over four years. Hear, Hear! The problem I have in Oxley is that I have only half of Ipswich. The member for Blair has the other half of Ipswich. And therein lies my problem because I fear that perhaps I will not get all of that $5 million in the electorate of Oxley. But, hopefully, I will get my fair half. So there goes at least $2.5 million of my $40 million—gone out the door before we even start.So I thought I would have a closer look. My electorate also has part of the City of Brisbane, so I thought, `How much is Brisbane getting in this package?' They are getting about $28 million—I thought I would be very appreciative, but I thought, `Hang on, how many federal electorates are sharing Brisbane's money?' Eleven federal electorates. What do I get? What is Oxley's share? I am told I am going to get $40 million; but what is my share? What is Oxley really going to get? If you divide $28 million by 11 you ain't got much left. Let's say I get $2.5 million.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Oxley might care to tie his remarks to the telecommunications amendment bill to facilitate the debate.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL—Thank you, Mr Speaker, I will. The importance of telecommunications, and particularly in the bill here, is that it is about networks, about linking people together and those structures that bring people together. There is nothing more important than the networks of roads that link all Australians and all communities. If you want to talk about rural and regional roads or rural and regional networks, whether it is contained in the telecommunications bill or whether it is contained in a Roads to Recovery package, we are talking about the same principles and the same thing. We are talking about a commitment to those communities, to the bush and to regional areas. It is quite important and quite relevant that we look at these packages and say, `How much are we really getting? What are we getting for our dollar?' I have been led to believe, because I have it in writing in a wonderful letter from the government, that I am going to get over $40 million. And I have to say that I am pretty thankful. But when I started looking at it even closer, I thought, `Hang on, there's more money here. But wait, there's more.' I have a part of Boonah shire, and they are getting about $970,000. But how much do you think Oxley will get of that? Pretty close to nothing. We will get nothing. So from $40 million, I am still only on about $4 million to $5 million at best; that is tops. But it does not end there; there is always a little bit more. I also have Logan. I have one suburb in Logan, and I appreciate Logan very much. Forestdale in Logan is a fantastic area. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Neville) adjourned.Adjournment2371922:07:0023719Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I move:That the House, at its rising, adjourn until Tuesday, 6 February 2001, at 2 p.m., unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting. That is the formal way of introducing what is known in the trade as the valedictories or, less reverently on occasions, the `hypocrisies'. We have reached that occasion at the end of the year when we say a few words of goodwill, and I hope in a very gracious and decent way towards each other. When you come to the end of the year, you look back and I do not think there is any doubt that the year 2000 has been a wonderful year for Australia. It is a year, undoubtedly, that was dominated by the huge success of the Olympic Games and the Paralympics, which did great things for our country. Whatever our political views may be, our successes have been a source of tremendous pride to me as Prime Minister of this country.Honourable members interjecting—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I see the Chief Opposition Whip and, to borrow the words of Prince Hal from King Henry IV, `I do see a good amendment of life in thee.' Anything is an improvement.It has been, by any measure, a wonderful year for our country. When all of the political rhetoric is put aside, we are meant to be here first and foremost to advance and, where appropriate, acclaim the interests of our country. The last year has been a very good year for Australia. It is a year that saw us put on a wonderful display to the rest of the world and a year that demonstrated all of the openness, decency and egalitarian spirit of our country and our capacity to do things in an efficient, modern and sophisticated way. All of those associated with that wonderful event deserve our credit. It has also been a very momentous year politically. It is a year that at a national level has undoubtedly been dominated by the debate about a new taxation system. I do not seek to talk about the partisan aspects, merely to record as a matter of fact and reality that the debate about that issue has dominated more of the airwaves on federal politics and more hectares of newsprint on federal politics than any other event.It has also been a year, as I noted this morning, as did the Leader of the Opposition and others, that has seen the cause of reconciliation significantly advanced. Whatever may be people's views about whether we have a treaty or an agreement or the forms of expression we might use in relation to past events in the history of this country, nobody can argue about the tremendous support in our community for reconciliation. The cause of reconciliation has been very greatly enhanced and advanced over the last 12 months, and I know that is a source of satisfaction to people on both sides of the House. I certainly find, as I go around the Australian community, a great desire to emphasise the things that we agree on in relation to the cause of reconciliation.It has also been a year that has seen levels of unemployment reach a 10-year low. It has been a year which has seen the living standards of the Australian people greatly enhanced, but it has also been a year in which we are reminded that there are still many in our community who are deprived, poor and underprivileged. As we come to Christmas, we are reminded of the obligation we have as a government and also the obligation we have as human beings to assist those in our community who are less well cared for.Quite apart from the Olympic Games, it has also been a year of quite stunning sporting achievements for Australia. I do not think there would be any man or woman in this parliament who would deny the importance of sport in the national psyche, and there seems to be an almost endless parade of Australian sporting achievements. I was reminded of this the weekend before last when I watched a Sky News broadcast. They had the Australian bit, then the English bit and then the sporting bit of the English bit, and that is always quite good. At the end of it, almost with a sort of dismayed, downtrodden lament, the commentator said, `And Australia has added yet another World Cup to her winning retinue by winning the Rugby League World Cup at Old Trafford.' I am delighted to say that in honour of that great victory, along with people from both sides of the parliament, there will be a gathering held at Kirribilli House in Sydney the week after next to salute the achievement of the Australian rugby league team, which has for 25 years in a row won the World Cup. It is a metaphor for the great sporting success of our country and, given my own prejudices in this area, I cannot leave sport without saying something about the 12 in a row. 0L6Draper, Trish, MPMrs Draper—And the Adelaide Crows.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—No, the 12 in a row and the magnificent achievement of Steve Waugh's Australian cricket team, which has established a world record. I cannot think of anything more appropriate to crown a great Australian sporting year than to salute the fact that the Australian cricket team has established a world record in winning 12 test matches in a row.Coming closer to home in terms of the federal parliament, Christmas is an occasion for me as Prime Minister—and this is the fifth occasion that I as Prime Minister of this country have had the privilege—to offer some valedictories. First of all, in the spirit of Christian charity towards those who sit opposite, I wish Mr Kim Beazley and his family—Susie, his wife, and his children—a very merry Christmas. I hope Kim and Susie have a very relaxing Christmas. I mean that very genuinely. There is no point in spending years of your life in this place and carrying unnecessary malice towards those who sit opposite. I believe in fierce political competition, but I also believe in recognising that, in all of us, there is an innate sense of decency and a desire to do good things for the country. I disagree very strongly with my political opponents about how that is best done, but I do not carry any innate malice or ill will towards them. I offer to my opposite number the very best of Christmas good wishes, and I hope that he has a relaxing time and spends plenty of time with his family and does whatever he wishes to do at Christmas. I suspect that in one or two sporting areas he will be interested in things not terribly dissimilar from what I might wish to do. I hope he comes back refreshed and invigorated and is ready for all that we might hurl at him. I wish him well and I wish all those who sit opposite a very happy Christmas.I think Christmas is a time for family consolidation. It is a time for spiritual and personal reflection. I do not seek to impose any particular stereotype of Christmas on people. Mine is a fairly orthodox and predictable one, and I guess it is one shared by many who sit opposite but, equally, for those who do not hold that view of Christmas, I respect their view also. I acknowledge that it is also a time—whatever people's views are—to spend with family and friends and to reflect upon the great good fortune of being a healthy Australian and living in an atmosphere of relative affluence and relative good fortune.I have occasion at the end of this year to thank a lot of people on my own side. I am a very lucky man, indeed. I have a wonderful family. I have a very supportive wife and three magnificent children. They have made whatever success I have achieved in politics entirely possible; without them I would not have achieved that. I thank them very warmly, and I record my gratitude to Janette, Melanie, Tim and Richard. They mean more to me than anything else in the world.I also want to thank my colleagues on the government frontbench. John Anderson is a wonderful Deputy Prime Minister. He is a very decent and effective Leader of the National Party, a great minister and a person who exhibits very great personal qualities. I thank you very warmly, John, for the loyalty and support that you have given me throughout the year. It is a great partnership. The greatest political partnership Australia has ever seen is the partnership between the Liberal Party and the National Party. It is the partnership that sustains our government. It helps fill the pews of the broad church, extending the ecclesiastical metaphor that I frequently use about the government. I think, John, you do an absolutely wonderful job.To Peter Costello, who—WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—He is not far away.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—He is never far away! I want to thank Peter. This has been a great year for the Treasurer because he has presided over the detailed implementation of the greatest overhaul ever of the Australian taxation system. I want to very warmly record my thanks to and admiration for Peter Costello for all the work that he has done. To my other leadership colleagues—Robert Hill, the Leader of the Government in the Senate; Richard Alston, the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate; and Mark Vaile, the Deputy Leader of the National Party—I extend my very warm thanks, as I do to all of my cabinet colleagues and to all of my parliamentary colleagues. Being an effective government is very much a team effort. I may be the public face of the government but, without the loyalty and support that I have received from the men and women who sit behind me, I would not have been able to be an effective public face, and of course there are some in the community—I have heard of them—who do not think I am an effective public face. But to all of you, who have given much such loyalty and help, thank you. You are a great crowd of men and women, and it is tremendous to have you working with me. Also, I especially extend my thanks to my personal staff. The staff of a prime minister in a prime minister's office is a very closely-knit circle. I express my very great gratitude to Arthur Sinodinos, my chief of staff, who is well known to all of those who sit behind; to Tony Nutt, my principal private secretary, who knows more about the labyrinthine workings of the Liberal Party organisation around Australia than most—and it is very important for a prime minister to know about that—and to all of the members of my staff. Also, I have appreciated the assistance on a very regular basis of those who run that Liberal Party organisation. We are all creatures in one way or another of a party organisation. I want to record my gratitude to Shane Stone, the National President of the Liberal Party of Australia, and Lynton Crosby, the Federal Director—both are very close friends of mine and both contribute on a political side to the effective working of the government. That is indeed very important, and I extend that thanks to the presidents of the various state divisions of the Liberal Party.Sir, I extend to you a very merry Christmas and to Ian Harris and Bernard Wright, the clerks, who are unfailing polite, efficient, intelligent and, on all occasions, eminently fair in the advice that they give to both sides of the parliament. I thank them very warmly.I also thank those two people who make the House, on an hourly basis, so effective. I refer, first of all, to my colleague the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business and the Leader of the House. I think it is fair to say that he has had a lively year—but he adds a lively year this year to years of great achievement. He has been a great Leader of the House and a great reforming minister. Of all the statistics that were posted during this year, there were none of which I was more proud than that 25-an-hour crane rate that was posted the other day. It was a great achievement and I warmly thank him. I also thank the Manager of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives for his unfailing contribution to the colour of question time, if I can put it that way. I was once a Manager of Opposition Business. I do not know whether I resigned from that or was tipped out of it, but I once held the position and it is an important part of the way in which the parliament operates.I want to thank all the staff of the parliament, including the liaison officer from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, which helps make everything run so very effectively. I thank the Hansard people. I am filled with admiration, after 26 years in this place, at the skill and dexterity of people who run Hansard. I also thank the broadcasting and technical services staff, the staff of the Joint House Department, those who arrange our transport, all of the people who keep us safe and secure, those in Jetset Travel and in the Table Office, the assistant parliamentary liaison officer and everybody else who has played a very important role in making the parliament work. There is another group of people who I think are also very important, and that is the whips. I think is fair to say—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I understand they are all good-natured interjections, but I think the Prime Minister should at least be able to be heard.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—I think Ronno has had a good year. I want to thank the member for Corangamite and the member for Forde, who have provided tremendous assistance. I also want to thank—and I know my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister will have something to say of this—the member for Mallee and the member for Hinkler, the whip and assistant of the National Party, and also my colleagues who are the government whips in the Senate. MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Who?ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—His name is Forrest and he is the member for Mallee, isn't he?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Yes.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr HOWARD—That's right; that's what I thought. I know they are terrific, and they have all made an impact on you. And they keep telling me they are the people I ought to thank. All of these people have made a very important role in making it an absolutely wonderful year for the national parliament. There are just two other relatively serious things that I want to say. The first of those is to ask all members of parliament to remember, as we celebrate Christmas, that there will be men and women serving this country abroad, who by reason of that service will be separated from their families. They are the men and women of the Australian Defence Force who are serving in East Timor, Bougainville and the Solomon Islands, and of the Australian Federal Police elsewhere around the world. It is incumbent on all of us to remember them and to record our special respect.The other thing that I would like to say is that, as we come to the end of another parliamentary year, it is important to remember that we are all extremely privileged people. In this House we are but 148 Australians who are chosen every three years to represent 19 million people, to sit in the national parliament. We are privileged to belong to a democracy. We have a strong and robust parliamentary system. We have a free press and we have an incorruptible judiciary. Those three things, more than anything else, keep this country together and guarantee its freedom. The greatest honour that I have had in my public life is to be a representative of the 75,000 or 80,000 people who vote in my electorate every year. To be a representative of the Australian people in this parliament is a great honour, and it is something that I always treasure very deeply and regard very warmly. I conclude my remarks by wishing all members of the House a very merry Christmas. I hope they have happy times with their families and friends and that they come back refreshed when we rejoin the inevitable battle which is the stuff and the substance of Australia's parliamentary democracy.22:29:0023723Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—It is a very great pleasure for me to participate yet again in these valedictories. I have been doing this for a long time now: almost five years as Leader of the Opposition and for about—YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott—There'll be many more.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—One more, but not next Christmas. Before then, I spent something like seven or eight years as Leader of the House, so these processes are very familiar to me. I thank the Prime Minister for the good wishes that he extended to me, my family and my colleagues, and I would like very much to reciprocate those good wishes to him and his family. I know how much his wife and his children mean to him. They are a source of enormous strength to him, as indeed are my family to me. That is the case for most of us in political life. Ours is a burdensome profession for families. Some of us do it very successfully, some of us experience great tragedy in our family life, and all of us are tremendously dependent on the non-parliamentary spouse in the partnership for the success or otherwise of our family life. It is an enormously significant ballast to us in public life. Of course, at Christmas time we think in the first instance about our own families and then extend our gratitude, joy and best wishes to the families of the nation. I particularly thank my family tonight, as the Prime Minister has thanked his. I know how much I depend on Susie and how much my daughters mean to me. I owe them an enormous debt of gratitude.I mention in passing that one parliamentary family had a father last Christmas and this year does not. My thoughts go out to Greg Wilton's widow, his two children, his mother and his sister. They have our best wishes and thoughts at this very difficult time. When tragedy of any description strikes, you feel your loneliness most at the great public celebrations and commemorations such as Christmas. Our thoughts and prayers are with them. It is an extraordinary thing—I suppose if I were a more expert observer of our weather, I would have a better comprehension of it—that always at this time of year we reflect upon the fact that in some part of Australia somebody's Christmas is ruined, usually on a very large scale. We think very much tonight in these valedictories of those who have suffered flood damage, particularly those around the electorate of the Deputy Prime Minister and Leader of the National Party and further afield. It will not be much of a Christmas for many hundreds of people this year, but at least they have each other—and there is much comfort in that. This terrible season was not accompanied by any large loss of life, and for that we ought to be enormously grateful.Of course I join the Prime Minister in wishing all the best to, and extending our understanding to, those who are serving our country overseas. They do us all a great honour in being prepared to lay their lives on the line for the nation and for all of us. That service brings with it many discomforts, as well as, I suspect, a very deep sense of personal satisfaction. One of those discomforts is the absence of family life at this joyous time of the year. So, as the Prime Minister said, our thoughts go out to our serving personnel in Timor and elsewhere around the world.It has been a fabulous year in many ways for the Australian people, in the life of the nation and our society. There is no doubt at all that we are beginning to get blasé about sporting achievements in this nation. The 12 tests in a row, the World Cups, the Olympics: any one of these events and triumphs would have occupied us in discussion around the kitchen table for weeks and weeks, but to have them occur serially throughout the year is almost a surfeit—not that we wish it to go away—of success. In the Australian heart and mind, that is a source of enormous joy.I look back on the Olympics and Paralympics in particular, not just for the sporting spectacle but for what it said about us as a people. There was the sporting triumph. It is arguably the case—and I am not sure whether this will ever be repeated—that there is no international sporting meet at which Australia was more successful across a multiplicity of sports gathered for a competition in one broadly based event than our Paralympic team. Our Olympic team was the most successful ever but, arguably, I do not think anyone has dominated a sporting event in the way that the Australians dominated the Paralympics, short of the Americans at the Moscow-absent sports in the US or the Russians at the American-absent sports at the Moscow Olympics.83REdwards, Graham, MPMr Edwards—And they did it honestly.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Absolutely. As one of my number, the member for Cowan—who was very prominent in events at the time—says, there was a straightness in the way in which our athletes were classified that adds to the triumph. A question mark has subsequently been placed over athletes from other nations. The Prime Minister mentioned reconciliation. One of the things I loved was the evidence that that spirit of reconciliation and generosity of heart had spread so deep in the Australian community that it could be seen at events associated with the Olympics and the Paralympics. I suppose one would expect the huge audience to have a certain amount of physical resources to get to the Olympics. As I can say painfully from personal experience, it was not cheap. But there was a marvellous spirit. The Paralympics were attended by huge numbers of westies. It was a marvellous leavening of ordinary, average Aussies, and that same spirit prevailed. It was a wonderful demonstration of the fact that opinions, attitudes and views of life in this community have turned decisively. It makes me look forward to next year's Centenary of Federation celebrations enormously. I think we can now look objectively at our history and look with great hope to our future. I believe we will have a real opportunity to do that next year.Personally, I went on a pilgrimage—which the Prime Minister also went on and extended—to Gallipoli earlier in the year. I will always present the arguable view—I know others will dispute it—that we developed a sense of ourselves as a coherent nation, with a national posture and identity, during World War I, and the identifying focal point of that particular conflict is always Gallipoli. As you go, as I did as a Western Australian—and it was Western Australians who first landed—and look at the names on the graves, they are exactly the same names as the people I went to primary school with: the Hancocks, the Chippers—the Chipperfields—all the people I went to school with. They are the names of those from the 10th Light Horse and the Western Australian Infantry Battalion that made that landing. I was appreciative of the fact that I was able to go on that particular pilgrimage, and for me that was set up as a highlight of the year. We have much to be grateful for, and those of us who are leaders in this place have more to be grateful for than most. I would like to extend my thanks in the first instance to the members of my caucus. I have a wonderful caucus, a supportive caucus, an intelligent caucus, a youthful caucus—so youthful it is reproducing itself at an extraordinarily rapid rate. We have had one bub this year. That follows bubs last year and there are three more on the way in the course of the next few months. It is a habit not unknown, I know, on the other side of the House. When I was an academic teaching at Murdoch University the entirety of the women on the floor I was on were pregnant at the same time, and I remember a colleague walking down the corridor saying, `There's a depressing air of fecundity in this corridor.' Well, there is an elevating air of fecundity on the opposition benches, and a number of my colleagues are going to have a totally joyous Christmas or immediate aftermath of Christmas, I believe, and we will all be enjoying it along with them; it is a terrific thing.My caucus is a supportive, intelligent, hardworking caucus, and my front bench reflects it. I am particularly grateful to my colleagues for the work they have done, particularly at our national conference this year but also in the evolution of development of policy: they are a constant source of support and hard work. I would not want to isolate any particular individuals, but two I must. The first of those is my deputy, Simon Crean, who is a magnificently pugnacious fighter in this chamber. I happen to believe that a trade union background is an excellent training ground for the life of politics and an appreciation of what happens among the ordinary, the average, households of this nation. I get plenty of good advice and plenty of good support from that background. So Simon I would very much want to thank. Then I would also want to thank Bob McMullan, who manages our affairs in this place. He does it so well and so effectively, and he is of course a constant source of support. They are from my front bench.The Prime Minister said how grateful he was for the powerhouse he felt in Australian politics that emanated from the coalition of the Liberal and National parties. I take joy in the fact that we do it on our own. I take joy in the fact that we are capable of sustaining government in this place out of our one political party. And I take joy in the fact that we have been doing it for 100 years. One of the celebrations I look forward to next year is the celebration that will take place one day before we have the celebration of the centenary of our Commonwealth parliament, and that will be the centenary of the federal Labor caucus—older than this parliament. As you can see, I have much to be grateful for.Our federal parliamentary Labor Party is held together, coherent as an effective fighting force in the life of the nation, by in the first instance our whips. Therefore I want to extend my particular thanks to the Chief Whip, Leo McLeay, and to the Whips Rod Sawford and Bob Sercombe—and of course to the office which backs them up so effectively of Joan Connor and Ann Stewart. Our whips are quiet, gentle, fair-minded, unconfrontational, understanding, liberating and fair. Without them we simply could not survive. I would also, of course, extend my thanks to the wider party organisation in its state branches but also at our national level. We have a new National Secretary in Geoff Walsh, and he is proving to be a most effective one. I am very glad to have him on board. I believe that he does for us a very good job of work indeed. Here in parliament all of us on both sides of the House are well served by our clerks, Ian Harris and Bernard Wright, and their colleagues in the Clerks Office. They are impartial to a fault, almost. They are properly protective of the Speaker, and they give him very sound advice. They are the people who really keep our organisation here legal, and that is a very important point—something that a lot of us do not really appreciate: how legislation is carried and passed between the houses is fundamental to the legality of the things that we do in this place. We often think of Ian and Bernard as standing orders experts, here merely to keep us appropriately apart. We do not actually need to be kept apart: we have a table here. It is more important in the House of Commons, which is structured to keep two sword-lengths from the two front benches. We are more distant than two sword-lengths, and we tend to think of the clerks in that context. But the clerks actually play a role in keeping us legal in this place. It is a job demanding enormous expertise.I would also like to thank the new Parliamentary Liaison Officer, Alistair Sherwin, and Pam and Helen, who work so hard there. I thank the folk in the Bills and Papers Office and the Tables Office; the research staff; the Sergeant-at-Arms, Judy Middlebrook, and Dalma Dixon and their very helpful staff; and the Hansard staff, who have perhaps the toughest job in this place, turning our perorations into English—and especially to Bret Gaynor, who is leaving soon I understand to go to Perth. I am sorry that Bret is leaving, but I cannot criticise his determination to locate himself in God's own part of Australia.The other House of Representatives staff members, including the printing staff and their attendants: I do wish them well for Christmas and the New Year. We in opposition, in particular, would make a special mention of the Parliamentary Library staff, who are such a vital resource for all members of parliament but a particularly important source of support for an opposition.I thank too all the Joint House staff, including the cleaning staff, the maintenance staff, the gardeners, the marketing and visitors staff, and the security people; the switchboard, and health and recreation staff. I thank too the cafeteria and Aussies cafe, the shop operators, the bank staff, the post office workers, the Qantas staff, hairdressers, florists and Comcar drivers. I make particular mention here of a gentleman who has driven me for a very long time, Alan McKenzie, who has just retired; and Rick Boyland, who still drives me in Perth.But, when we are mentioning staff, I guess for those of us who hold the sort of office I hold there is one group of staff who are most enormously significant to it, and that is our own personal staff—those in the office here in Canberra and those in my office in Perth. I have a substantial and large staff, but I must make particular mention here of my chief of staff, Mike Costello, who has been a marvellous addition to our ranks. And I give a special reference to Karen Bissaker, who has just had her second child. We miss her very much but welcome the birth of baby Sophie. But, as I have said, our staff are a source of constant support to us, as members of parliament, those of us in leadership positions. We in the opposition are enormously dependent on those staff that we are permitted under the arrangements, and I thank them and wish them all the best for Christmas and the New Year.We also should extend—and I do extend—on behalf of the opposition best wishes to all Australians at this time, particularly those doing it tough: the elderly, the homeless, the mentally ill and the sole parents. I wish them all the joy that they can get from this season. It is a joyous season basically for all of us. I wish every one of us here a safe and happy Christmas and New Year. I have enjoyed this year enormously; I think next year is going to be even more enjoyable. As we develop our character as a nation—as we develop self-confidence in our institutions and in our attitudes, our tolerance, our decency and our understanding of what a great thing it is to be an Australian—our national events seem to take on even more character. I think that next year's national events associated with the Centenary of Federation will be a further demonstration, a further opportunity to do that. I have been passed a note, but I did not need to be. I was leaving my last valedictory to the Speaker. You preside, Mr Speaker; you have a very tough job. I remember Harry Jenkins, who held your position, had one way of remonstrating with recalcitrant members of parliament which I have never heard any other Speaker use before or since. He always used to say, `You're not assisting the chair.' I do not think it is our job really to assist the chair. It is, however, our job to pay it respect—and, Mr Speaker, we do do that to you. To you and your family, Mr Speaker, I hope you have a most enjoyable and satisfying Christmas. I look forward to even more new and interesting rulings from you during what is going to be a savage year next year.Honourable members—Hear, hear!22:49:0023727Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The year 2000 I think in many ways has been a quite remarkable year. Many of the things that have happened during the year have been referred to by the previous two speakers. It began in a most remarkable blaze of fireworks here and in cities right across Australia. Indeed, as I came down the next morning to check out what had happened with Y2K, we were able to watch midmorning on that 1 January here in Canberra, care of modern technology, the fireworks in London and right around the world, as we marked the beginning of a new age. Later in the year we held our breath as the Olympic cauldron wobbled and then ascended into the sky. We cheered as our own Australians ran for gold. We have watched as people have performed to the best of their ability and reflected, I think, very great credit on this nation—not only in the things that have been won but I think too in the graciousness with which Australians have participated in cheering on those who have not only won but given of their best, and often extended that graciousness to those who were not even competing for Australia. I think one of the most endearing memories of the Olympics, for me at least, was to see that sort of wonderful spirit of cheering on the underdogs who from time to time were not even from our own country but were giving it their best shot.I should say at the outset of my remarks that there was tragedy as well. In my own electorate, many people are still cleaning up after the worst wet period in living memory—I will not say floods, because they were only a minor part of the problem. It was the timing and extended period of rain that did the damage in north-western New South Wales and beyond. Many, as the Leader of the Opposition commented, will not particularly enjoy their Christmas this year as a result. Many will be years recovering financially. Can I take this opportunity—although I will say a little more in a moment about the Prime Minister—to say that I am particularly thankful that he was able to come and see first-hand what had happened, to meet with the affected people. I extend my thanks also to the Treasurer, who visited the electorate over that time and, indeed, the Leader of the Opposition who visited Walgett, faced with the unusual problem that people sit there for several days waiting, as the water slowly comes towards them and slowly rises—you can be standing out on a nice sunny day in a dry paddock, watching the water creep towards you. It is a quite extraordinary situation for them.But while all of this has happened, the rhythm of our work as parliamentarians has continued. I certainly join with the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in acknowledging the work of the staff in this place. Their work is essential. They keep to a very great degree the same punishing hours as we do, but they receive no recognition—they are seen only in the background very often, as we speak and act out our roles on the public stage.I think too those remarks that go to the issue of reconciliation have been appropriate. We have all, I think, grown in our understanding of these issues. We do not always have a monochrome view of how best to progress the difficult matters that confront us as we seek to build harmony and greater respect in the way that we live alongside one another, but we all acknowledge the great importance of progressing that agenda in a spirit of respect for one another's shared humanity I know for my own part that I will never be quite the same having witnessed, near the small town of Delungra earlier this year, the unveiling of the memorial to the massacre that took place at Myall Creek in 1838—just three years before my own family moved into that immediate area. To see a direct descendant of one of the men who was hanged for murder, who had herself discovered only a couple of months before that she was a descendant of one of those who had been hanged, embracing a direct descendant of one of the people who had been murdered was a very profoundly moving experience. I think it left all who saw it touched at a very deep level. We all go through our journey in life, and I must say that was quite a profound moment for me and, I think, for others who saw it—not just perhaps those who were present but also those who saw it on national television.Mr Speaker, I certainly record my thanks to you for your role in this place. I also thank the Clerk, Ian Harris, and Bernard, and all your people, for your professionalism and decency and for the quiet and understated way in which you deliver that professionalism and decency. I also thank the parliamentary reporters and the library. I would particularly like to salute the parliamentary retrieval service staff, who have a quite magical ability to retrieve obscure books from the National Library in record time. I thank the staff of the Joint House Department who do such a superb job of running Parliament House and maintaining the gardens. Sometimes I look enviously at the resources that go into them and think we could help build a Scoresby or a local road or whatever—some amazing resources go into them—but I in no way take away from those who look after them, deliver them and build them up. I must say the gardens are now, to my way of thinking, achieving some patina of maturity. They really are very attractive and a great credit to those who look after them so well. Some of us were out in one of those gardens over on the Senate side at lunchtime today at Boz's annual seafood barbecue and it really was a truly beautiful place to be.Jetset Travel do a very competent job. The Australian Protective Service describe themselves as `a bunch of regular blokes', but we describe them—I think the Prime Minister would agree—as very fine human beings. I also thank the Comcar staff and the people of 34 Squadron, including one of their newest young recruits, Malcolm Walker, who was a neighbour of mine back at Mullaley—although his family have now moved away. He now finds himself in the Air Force and, at least at this stage, with 34 Squadron. In my own case can I mention, as one who relies heavily on charter—and I think members will understand that, given my particular role as leader of a party that has major interests in rural and regional Australia—Don McAllister and Andrew Major. I rely heavily on them in between times.I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his good wishes tonight, and extend mine to him and to Susie as well. I join the Prime Minister in saying that I hope that you and your team enjoy a restful and relaxing Christmas period.I thank the Prime Minister for his kind remarks. Can I say that I too believe it is a very effective coalition that has delivered, and continues to deliver, a stronger Australia with firmer economic and social foundations. I enjoy very much being part of that team, I really do. I think it is fair to say that something we are both privileged to enjoy and appreciate very much are supportive families. I could not do this without Julia. She is to me the most wonderful person I have ever met. Our four children, younger than the Prime Minister's—Government members interjecting—4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—You understand that I am a little biased in this instance. My kids are younger than the Prime Minister's, but I suppose the Prime Minister's grew up having really known little other than the political life—ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—The problem is I am older than you.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—I am going grey rapidly. But I do thank Jessica, Nicholas, Georgina and Laura for being, particularly in the context of their ages, very understanding and supportive of what Dad tries to do. Can I say to the Prime Minister and Janette: have a good break. We will look after the shop—do not worry about it. I recall well, during the first Christmas break you took when Tim Fischer was relieving, that there was a marvellous Moir cartoon one day. Tim had a couple of issues running at the time and Moir had a cartoon. WI4Reith, Peter, MP4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—I can tell that Peter Reith remembers it. It showed a china shop, there were several bulls rampaging around the china shop smashing a few things up and the names of the various issues that Tim had running were written on the sides of the bulls. A telephone call came through from Hawks Nest and Tim was hanging onto the chandelier with one hand and holding a telephone in the other saying, `No, John, everything is absolutely fine. Go back to the beach and just relax.' I remember that well.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—There was the directly elected president.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON—That was one of the bulls running around the china shop. I thank Peter Costello and Tanya for the very important role they have performed on behalf of the government and indeed the nation. It has been a long and hard year for the Treasurer—it really has. He has to deliver against all sorts of difficulties, not least of which are caused by those of us who occasionally feel the urge to spend money. I think he has done a very great job of oversighting major reform and at the same time maintaining financial discipline and economic management as a critical part of the government team.I thank my deputy leader, Mark Vaile, and his wife, Wendy. Like the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mark faces the added difficulties of travelling not just between his electorate, Parliament House and other regions of Australia but internationally as well. I take my hat off to both gentlemen for the work that they do. I particularly thank Mark and wish him a good break over Christmas.I thank the whips. I thank Ronno. He is still here watching. Certainly I thank the Mallee bull, John Forrest; the member for Hinkler, Paul Neville, with his magnificent sense of humour and his great ability to pick us all up when we are feeling a little bit flat; and my other colleagues in the parliamentary National Party, including Ron Boswell. Thank you very much indeed for your commitment and your hard work this year.I thank my personal staff, particularly my principal adviser, Stephen Oxley, who leads a very fine team. I thank my electorate staff, who battle on and have battled on through a very difficult time with the floods. I think they have done a very good job. I would particularly like to mention Julia Dimitriadis, my longstanding aviation departmental liaison officer. She has been up here for three years and has done an absolutely superb and very professional job. She returns to the Department of Transport and Regional Services after three years in this place, and my office will miss her very much indeed. I would also like to mention Gaye White, the federal director of the National Party, the state organisations and the people who staff all of those.On a personal note, I thank all of those—many in this place—who were kind enough to contact me when I was a bit crook a couple of months ago. I have to say that it was worth the effort. I got to the bottom of a little underlying problem that I had not known about, and I have never felt better. The words of encouragement and support helped me get through that slightly painful time. I do thank the medicos as well, particularly the medico in Sydney who said to me, `Sign this. You've only got a two per cent chance of losing your voice for life, but I think it will be worth it.' I was luckily not amongst the two per cent.It is easy to forget in the bustle of our lives that there is more to this world than parliamentary sittings, meetings and plane trips. Christmas is a time for us to relax, unwind and enjoy time with our families. Certainly for me and my wife, it is a time to reflect upon that very significant birth a couple of thousand years ago and to know that that miracle still has consequences for us all. I say to you, Mr Speaker, that I wish you and all honourable members the very best for Christmas and a prosperous, happy and fruitful 2001 as we celebrate our centenary year.Business2373023:02:0023730Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Mr Speaker, may I interrupt before the Manager of Opposition Business speaks. The latest on the deliberations of the Senate is that the Senate are currently considering the renewable energy legislation. They are expecting to return to the Gene Technology Bill 2000 at 11.30 or quarter to 12, and they have just short of 40 amendments still to deal with. The whip, the Manager of Opposition Business and I—and anybody else who is particularly interested—intend to review the situation at around 12.30. Then we might have to make a decision as to whether we think the Senate are actually going to conclude matters tonight. It is still my view that, provided it is not totally unreasonable, we should try to finish, whatever hour it is, because most people have said that they would like to get away, but we will review it at about 12.30 when we have a better idea of what is happening, and we will keep you informed. Thank you for allowing me to interrupt.Consideration resumes.Adjournment2373023:03:0023730McMullan, Bob (Manager of Opposition Business)Mr McMULLAN5I4FraserALPManager of Opposition Business00—It is my pleasure to join in the remarks made by the various leaders. It is not appropriate for those of us who speak in these debates who are not leaders to range so widely as those three who have spoken before me, so I will more directly relate my comments to those people who we on the opposition side and I as Manager of Opposition Business most particularly wish to thank.I would like to break that rule slightly to say that, while I endorse and welcome the remarks that the three leaders have made about the wonderful sporting achievements this year—those who know me know that I can be as enthusiastic a sports junkie as any of those here—I want to try to broaden the perception of the great achievements of this nation by referring to the great artistic achievements of Australians throughout the year, those who participate in and contribute to the cultural life of our country. To take an example, the Olympics would not have been the same without the fantastic cultural contribution of many, including those from the Bangarra Dance Theatre who contributed to the opening ceremony and put on their haunting and demanding program, Skin, throughout the Olympic artistic festival. I think we need to make sure we do not become too narrow in our enthusiasms.As a former senator, I also want to comment on the rather depressing comments just made by the Leader of the House. My experience and simple arithmetic say that, as I understand there are 36 amendments which the Senate are getting to at midnight and given that we know there are Independent senators enthusiastically speaking about all of them at 10 minutes each, that is six hours. I just thought I would mention that to make your day. I thought you would all like that.I would like to start my thanks with the non-politicians and then come to the people who come to this place as elected representatives subsequently. I do not wish to add many people to the list of those who have been commented on by the three leaders and, on behalf of the opposition, by the Leader of the Opposition, but I do want to make specific reference to some who particularly assist me as Manager of Opposition Business. I thank the Parliamentary Liaison Office staff. Others have properly mentioned Alistair Sherwin, who does that job now, and his staff, Helen and Pam. But I want to also thank the previous PLO, Matt Minogue, who did a first-class job and whose assistance and cooperation we appreciated.I join with those who thank the clerks, Ian Harris and Bernard Wright. Oppositions are very dependent upon the skills and knowledge of the clerks, particularly in our case because of the necessary arrangements with Bernard Wright. I want to thank him personally and on behalf of the opposition for his tremendous work. I thank the Clerk of the House of Representatives. All the clerks and their staff are of incredible value to the House in the way in which the leaders have commented on and which I simply reiterate. The opposition are particularly dependent upon some, and we thank Bernard and those who work with him.Similarly, we thank those in the Table Office and I join in thanking the Serjeant-at-Arms and her staff. I share the amazement at the way in which Hansard staff manage to turn what we have to say into such reasonable sounding and, usually, even grammatical contributions. When I am here listening, it is not so evident to me as when I subsequently read it. It must be something in my hearing that is defective but, anyway, Hansard does a wonderful job and I, at least, am grateful, because I have a spouse who is very concerned about grammatical manners and she manages to only read, not hear, what I say and she thinks I speak grammatically in this place, so I am grateful for that. The Parliamentary Library is always of fundamental significance to an opposition, because it drives our research capacity in the way that nothing else can. I would like to add to our general thanks to the Parliamentary Library and their staff my particular thanks to those who have assisted me in the transition to my new responsibilities in indigenous affairs and in the arts. They have been incredibly helpful to me in the transition. I will not name them; they know who they are and I thank them. I always particularly enjoy the opportunity to thank the attendants in the chamber and around the building. As a member who represents the ACT and who spends more time in the building when the House is not sitting than most, the good humour, courtesy and friendship of those people is something I value, and all of us in the opposition value the work that they do. I thank Kate and the staff at the Members Dining Room, the staff at the Staff Cafeteria, the people at Aussies, the transport people, Joint House and, in particular, the cleaning staff, who seem to have a very difficult time sometimes around here, but we value the work that they do. I thank the switchboard staff and the volunteers. It is too long a list and they have been mentioned by others; it would be inappropriate and time wasting to go through them all. We thank them for their work.I want to mention two other groups in particular because of the assistance they give the opposition in general and to me in particular. I think the Parliamentary Education Office are an undervalued resource around the parliament. Because I am here when others are not, I often get the opportunity to speak at functions which they put on—educational events which they arrange for students and others—and I think they do a marvellous and undervalued job. On behalf of others, I thought I would thank the staff at the Health and Recreation Centre, given that I have not made an appearance there all year.83SBurke, Anna, MPMs Burke—I was going to say, I haven't seen you there.5I4McMullan, Bob (Manager of Opposition Business)Mr McMULLAN—No. I finally made a wise economic decision and let my membership lapse. It was one of the several wastes of money that I was undertaking.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—You're not becoming an economic rationalist, are you, Bob?5I4McMullan, Bob (Manager of Opposition Business)Mr McMULLAN—No, just a sloth. It is trying to make some sort of virtue out of my sloth. On behalf of everybody else, I thank them. They do a marvellous job and they keep people who in the rest of their life are not quite so healthy somewhere near a state of reasonable health, and we are grateful for that.I now turn to the elected representatives, and I endorse the general remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the National Party about good wishes to all the members on both sides. We have robust debate and some heated conflicts from time to time but we hope that, in the period between now and when the parliament resumes, everybody has a good time with their families and is rested, recuperated and happy when they return in February. What happens after that, time will tell.I want to thank one person that the Leader of the Opposition always fails to thank, and that is our leader and my friend and colleague Kim Beazley. On behalf of all the opposition, I want to thank Kim for another magnificent year's leadership of our party. He has been a friend of mine a very long time and I appreciate the opportunity to work closely with him. On behalf of all my colleagues, I also want to thank Susie for the support she gives to Kim and the way in which she is a source of good spirit and good humour at the many functions which she attends on behalf of the party with Kim. We thank her and we hope Kim, Susie and Rachel have a really terrific Christmas. I want to thank you, Mr Speaker. It has been a pretty robust couple of weeks. You have not looked like you have been enjoying it in the last couple of weeks as much as you usually do. Some of the twinkle in the eye has been dulled just a little and there has been a little bit of an edge in the voice. It has been a hard fortnight for all of us. But we thank you for the very genuine attempts we know that you have made over the year to make this place work well and, sometimes, to give us a chance to do things which the government thinks you should not give us. We are grateful for that. We know sometimes you pay a price for it and we appreciate it. We appreciate the work of the Deputy Speaker and the Second Deputy Speaker, our colleague Harry Jenkins, who we know will make a great Speaker when the time comes. We thank all three of you for the way in which you preside and we thank the other Presiding Officers.We would like to thank the whips for both sides. It is not usual for us to thank the whip on the other side, but we think recently Ronno has done a terrific job and we have enjoyed it very much. He and Leo do make the place much more entertaining, and when they start debating each other across the chamber, it might not be the most edifying contribution but it is often the most entertaining. The place does work better because of them and I particularly want to thank Leo, Rod and Bob. I have the title `Manager of Opposition Business' but everybody knows that it is really Joan and Ann who manage it, and we are grateful to them. They sometimes make us look organised and, when they do not, it is not their fault. Also, after them, the next contribution is made by Leo, Rod and Bob, and I thank them for the enormous work they do, their unfailing focus on the arithmetic of this place and their almost great success this year in getting the 57-all. This year, I have enjoyed working with them again.I thank the deputy leader, Simon, who has always been a very effective supporter of Kim and of great value to me in discharging this function. I want to thank the Leader of the House and his staff—in particular, Brett Hogan. We have not had cause to work so closely together this year. The way the business has flowed has not meant the level of interaction has been as much as in other years. We have had some colourful descriptions of each other's contributions in these valedictories in the past, but I do thank him because, when we need to, we can work together effectively. We will try and do it again tonight so we do not allow the Senate to drive us all mad. I thank you very much.I want to thank all the caucus colleagues for their fortitude and support. Sometimes we ask them to do only the slightly ridiculous, and sometimes the absolutely bizarre. They usually do it with good humour and skill. And sometimes we ask them to do it at ridiculously short notice, and they carry that out with a bit of style and I am grateful for that.We are all very dependent on the staff around this place. I thank in general all the staff, particularly of the frontbench members, but I want to pick out one who is a friend. He came to work for the Labor Party when we were in government. He worked for me, and subsequently worked for Kim and then for Simon. That is my friend John Flannery, who is leaving in about two weeks time. I want to thank him for many years of good service to us and I hope that, as he goes on to his new career, he has an opportunity to spend more time with his lovely wife and his children—including another one of those new babies that has come along on our side of the show. Boy, are we going to win an election in about 18 years! We have just about got it fixed already. I hope we don't have to wait that long, but we have got it fixed up if we do. I wish John well and hope he is very successful. I thank my own staff here and in the electorate office, and my family and that of all the colleagues who have enabled us to work here.I conclude, as I do every year, by thanking the electors of Fraser. In my capacity as shadow minister, and particularly in this new job, I travel a lot. I am away from the electorate a lot. They are very understanding and supportive and I thank them for their cooperation, their understanding, their contribution as I travel the electorate on the issues of concern to the nation and for the great privilege they do in continuing to send me here to represent them. 23:16:0023733Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—I join with my colleagues in passing good wishes to all members of the House and to all their support staff and others who work here. I thank them for their work of the last 12 months. I start with you, Mr Speaker, and thank you for the work that you have done, and also thank the deputy speakers. Mr Speaker, on a rough calculation this year, you have had to deal with 668 beautifully crafted questions, questions which go to the heart of the current issues before the parliament, and another 668 questions that really one would not have bothered to ask with the benefit of hindsight. That makes a total of 1,336 asked for the year—not as many as last year, when the figure was 1,370, but running at nearly 19 questions at question time. That is indicative of the various issues and the importance of question time for all members of the House. I thank you for your work and also, as I say, thank the deputy speakers.I do not have any particular order, but I also want to thank my family early in these remarks. I have four sons and a daughter-in-law—and my wife, Julie, of course. I have one son in London. I have actually seen a lot of him this year—mainly in the newspapers! We are not seeing him at Christmas, but we are going to take up the suggestion of having a decent break this year and I daresay I will hear from him on the phone.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—At his expense!WI4Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITH—At his expense. Families are very important, and I am very lucky with the support that I have from my family. I also thank those on the opposition side. Someone did say to me that the Manager of Opposition Business would be a better Leader of the House than Manager of Opposition Business, but we appreciate the cooperation we achieve when we achieve it. That goes likewise to the Chief Opposition Whip, who is certainly one of the characters of the House. We thank you for that cooperation. I particularly thank the Chief Government Whip, who I believe does a tremendous job. He does take a big load in the running of the House. He makes my life a lot easier in the sense that he makes decisions and he definitely has a firm hand on the operations of the House. That makes a big difference to the efficiency of the House. I also thank the other whips—Stewart McArthur, Kay Elson, John Forrest and Paul Neville—for the support they give him and the work that they do. The whips office staff are very important too—Geraldine Rath, Leander Klohs and Cay McVeigh—to him, and therefore to all of us. The PLO staff have been mentioned. Alistair Sherwin is doing a very good job, in my view. We thank Pam Bache and Helen Tudor as well. The parliamentary staff have all been mentioned, but I do want to add my own personal thanks to them, particularly to Ian Harris and Bernard Wright. As others have said, they provide impartial, good advice—and they give it to you pretty quickly too, which, in the heat of the moment, is the only advice that is of any use to you. I thank you for that and I thank all your staff. I thank the chamber research office, Hansard and the Parliamentary Library. The security officers are, of course, very important to members in their work—and the cleaners as well; I reckon they do a pretty good job around here, and put up with a lot as well. There are also the people who answer the phone, the receptionists and telephonists. The Comcar drivers have had a mention, and the Reps transport people. There are the dining room staff. Kate in particular looks after all of us on an individual basis. We thank you, Kate. Lizzie is still doing my hair—though doing less of it as the years go on! She is a great person as well.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—She can do yours and mine together.WI4Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITH—We could get a discount! I thank the PM and my ministerial colleagues. It is a good team, as the PM himself said, but it makes the team to have a good leader for the team. The PM brings a lot of qualities. He has a very even temperament, if I may say so, which is an absolute prerequisite, I reckon, for that job—certainly for everybody who has to deal with him. He has also had a lot of experience. I have known some people over the years who have had a lot of experience and it does not seem to have added much to them. Some people have had a lot of experience and it makes all the difference. I thank him for his experience and his consideration through the year. Like the previous speaker, the member for Fraser, I do not want to go over all the broad matters, but from my point of view, when I think back on this last 12 months, there has been a hell of a lot on our plate and we have done a hell of a lot as a government, in my view. For all the ups and downs of politics, it definitely makes it worth while when things are being done. I will quickly run through some of the things we have done. Tax reform is very important to me personally because I had three years running around the country on the GST. I am not the only one who has been on that bandwagon, but getting that through was a tremendous tribute to the PM—and, I should say, to the Treasurer, because having to handle every question and all the detail and carry it all around in your head is a very big task. It is incredible pressure. I think the Treasurer has done a magnificent job, as the PM said. Roads: that is a very big thing, a very important thing. The defence white paper has, I think, been a very important thing for the government. It is a hallmark issue on our side of politics, and that was great. David Kemp secured his education package tonight. I was once involved in starting a non-government school. I consider that issue very important, and it is great to see that get through. But, again, the PM provided a lot of leadership on that one. The salinity one is the other one I will briefly mention, because environmental issues are very important. Some environmental issues have had more profile than the substance of this particular one. A lot has been done, and I do thank him and the colleagues. I want to mention the PM's staff, too. I have a lot to do with Tony Nutt and Arthur Sinodinos, and I thank them both personally for their friendship and their professionalism. Brett and I have a lot to do with Malcolm Hazell on the running of the House, so I thank him.I also thank the Liberal Party organisation. Liberal Party people outside the parliamentary party are of course also important in our working lives. Lynton Crosby has been mentioned, but I thank all the state directors around the country for their work during the year. I particularly thank the Deputy Leader of the House, Peter McGauran, the member for Gippsland. Again, I work with Peter virtually every day of the year talking about daily political issues, tactics and the like, and I thank him for the work that he does. David Kemp has a bit to do with some aspects of that as well, and I thank David personally. In terms of my own ministerial staff, my chief of staff, Peter Hendy, is a very professional operator, and I thank him. Also, Peter Anderson, MaryJo Fisher, Ian Hanke, Jackie Jurd, Brett Hogan—who has been doing the House stuff whilst Cate Clunies-Ross has been off having their first child—Doug Campbell, Daniel Clode, Katrina Edwards, Emma Heales and David Hickman, who left us during the year. And of course there are Sadie McHugh, who is very well-regarded, I must say, Calvin McDonald and Janine Pitt. My electorate staff are the shadow members for Flinders. This can be a tiresome task at times and it is certainly a lonely task as well. But I do thank them. Jill Fletcher had a beer keg through the window at one stage during the year. When it was followed by a hose on a Sunday night it got a bit wet and they had to move the office.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPWI4Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITH—It still got through the window—that was the problem. But they have had a lot on their plate this year. Liz Dart has been very good, although she has not been well recently and we certainly wish her well.In the portfolio I want to thank Tony Abbott, who is the junior minister. He is a very active junior minister and a good junior minister, I must say. We work as a team. Also, Mal Brough, who does a lot of work in the small business community. It is very important that we get around and talk to that constituency and he does a good job.I also want to thank departmental officers. Peter Shergold runs a very good outfit. He worked very professionally for the other side when they were in. He has done a very professional job for this government and I have been fortunate to have him as a departmental head. I thank all his team; there are some professional people. We have a very working good relationship and I do thank them for the work that they do. Lastly, I do thank all my colleagues. At this late hour I might briefly say that I have had my ups and down. Paul Keating once very kindly dubbed me as the Toltoy while I was on the back foot a bit at one stage there, a month or so ago. It is a very competitive business, politics, and you have to understand—Government member—You're on your way back, China.WI4Reith, Peter (Leader of the House)Mr REITH—Thank you. It is a very competitive business, politics, and I think we all know that—those of us who have been around here for a while. But it does touch you, I must say, when you have got a bit of flak coming your way and people give you a bit of support. I do thank everybody for that in the last month or so. I can promise them that I am looking forward to coming back, all guns blazing, in February. Best wishes to all. Mr Speaker, thank you.23:27:0023735SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—It is customary for the Speaker to have the opportunity to conclude these remarks of good wishes at Christmas time. Let me then begin on the note on which the Leader of the House concluded and say that there are occasions when flak is flying and you are very grateful for the support of others. As one who in the last week or so has experienced something of that, I am grateful for the support—as the Leader of the Opposition is—of all those in the chamber, on both sides, who were in touch with my office. I am grateful to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House for the fact—and I think this ought to be on the public record—that, as a Speaker, I am left entirely to my own resources in terms of decisions that are made, and I am grateful to them for the level of independence that they leave me. I should place on the record that I have never had a conservation with the Prime Minister about my role in the two years that I have had it. I am similarly grateful to the Leader of the Opposition and the Manager of Opposition Business for, in the two years that I have been the Speaker, there has been the opportunity to develop a relationship with them and it takes little more than eye contact now for me to know precisely what they are thinking—and, I suspect, for them to know precisely what I am thinking.I therefore say to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the House, the Manager of Opposition Business and the Deputy Prime Minister, thank you for the warm remarks that you have extended to me and to Carolyn, my wife, who happens to be in the gallery this evening and to whom I am, of course, like everyone else, deeply indebted. She and our three children are, as others have observed tonight, the light of my life; I would have no particular purpose in life without them. As many of you are aware, in the last month the family has also been joined by a grandchild, and we are particularly delighted about that.There are those who sadly think that for us to participate in this form of Christmas greeting is, as the Prime Minister alluded to, in some way hypocritical or facile or insincere. Those of us who are participants in this place know that is not the case. In fact, as many have said, it is inevitable that this is a place of fierce political competition, and Australians who are honest with themselves would not have it any other way. I am not proud of the occasional snide remark or the personal abuse that sometimes occurs but, for the overwhelming majority of the members of this House, the opportunity is here simply for debate rather than personal abuse. I pick up the sentiments partially expressed by the member for Isaacs in her first speech in this House when she called on all of us to spend more time focusing on policy issues and less time focusing on personal issues.In this, as previous speakers have said, the Olympic year, I thought it quite appropriate to conclude the year with the statement used in the Celebrate Humanity promotional campaign during the Sydney Olympic Games. There are times when, sitting in the chair, I think of these words, as I suspect most of you do too. The words are: `You are my adversary but you are not my enemy, for your resistance gives me strength, your will gives me courage, your spirit enables me, and, though I aim to defeat you, should I succeed, I will not humiliate you. Instead I will honour you, for without you I am a lesser a person.' There are many times in this chamber when I see members on opposing sides honouring each other. I think of an event within the last month when the Prime Minister rose unexpectedly, from my point of view, to pay a sincere tribute to the Leader of the Opposition for 20 years service in this place. The Leader of the Opposition very graciously responded, indicating how much he had appreciated that sentiment. Sadly, it was not a sentiment that got front-page publicity or that most of Australia was aware of. Those who make it possible for us to be in a parliament which is adversarial and at the same time cooperative—not as cooperative as we may sometimes want, but those who have been here long enough to know that that is in fact the underlying sentiment—have already been named, but I would like to pay a particular tribute, because of my role as Speaker, to the many people who as staff members in this place make it work. I must start with my Deputy Speaker, Mr Gary Nehl, and the second Deputy Speaker, Mr Harry Jenkins, and the members of the Speakers Panel who in fact occupy the chair and who endeavour—and I think most people would agree are successful—to impartially adjudicate on the many debates that occur in this place. I want to thank the Parliamentary Liaison Officer and the government and opposition whips and their staff.I am more indebted than most to the Clerk of the House—I was going to say `my clerk' because I see him on such a regular basis—Mr Harris, and of course to Bernard, for the way in which they offer professional advice to everyone, for the way in which they ensure that everyone can come to them without fear or favour, and for the way in which their advice is always well founded. I also pay tribute to Laraine and Katrina in the Clerk's Office, to the clerk assistants, to the Table Office, the Chamber Research Office and their staff, to the people in the Sergeant-at-Arms' Office—Judy Middlebrook, Dalma and Barry—and the messengerial and security attendants. Comments have been made about the security attendants and the messengerial attendants, who do so much to make our lives safe, secure and that much more efficient. I would like particularly to pay a tribute to the transport staff. I want to report to the parliament that I did have the opportunity this evening to visit Brian Flanagan, who many of you know, and to pass on the kind regards of the parliament to him. He reciprocated, with a twinkle in his eye, and asked me to mention how pleased he was to hear from all of us and to pass on similar sentiments to the parliamentarians.I thank the committee staff of the House and the joint committees for another excellent year; the printing staff who work long hours to meet the needs of the House; and members of the keyboard staff. Can I offer special thanks to the Liaison Projects Office of the House of Representatives which, earlier this year, won the 2000 Leadership in Marketing Award for the ACT. The office continues to do an outstanding job of promoting community understanding of and interaction with the work of the House and its committees. Of course, there are those whom we do not see so much of because they are in areas of the buildings that we do not frequently visit—those who are in the cavernous underground parts of this building—and those people who support us through members' entitlements, human resources, finance, information services and publishing.Everyone in the parliament is aware of the indebtedness that we owe to Chris Paterson and his staff in the Parliamentary Relations Office and particularly to the work that they do in ensuring that visiting delegations into Australia are made to feel welcome and that we have the opportunity to be professionally supported if we find ourselves overseas. I join the Manager of Opposition Business in paying a particular tribute to the Parliamentary Education Office, which is sometimes overlooked largely because of its current base on the Senate side of the building.I thank the Parliamentary Library staff and the Parliamentary Reporting Staff and the head of that department, John Templeton, the library research and resources staff and the Centenary of Federation group, led by Bernie Harris, which will be so pivotal to the events that will occur in this next year. My thanks go too, of course, to Hansard, and I join with all others in expressing our appreciation for the very professional way in which Hansard go about their task. I thank the broadcasting people and the people in the broadcasting box, who make it possible for Australia to observe what we are about and to see what a transparent democracy is all about, and those in computing support, and the switchboard operators, who are rarely seen. I also pay tribute to Mike Bolton and his team of managers in Joint House, the supervisors and maintenance staff, the guides, who are often the public face of this place, particularly when we are not present, and the nurses. I join the Deputy Prime Minister in recognising the role of the gardeners and I offer them special congratulations for completing the original design in the ministerial gardens. If you have not taken a look at it, you really ought to, because it is coming up quite magnificently. I thank also Louise Dauth in the Parliament House arts section. I nominate as well Audrey's Florist. One of the privileges of being the Speaker is having Audrey offer fresh flowers each week in the office. That is truly appreciated. I nominate also AUSPIC, Aussies cafe—or Dom's—Jetset Parliamentary Travel, the Health and Recreation Centre, Hyatt and AFS Catering for the way we are cared for, and Lizzie's hairdressing. As you may be aware, Lizzie has been away, and there were many very pleased to see her return. I think she has just returned. Yes, the member for Paterson is nodding. I thank also Marketing Services, the Parliament Shop, the physiotherapist, the Post Office, Qantas and Westpac. While I am on my feet, I pay a particular tribute to my staff here in Parliament House. Peter Gibson gives me great support as my chief of staff, as you are all well aware. Wendy Willis has been on leave but is shortly to return, and many will be pleased to see Wendy back on the Speaker's staff. Pauline Osmond is well known for the time that she has been around the building. But perhaps the person best known of all is Marie Donnelly, who has served a number of speakers; one member of my staff unkindly observed that Marie has been here since Federation. That is not fair, but it is true to say that everyone in the parliament knows Marie and stands indebted to her. I thank Yvonne Bailey, who has just joined us, as Speaker's assistant, for the role that she too is playing.To pick up the sentiments also expressed by previous speakers, I recognise that in this role I find myself, particularly while I am in the parliament, unable to give quite the same focus and time to the electorate as I did prior to taking this office. So I stand more indebted than ever to Dennis Gifford, Kerry Kerr and David Little, and Helen, Mignon and Gaynor, who in a part-time capacity also make up my Wakefield office staff.Before I make a particular comment about the support that I have had from each of you and extend to you my greetings, I conclude by focusing as others have on the fact that much has been made, particularly this week and this day, of the question of reconciliation. It struck me while people were speaking about reconciliation that reconciliation is not as much about agreeing with each other as it is about accepting each other, as we are. Theologians would say that, within the Christian context of Christmas, the Christmas message has very little to do with peace, love and goodwill because they are sentiments that can be shared with people of a range of religious beliefs. The Christian context of Christmas instead has a great deal more to do with the theological view of God being reconciled to man. It struck me that we who have been so expert in talking about reconciliation, who have in fact achieved so much in our own lifetimes in reconciliation in Australia, could well spend the centenary year endeavouring even more enthusiastically to be reconciled to each other—not that we need to agree with each other, but that we need to accept each other as we are. So having said that, I make a genuine endeavour as the Speaker to be even more closely reconciled to colleagues on both sides of the parliament. I thank you all for your very good wishes. Will you please accept from Carolyn and me our very best wishes for Christmas and the new year.Question resolved in the affirmative. Leave of Absence23738Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That leave of absence be given to every member of the House of Representatives from the determination of this sitting of the House to the date of its next sitting.Bills23738R116823738Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for the bill and proposed amendments announced.Bill returned from the Senate with a request for an amendment.Ordered that the requested amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's requested amendment—(1) Schedule 1, item 7, page 5 (after line 9), at the end of section 38-450, add: (2) A supply consisting of the surrender, to the Commonwealth, a State or Territory, of a lease over land is GST-free if: (a) the supplier acquired the land under a supply that: (i) was GST-free under subsection (1); or (ii) if the supply was made before 1 July 2000—would have been GST-free under subsection (1) if it had been made on or after that day; and (b) solely or partly in return for the surrender of the lease, the Commonwealth, State or Territory makes a supply of the land to the supplier that is GST-free under section 38-445.23:42:0023738Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I move:That the requested amendment be made.Since this bill was introduced into the parliament, further analysis by the Australian Taxation Office and consultation with the industry has resulted in the need for minor technical changes to some provisions already in the bill. The request is a technical correction that deals with the unimproved crown land. The current law makes GST free the supply by the Commonwealth, a state and/or a territory of land on which there are no improvements if the supply is of freehold interest in the land or the supply is by way of long-term lease. However, in some jurisdictions the governments first grant one or more short-term leases. Once certain conditions are satisfied relating to the development of the land, the government then supplies a long-term lease. In these cases, both the long-term and the short-term leases will be subject to the GST. This is contrary to the government's intention to make GST free the supply by the governments of unimproved land.To correct this, the bill includes measures that will allow a supply of conditional short-term leases over unimproved crown land to be GST free and for the ultimate supply of long-term leases or freehold title to be also GST free. However, the measures in the bill do not cover the situation where the developer surrenders the short-term conditional lease prior to expiry and then receives the long-term lease or freehold title in the land. This surrender of the right under the short-term lease in return for the granting of a long-term lease may be a taxable supply by a GST registered developer. This requested amendment will ensure that this surrender of the short-term lease will also be GST free, bringing the law within the government's policy intention.23:45:0023738Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Because of the government's monumental and continuing incompetence concerning GST and the new tax system in general, we are back here in this chamber totally unnecessarily, and at a quarter to 12 that is not a small point. I think members should understand the process that the government has taken to reach this stage in the debate. The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000 contains almost 200 new amendments to the GST and the new tax system. This takes the total number of amendments to the GST and the new tax system legislation to over 1,650. We have not only had a huge number of amendments to the bill but also the government mucking up the legislation, as usual. So the government, having to introduce new amendments to the bill the first time it passes through this House, are again showing their incompetence. We are not surprised about this; it is actually a regular procedure for them to do that. Then, true to form, the government decided that they needed not only to introduce new amendments in the House but to introduce new amendments in the Senate, in a number of ways. However, not only did they do that, they managed to muck this up by introducing changes which now have to be done by way of request, as well as by normal amendments. So the House will have to make a request and an amendment to the bill—which Labor is not opposing—and then return the amended bill back to the Senate, which will then return the bill with the other Senate amendments— XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—That will keep us here all night.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—It will keep us here for quite some time. We will get this amended bill back with the Senate amendments, so the government and the opposition can then deal with them. I suspect that the number of amendments to the new tax system so far is a record. We have not looked at the Guinness Book of Records, but we think it might be a record. Unfortunately, we suspect that this is not a record that is going to last for long; early in the next century the legislation will be amended again.On that note, I think it ought to be pointed out that this bill represents the last tax debate of the first century of the Australian nation. I resist what is a considerable temptation to enter into a debate on taxation in that vein, but this bill well encapsulates the record of the conservative side of politics throughout this past century. I make the point that, firstly, the GST is unfair in its distributional impact—I think everyone is pretty well aware of that. It is all too typical of the contribution of the tories over the last century and, dare I suggest, what they plan for the next century—that is, to seek to concentrate the tax burden on lower and middle income members of the community. It is a strategy that involves the many paying the taxes, and the few—those with the greatest resources—not paying their fair share. The conservative approach to taxation is absolutely consistent with the conservative approach to politics and the community in general—that is, to redistribute wealth in reverse: to take wealth away from those who have less and distribute it to those who have more; to put the tax burden on the poor, rather than on the rich; to put the tax burden on the many, rather than on the few. And the GST is a great symbol of that: increasing the indirect tax burden on those with the least capacity to pay, whilst shovelling money in income tax reductions disproportionately to those at the higher income end.In addition to this, the conservatives have also been presiding over great tax rorts for the very few. The current vehicle of choice for tax avoiders involves a variety of employee benefit arrangements going to offshore or non-complying superannuation funds, going to what is described as `controlling interest' or `controller superannuation' funds, where employers basically masquerade as employees. These have seen billions of dollars go through them, and over the past number of years we have seen total inaction by the Treasurer, who has given a nod and a wink to these tax avoidance schemes. (Extension of time granted) This is an issue which we will revisit in the new century.In conclusion, the legislation before us, and the GST which it amends for the umpteenth time, is a very potent symbol of the conservative philosophy of this past century. It is Labor's view that governments should be about supporting ordinary people and endeavouring to reduce the tax burden on ordinary people, not what this government has sought to do—that is, to fit up ordinary people with a tax burden in the shape of a GST where those who have less pay more. And we see this in the way in which the GST has impacted, in particular, on levels of petrol taxation. For example, the government promised, prior to the last election, that the GST would not result in an increase in the level of petrol taxes, and therefore need not result in an increase in petrol prices. We in fact saw a reduction in excise on 1 July of 6.7c per litre but a GST was added on which had a value at that time of 8.2c a litre, and it is now higher than that, resulting in windfall gains for the government but an increased tax burden for ordinary motorists. That is all too typical of the approach being taken by this government on the issue of taxation. They say, `Ordinary people should pay more by way of tax; the poor can pay more by way of tax; but the wealthy will have a reduced tax burden. And we will do that directly by making sure that income tax reductions go disproportionately to those at the high end, and we will also achieve that by being soft on the various mechanisms for tax avoidance.' One of the things which troubles the opposition, and it certainly should trouble the Australian community, is the suggestion that this government intends to back off from entity taxation—that is to say, taxing trusts as companies. One of the things that the government put up in neon lights at the time that it introduced its GST package—and it repeated it when it introduced the Ralph business tax proposals for change—was that, yes, there would be some things of benefit to higher income earners. They were proposing to cut capital gains tax rates and to cut company tax rates, but offset that by closing down a number of tax dodges. Foremost amongst those was the use of trusts as a vehicle for tax avoidance. So they would tax trusts in the way that companies are taxed. That is something that the opposition strongly supported, and we had been pressing the government to take action in this area for some time. It is not our view that trusts ought to be closed down altogether. There are legitimate reasons why people may wish to have and operate trusts. But tax avoidance is not a legitimate vehicle for operating a trust. We think that people who are operating trusts ought to pay their fair share of tax. As a result, we strongly support the entity taxation regime. If the government does back off from this, it will be yet another sign—as with their treatment of the employee benefit arrangements—that this is a government which is soft on tax avoidance. So we will be watching them like hawks in relation to entity taxation. We will be watching them very closely to discern whether the Treasurer and the government are fair dinkum about cracking down on tax avoidance.Question resolved in the affirmative.Ministerial Statements237402374023:54:0023740Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—by leave—The review committee established by the Commonwealth to examine the academic and financial credentials of Greenwich University has reported to me today. The committee was set up following a request from the Norfolk Island government that Greenwich University be listed on the Australian qualifications framework register, the AQF. The committee has recommended that, one, Greenwich University not be listed on the registers of the Australian qualifications framework, because the standard of its courses, quality assurance mechanisms and academic leadership fail to meet the standards expected of Australian universities. Two, while Greenwich University does not currently satisfy the criteria for listing on the AQF registers, it is open to the university to reapply once it has addressed the deficiencies identified in this report. Any such application should be made to MCEETYA, which will refer the matter to the Australian Universities Quality Agency to conduct a whole of institution audit.I will recommend to my state and territory ministerial colleagues that they accept these recommendations. Prospective students should understand that we cannot vouch for the quality of universities not listed on the registers of the AQF. The principle of caveat emptor therefore applies, not only to prospective students but also to employers or other tertiary education institutions accepting graduates from a university not listed on the AQF register.23:56:0023740Lee, Michael, MPMr LEEMG4DobellALP00—by leave—This is another issue of government bungling. While we welcome the fact that the minister has in his statement tonight clarified some aspects of this matter, this is to some extent a case of the government seeking to close the barn doors after the horse has bolted. Labor first raised questions about Greenwich University in February last year—almost two years ago. It took quite some time to establish that the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs had been alerted, apparently well in advance, about the intention to set up a university on Norfolk Island and that the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Macdonald, approved this plan under the rather odd belief that this so-called university, with six employees, would operate only on Norfolk Island. Senator Macdonald seems never to have heard of the Internet or to have asked questions about how many university students such an institution could physically cater for on Norfolk Island. Once approved by the Commonwealth, Greenwich was entitled to, and did, advertise itself as an accredited Australian university, thereby benefiting from Australia's high reputation for the provision of quality education to overseas students. But because of the host of questions surrounding the bona fides of the principles of Greenwich—most of which were brought to light by the opposition—the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs was forced to establish an inquiry in April last year. It has taken all this time—with Greenwich operating as a university all the while—for the government to reach the conclusion that it has announced today. We still have not heard the response of the Norfolk Island government to this finding. The minister has not advised what undertakings have been given about future proposals to establish similar institutions there. For example, will Norfolk Island be guided by the Australian Universities Quality Agency in making such decisions in the future? I also raise the issue of the lack of jurisdiction on Norfolk Island of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. This means that company names can be registered there which implies that the company is a university, when it has in fact not received accreditation or government recognition as such.The fact is that, as usual, the government's actions are both late and far from sufficiently comprehensive. Only yesterday, the minister put out a media release describing education as one of the fastest growing export industries for our country. The government certainly needs to act more speedily about any future threats to the reputation of the industry. Finally, I place on record the fact that my colleague Senator Kim Carr raised a number of matters connected with this some time ago. I think you would get some pleasure, Mr Deputy Speaker, from the response of Senator John Tierney, the Liberal Senator from New South Wales, who said, in response to Senator Carr:In a damning Senate adjournment speech last evening, New South Wales Liberal Senator John Tierney has called on Labor's Senator Kim Carr to fess up and apologise for continuing to peddle untruths under parliamentary privilege to stain the reputation of overseas academics linked to Norfolk Island's distance based institution. Senator Tierney also read into Hansard an extract from a letter written by Dr Rick Walston from Greenwich University, which highlighted his immense academic experience and qualifications in an attempt to refute the prior allegations made by Senator Carr in the Senate on 22nd March against him.Senator Tierney continued:Senator Carr's pathological obsession with Greenwich University appears to have no bounds. It is mudslinging and political point scoring at its very worst and I find it simply outrageous that he continues to peddle falsehoods and attack the legitimate records and past achievements of these people.In light of the minister's statement tonight, Senator Tierney must feel very embarrassed that he went out on a limb and defended people whom Senator Carr quite rightly exposed as standing behind an institution that does not deserve the same good name that every other Australian university enjoys.Friday, 8 December 2000Bills23741R112723741Debate resumed.00:01:0023742Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—Before we adjourned this debate for the valedictories, the member for Oxley drew a very tenuous link between the road that the Internet creates and the roads that are being funded to the extent of $1.2 billion, as we discussed this week. The honourable member was admonished by the Speaker to go no further down that route, but I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker, you will give me the liberty to rebut some of the honourable member's comments—on the understanding that I will not stray further from the subject of this debate. The member for Oxley acknowledged that his electorate and the areas adjoining it will receive $40 million under the roads funding package, but went on to make some disparaging comments about that program. That is sad because I think honourable members on both sides of the House acknowledge that roads that were built 20, 30 or 40 years ago are reaching their use-buy date and that governments of all political colours must try to keep them in good order. One has only to attend a local authority meeting or talk to those who are interested in the subject to discover that there is grave concern.The program almost doubles the funding that councils receive under the federal assistance grants. For some, it will never be enough, but I think it is a quite generous outlay on the part of the government. It is a cheap shot to say that, when we break down the figures, the City of Ipswich will receive only $5 million, because that is $5 million more than it would have received under any other program. Let us examine the record of the Queensland Labor government, which is meeting only five per cent of the cost of rural roads in that state. The Commonwealth's funding contribution is highly significant and marks quite a change in the funding pattern.Returning to the road of the Internet, during the past decade the world has experienced an information revolution, and the Internet has been at its heart. The Internet has become a vital tool for work, recreation and education for many Australians. The most recent report from the National Office for the Information Economy, which was released last month, shows that Australia ranks eighth—at 41 per cent—for overall Internet access ahead of the United Kingdom and New Zealand. About half of all Australian households have a computer in the home, and nearly two million households have access to the Internet—every one of which must have an Internet address. So this is a significant issue for Australians.The interest shown by the younger generation also suggests that the figures I have cited will continue to grow. The Australian Bureau of Statistics noted recently that 95 per cent of all Australian children know how to use a computer and almost half of them surf the Net. Children do not use the Internet just to play games. The main reason for Internet use among young people is for homework and other school based activities. So the Internet plays a vital role even in the lives of the young.An important opportunity developing along with the Internet is electronic commerce. E-commerce is poised to transform the entire commercial environment. In future years the information economy will be the key driver of jobs growth—not just jobs linked directly to computers and IT but jobs in more traditional areas, including the work of electricians, receptionists, travel consultants, security guards, builders, trainers, warehouse keepers and a host of other occupations.The coalition is keen to harness the potential of the Internet and support its development, but, at the same time, it is willing to tackle the regulatory issues that arise. The most obvious example of the coalition's support is the Networking the Nation program, which was funded from the partial sale of Telstra. This important initiative has funded communications infrastructure programs to assist the economic and social development of rural and remote Australia, in particular. While many projects have been put in place already, there are more to follow. The government has also developed a comprehensive national strategic framework for the information economy and an IT investment strategy. We have legislated to regulate Internet content to promote confidence amongst Australians—particularly parents—that they and their children can be safe in the cyber experience. Internet service providers are required to restrict access to illegal or highly offensive Australian material and to take reasonable steps to block access to such overseas material. Offensive material is not always pornography. Sadly, the opposition yesterday refused to support the government's move to impose a one-year moratorium on Internet gambling. That is regrettable. As the debate develops, I think opposition members will reflect upon and regret their decision. I do not say that in a threatening way; I simply think taking a willy-nilly or adventurous approach to this sphere of gambling has great potential for harm. In other fields the government has established Net Alert, a community advisory body for online content. Almost $5 million has been provided to Net Alert, which will fund research and development into technologies to manage Internet use as well as national education and awareness programs targeted at children, parents and teachers. Other legislation has been passed in relation to electronic transactions and data protection in the private sector, while the digital agenda bill reforms have been the most substantial reforms to the Copyright Act since it was introduced in 1968. The digital agenda reforms ensure enhanced protection and enforcement measures for copyright owners in the online environment, while ensuring that individual and institutional users—for example, libraries and the students and researchers who use them—have reasonable access to digital copyright material.The government has moved to support the development of the framework for management of the Internet Domain Name System. This bill today aims to reinforce the Commonwealth's power to safeguard the public interest in electronic addressing services, such as Internet domain names. A domain name locates an organisation or other entity on the Internet. Every computer connected to the Internet has its own unique address. The domain name system is the way that Internet domain names are located and translated into Internet addresses. Top level domains may be divided into generic and country codes. For example, the dot com part of a domain name reflects the purpose of the organisation or entity—in this case, commercial. The country code domains have been created to be used by each individual country as they deem necessary—for example, dot au is Australia and dot nz is New Zealand.The bill clarifies existing provisions of the Telecommunications Act for the Australian Communications Authority to declare a Manager of Electronic Addressing. It also allows the ACA and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to subsequently apply directions to that manager. Under this provision, the ACCC can determine whether or not the manager of an electronic addressing service is promoting adequate levels of competition or consumer protection. The ACA will have the power to determine whether or not the service is being managed satisfactorily.Basically, the government continues to support self-regulatory solutions to electronic addressing in Australia, and this bill is designed to be a safety net. It ensures that the government has the authority to assume control of the management of electronic addressing if industry self-regulation is not working. The .au domain administration, which uses the address dot auda, a non-profit company established by the government in 1999, will shortly be considered for endorsement as the new manager of a dot au domain. The objectives of the new self-regulatory regime to be adopted by this organisation include the following: (1) that it will be fully funded and not for profit; (2) that it will be inclusive of members of the Internet community on both the supply and demand sides; (3) that it will have open consultative processes; (4) that it will promote competition, fair trading, consumer protection and support; (5) that it will establish dispute resolution mechanisms; and (6) that it will represent Australian Internet industry interests in national and international forums.Electronic addressing has become crucial national infrastructure in much the same way as we were discussing roads in an earlier context. Getting a domain name is the gateway to e-commerce for many Australian services, so it is important that these services are managed in the public interest. At the international level, the government has been leading the debate on Internet domain issues, such as cybersquatting, through involvement in the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers and by representations to the World Intellectual Property Organisation. `Cybersquatting' is the abusive or bad-faith registration of an Internet domain name that is similar to the name in which another person has intellectual property rights or some other legitimate claim, for example, registering a domain name based on the name of a famous person in order to get money from that person by having him or her buy the right to that domain name. It introduces an element of coercion, and that should be resisted at all levels. Australia is requesting that the World Intellectual Property Organisation develop voluntary guidelines and policies to curb cybersquatting and to resolve related disputes. The continuation of the information revolution and the development of the information economy will transform the way we do business, the way we learn and the way we spend our leisure time. If Australians take up the opportunities that e-commerce has to offer, then it has the potential to increase our GDP by as much as three per cent over the next decade. It is important that the government does not stifle the development of the information economy but, at the same time, it has to be willing to tackle regulatory issues as they arise. The approach taken by the government in relation to electronic addressing, as reflected in this bill, seeks to reflect this. The government maintains its support of self-regulatory solutions but is ensuring that clear backstop provisions are in place in case further problems might arise.00:15:0023744Hatton, Michael, MPMr HATTONLN6BlaxlandALP00—I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. It is a marvellous privilege to be able to speak in the parliament tonight in the dying embers of the parliamentary year. It is so for me on what is our last day of sitting in the 20th century, in the second millennium for the Australian parliament and at the end of our first century of Federation. To speak on this bill tonight about matters that not only are current but go to the core of the central infrastructure of the Internet in the future is a great thing. This bill is about accuracy in naming things. I had hoped that the same accuracy demanded of Internet usage would spill over into the question of accuracy in relation to the determination of the end of the century and the millennium.I still fail to understand the utter, complete and total stupidity of the marketers who nominated 31 December 1999 as the end of the 20th century and of the second millennium. In fact—this is instructive, and I will make the connection with this bill shortly—the greatest marketing opportunity ever was totally squandered. The 31 December 1999 should have been a universal celebration of the end of the 20th century and the second millennium. The 31 December 2000 should have been universally celebrated as the dawning of the 21st century and the third Christian millennium. There should have been two great celebrations. There should have been one at the end of 1999 heralding the completion of the 20th century and the second millennium, which the year 2000 truly is, and there should have been one at the end of the year 2000 heralding the start on 1 January 2001 of the 21st century, the third millennium and the Centenary of Federation. The last one will in fact be properly and accurately celebrated in 2001. This is in consonance with the first year of the 21st century and the third millennium. Our Federation forebears 100 years ago correctly discerned when the end of the 19th century was. For people 100 years ago, mathematical, scientific and historical accuracy were as highly prized as they are so demeaned at the end of this century.The bill before us tonight demands absolute accuracy, both numerical and etymological. It does so because of the way the basic infrastructure of the Internet, modern computer naming systems and Internet protocols operate. If we look at the purpose of the current bill, the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill 2000, we find that the Bills Digest says it is:... to give clearer powers to the Australian Communications Authority (ACA) and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) to direct and manage electronic addressing, particularly Internet addressing. These powers will only be used if industry self-regulation is not effective. The reason we have this bill and the reason the government does not seek to regulate much at all if it can help it is that this is a backup bill. If the industry is actually able to self-regulate in this area, this bill and most of its provisions need not come into effect. It has in fact been argued by some of the people who gave evidence to the Senate committee that looked into this that the pure existence of the bill may hamper the possibility that self-regulation may succeed.That is a view I do not share, because, from 1996 onwards—when the actual distribution of domain names in Australia passed by subdelegation from Mr Elz, who worked for the Melbourne Institute of Technology, to the Melbourne Institute of Technology itself—as new entrants have attempted to enter Australia and as there has been competition with people from overseas, the attempts at self-regulation have been disastrous. None of the competitors has been able to agree. There are no set standards. The government instrumentalities—the ACA, the ACCC and the Office of Government Information Technology—are as yet unable to put together in concert with the industry a self-regulatory approach, hence this bill.My guess is that, when we get into the 21st century, we will end up in a situation where we will have to put this bill into force and move from industry self-regulation to regulation by government. That should not be such a strange thing to contemplate, particularly if you actually see a purpose for the Commonwealth government in a range of different areas and a purpose where it can stand as an independent arbiter within the Australian business community. An example we can readily look at that is really quite good is Australian business names. If you look at how those business names are registered for trade purposes and the current linkage with the Australian business number, which was brought into place in legislation earlier this year, you will see there is a name and an underlying number that reference themselves and are provided through government instrumentalities. Those two things together pin down the nature, the name and referencing of a particular Australian company. Companies that operate under those Australian business names which are connected to their ABNs know where they sit in the scheme of things. Governments can be sure who they are dealing with and businesses can be sure how they deal with different government instrumentalities. And the conjunction is such that there can be certainty. If there is one thing needed in the business world, it is certainty, and people seek that a great deal. Likewise, within the Internet system, which is simply a connection of all the computers around the world that are hooked up to it, you need certainty in terms of naming, you need certainty in terms of domain name administration and you need certainty in terms of the Internet protocols that are used. This is something that cannot be slapdash. The core thing that needs to be appreciated is just what this whole thing is about and what the technicalities that are addressed in this bill attempt to do. For that you need a little context and history. Essentially what we are dealing with in this bill is the progression from a backyard, cottage, scientific pursuit through to a more sophisticated and highly complex use of certain protocols through to an even greater series of levels of complexity as this system has developed. In Australia, one man working at the Melbourne Institute of Technology, Mr Elz, gained from the international body in charge of domain name administration the right to allocate names. This bloke did it voluntarily and he was pretty overworked. During the 1980s he was not particularly overworked, because there was not much to the Internet. If I go back in time to look at what was there, in 1982 IBM introduced the first of the personal computers which came to dominate the world. Only 18 years on we have had a magnificent proliferation of computer power, an enormous extension of memory and processor power and, since 1995, the creation of the creature we know as the Internet or the World Wide Web.The basis of the Internet goes back to the 1960s and the United States military, which was looking for a fail-safe system for military communications in the event of a major conflagration. Together with scientific organisations around the world, they developed the bones of the Internet. What they needed—and they had only a small number of mainframe computers involved in the first place—was a basic way of being absolutely sure which computer they were dealing with when they were addressing it. Assigned to that computer was a unique number so that all the other computers with unique numbers would know which computers they were addressing. Sometimes they were given names, but the number was actually enough. If we think about the development from 1982 onwards of Microsoft's disc operating system and the precursors to that in the scientific community—the early versions of UNIX and the other systems that were used going back to the first CSIRO system—effectively what we had was called a command line approach. `Command line' simply meant that you typed instructions into the computer. Prior to that they used punch cards. You typed in what you wanted to do. So if you wanted to get to a directory or a subdirectory on the C drive, at the `C drive' prompt you would type in `dir/', and then the name of the subdirectory, and then you would go to it. That command line mentality is actually still in the Internet today. It is actually involved in what we are discussing in these bills because we have two layers that need to be addressed in terms of domain names. The etymological one, the one that deals with naming itself, is a layer that sits above the numerical layer because every computer on the web is given a unique number. So, at base, the unique number is the core of this. The names that we give to various domains simply sit on top of that: they reference the numbers. So in our electorate offices, when we contact Parliament House, we go through and dial up to get access to our Outlook mail. We are actually using a connection to a series of numbers, and that series of numbers gives us, out of our electorate office through the gateway, a Parliament House number, and then from there we go down to our mailbox. We do not see all of that; we see a bit of the names. When the graphical web took off in 1995, what it took off on the back of was a revolution in the way in which we use computers because, from 1982 on, the command line approach that was used in Microsoft's disc operating system was strongly adhered to. We had people of a scientific bent that used computers, and some people who used them for word processing, but basically most people did not have an approach to it.However, at Palo Alto, at the Xerox Park Research Centre, Alan Kay, the greatest inventor of software and software systems, developed the use of the mouse and he also developed the use of the graphical interface, which was in fact stolen by the people who set up the Macintosh. They wandered in, had a bit of a look around and thought that was pretty good gear and then decided that they would adopt that as the interface for the Macintosh which followed on from the Apple II computer. That created a revolution in the way in which we used computers. That was taken up by Microsoft Windows, and others too, so that now our approach to computers hides two things: (1) it hides the command line interface that is actually still in our current systems of Windows 98—they are not fully graphicaland (2) it also hides the naming systems which are still there in the Internet. This bill today seeks to have a backup so that there can be certainty in regard to the allocation of domain names.But what is the situation that we will in fact face in the future? If you look at the way in which domain names have been constructed, they have been done in a fairly sensible way. There are higher level, first level or primary level and secondary level domain names. So the three domain names that are in the public area but outside the control of government, which actually controls the dot gov domain name area, are dot com, dot net and dot org. Originally dot com was for companies, dot net was meant for those entities involved in communications, and dot org was for community groups. The second layer provided to that was that those three areas were in fact subdivided by country, so in Australia we have dot com dot au, dot net dot au and dot org dot au, as well as dot gov dot au. In 1996, the Melbourne Institute of Technology took over control of the allocation of domain names in the dot com dot au area, exclusively. It got that as a subdelegation from Mr Elz, who continued to control the delegation, but who passed it on because the job was simply too complex. The worth of allocating these names is underlined by the fact that, in the last year, the Melbourne Institute of Technology floated. The stock price soared; it has now come back somewhere to near reality, but this entity makes a lot of money. It costs $50 a year or so on the open market worldwide to get a dot com address, but in Australia, to get a dot com dot au, it is about $140 a year. It is almost three times as expensive; and, as other members have indicated, there are some cut-price deals where you can get one of those other names for $5.99. So it is a business where money can be made.In Australia, with the current system that we have, with dot com dot au, there is a strong protection, because, in order to be able to register one of those names, you need a current business name. You need to be in business and have that registered name—in effect, have an Australian business number. So there is effectively a government guarantee behind the dot com dot au. This bill seeks to bolster that situation in terms of Australian names. But there are some other possibilities on the horizon. Where the situation is currently a numerical base, a layer on top of names that may or may not reflect individual companies, there is a third alternative, which, over the last three years in particular, has driven forward and done quite a great deal to establish itself. That is found in a company called the RealNames Corporation. They have a system that they call Internet keywords. Internet keywords differ from strict domain names because they operate in such a way that they are directly tied to registered brand names. They are tied in such a way that, if you go into RealNames' web site—or now, because they have extended so much, into a search engine like AltaVista—you can find the name of a company or the name of any other registered entity just by entering the common name. You do not have to put http, you do not have to put www, you do not have to put .com.au, .com.nz or anything else; you simply type in the name of the thing that you are looking for and the underlying technology allows what you are looking for to be found with a great deal of precision.This bill deals with things as they currently are and the way we normally allocate domain name systems. I would argue that we need to also look ahead at the probable success of Internet keywords as used by the RealNames Corporation as a commonsense way of accessing the Internet and the fact that they bind together product brands, businesses and their common names in the way that those three things are bound together in Australian laws and are protected by the ACCC. As this industry has come to maturation—and there is still quite a long way to go—and confronted the complexities of this naming system, it has become extraordinarily apparent that things need to be done in a simpler way. It has also become apparent that the need for certainty, accuracy and regulation is much greater now than it was in the past. We are not just dealing with the military, we are not just dealing with scientific communities, we are not just dealing with a small number of people connecting their computers worldwide; we are dealing with a massive explosion in the use of interconnectedness through computers which we know as the modern Internet or, as one part of that in particular, the World Wide Web.This bill does address, as a backup, the key problems that self-regulation in this area has failed to address in the past and will most probably fail to address in the future. There will need to be a fall-back position, because you need certainty and accuracy in this regard. This Commonwealth government has to act in putting this bill through in order to ensure not only the continued growth of access to the Internet and the naming conventions that are there but also to put us in a position to adequately prepare for the next century and the third millennium.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 23747Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time. Bills23748The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Roads to Recovery Bill 2000Bills23748R112823748Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House.Bills23748R115323748Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 19), omit “This”, substitute “Subject to this section, this”.(2) Clause 2, page 1 (after line 20), at the end of the clause, add: (2) Schedule 2 commences on 1 January 2001.(3) Clause 3, page 2 (line 2), omit “Each”, substitute “Subject to section 2, each”.(4) Page 25 (after line 28), at the end of the bill, add:Schedule 2—Further amendment of the National Health Act 19531 After section 100Insert:100A Establishment and membership of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (1) There is to be a Committee called the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. (2) The Committee is to consist of the Chairperson and 11 other members. (3) The Committee is to include 8 members selected from the following: (a) consumers; (b) health economists; (c) practising community pharmacists; (d) general practitioners; (e) clinical pharmacologists; (f) specialists;with at least one member selected from each of the interests or professions mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f). (4) The remaining members of the Committee are to be persons whom the Minister is satisfied have qualifications or experience: (a) in a field relevant to the functions of the Committee; and (b) that would enable them to contribute meaningfully to the deliberations of the Committee. (5) The Chairperson is a member of the Committee. (6) The members of the Committee hold office on a part-time basis.100B Appointment etc. of members of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (1) The members of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee are to be appointed by the Minister by written instrument. (1A) A person appointed under subsection 100A(3) must be appointed from nominations made by the following bodies: (a) in respect of paragraph 100A(3)(a) —consumer organisations; (b) in respect of paragraph 100A(3)(b) —professional associations of health economists; (c) in respect of paragraph 100A(3)(c) —professional associations of phar-macists; (d) in respect of paragraph 100A(3)(d) —professional associations of medical practitioners; (e) in respect of paragraph 100A(3)(e) —professional associations of clinical pharmacologists; (f) in respect of paragraph 100A(3)(f) —professional associations of specialists; prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection. (1B) The regulations may prescribe matters relating to nominations, including (but not limited to) the number of nominations to be considered by the Minister before making an appointment. (2) A member of the Committee is eligible for reappointment. (3) The exercise or performance of the functions and powers of the Committee is not affected only because there is a vacancy in the office of a member of the Committee. (4) The names and qualifications of the members of the Committee must be published in the Gazette.100C Termination of appointment A member of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee holds office during the Minister's pleasure.100D Remuneration (1) A member of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is to be paid the remuneration that is determined by the Remuneration Tribunal. If no determination of that remuneration by the Tribunal is in operation, the member is to be paid the remuneration that is prescribed. (2) A member is to be paid the allowances that are prescribed. (3) This section has effect subject to the Remuneration Tribunal Act 1973.2 Subsections 101(1), (2), (2AAA), (2AA), (2A), (2B) and (2C)Repeal the subsections.Note: The heading to section 101 is altered by inserting “Functions of” before “Pharmaceutical”.3 Subsection 101(3)Before “Committee”, insert “Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory”.00:37:0023749Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The changes to the legislation governing the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee are welcome. The PBAC will now be able to draw upon a broader range of health care, scientific and community bodies for its membership. Many professional groups will now be able to make a contribution to the PBAC, including consumer groups, practising community pharmacists, clinical pharmacologists and specialists from the health care and scientific community. Australia has an evidence based regime for the approval of public subsidy of pharmaceuticals, which is rightly world renowned and emulated internationally. These changes will further strengthen the expertise of the independent body, the PBAC, which is the foundation of this system. I commend the amendments to the chamber.00:38:0023749Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I am pleased that the government has accepted the amendments moved by the opposition in the Senate to the propositions put by the government to make sure that we protect the integrity and independence of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. We were concerned about the way in which the government planned to overhaul this very important committee and retrospectively get rid of many of its experienced members. For reasons that we are still in the dark about, the minister's office only circulated its amendments to this bill last Friday—some 10 months after the Tambling review reported. There has been no explanation to date as to why the government has been so keen to get these amendments introduced in such a quick manner. The original amendments that were circulated by the government just last week included plans to limit the terms of the PBAC members to eight years and to introduce this restriction retrospectively. This would have seen many distinguished members of the committee sacked, and we were very concerned about what was behind it at all.I am very pleased that the government has withdrawn those two changes completely. The remaining government amendments related to the composition of the committee and the process for member appointments. The government was seeking to place very few requirements on the composition of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. Under the current act, the majority of members must be nominated by the Australian Medical Association, the Pharmacy Guild or the Doctors Reform Society. Of course, it is the case that the minister has the power to remove members of the committee, but he can appoint only people nominated to him from various professional bodies. The amendments drafted by the government did not require the minister to choose the committee's composition from nominations arising from professional bodies. In fact, there was no reference to nomination from professional bodies in the government's original amendments. The amendments, as originally written by the government, therefore signalled a very significant increase in the minister's discretion over appointments. For example, the amendments required the committee to include only a consumer, a health economist, a practising pharmacist, two GPs and one clinical pharmacologist. The only criterion for the appointment of the remaining six members would have been that the minister was satisfied the people had qualifications or experience in a field relevant to the functions of the committee that would enable them to contribute meaningfully to the deliberations of the committee. Our concern was that this would have left the appointments very open-ended and exposed both the minister and the committee to influences that we did not think would be helpful and would have threatened the committee's independence.In the current environment of intense industry pressure to overhaul the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee and the close links that exist between the minister and the industry, the moves to increase the minister's discretion over appointments and to remove the need for appointments to be nominees of professional bodies did cause considerable concern. We are therefore pleased that we were able to successfully amend the government's changes to make eight of the committee's 12 members nominees of professional or consumer groups. These amendments will make sure that the arms-length relationship between the minister and the committee continues.This committee inevitably comes under enormous pressure to recommend the listing of new drugs. For example, one that we have seen in the recent past is its decision not to list Viagra. As many members would know, this was challenged in the courts by the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. The prevailing view has always been that the process is strengthened when the committee is seen to be independent of the minister and the individual committee members are seen to have the authority of the professional groups from which they are nominated. If the government amendments had been successful, this precaution would have been lost. Our amendments in the Senate remove the potential for the minister to be exposed to outside pressures when unpopular decisions are made. (Extension of time granted) It also protects the minister from accusations of political appointments.The independence and authority of this committee have to be maintained, and I am pleased that the government has accepted our amendments, which make sure that the appointment process continues to be transparent and guarantees that the community will have confidence in the committee's independence. To make sure the committee continues to function successfully and that decisions are consistent, we need to make sure that proper transition arrangements between the current committee and the new committee are put in place. This has been one of the concerns put to me by a number of people outside of the parliament who want to make sure that there is a known and clear transition process. This was recommended in Senator Tambling's review of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme listing process.As many people know, the work of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee is highly involved and it is very important that we have people experienced in interpreting all the analysis that is presented to it and balancing that with issues to do with clinical need and equity of access. It means we need to get the balance of skills right on the committee and make sure that new people have time to acquaint themselves with the detail that is involved. We are concerned that the government may replace up to six of the current members, including its current chair, Professor Don Birkett, on 31 December. Unless there is some transition process between the new chair and Professor Birkett, we are concerned that a vacuum will be created. We have been arguing for interim arrangements to be put in place so that there can be some handover process between the current chair and the new chair if that is what the government decides. As I mentioned earlier, this committee has come under intense scrutiny, with the pharmaceutical industry lobbying for a turnover in the membership of the PBAC and for industry representation on the committee. There has been plenty of media comment about the close relationship between the minister and the industry, so that has reinforced our concerns—we should have a very strong and independent Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee so that the community can know that the drugs that are being approved for listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme are listed entirely in the interests of consumers. I am very pleased that the government has accepted our amendments so we can guarantee that this committee maintains its independence, but I would say to the government that it should consider proper transition arrangements between the current committee and any new members.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills23751R1126BillsR116623751Debate resumed from 6 December, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.00:47:0023751Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I have come into this House on a number of occasions today to speak to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000, so I am very pleased that, at 10 minutes to one, my moment of glory has finally arrived. The purpose of this bill is to establish the Administrative Review Tribunal, ART, a single merits review tribunal. Through the establishment of the ART, four merits review tribunals—the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal—will be replaced to reappear as divisions within the ART.Although the shadow Attorney-General may publicly refer to the ART as a `supertribunal'—as in his press release of 12 October 2000—the establishment of a single tribunal structure has been a consistent theme in reports focusing on reviews, dating back to the early 1970s. The 1971 Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee report, the Kerr committee report, and the 1973 report of the Committee on Administrative Discretions, the Bland committee report, both recommended the establishment of a general review tribunal rather than specialist tribunals. The Better decisions review of the Commonwealth Merit Review Tribunal's report of 1995 echoed this theme in advocating a single merits tribunal to replace a number of separate federal merits review tribunals. The Law Council of Australia have also given their support for a single tribunal structure, stating that benefits and efficiencies may be gained by restructuring the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, AAT, and other tribunals.The amalgamation of separate merits tribunals will provide a review process that reflects the original intentions of the 1971 and 1975 reports and the 1995 Better decisions report. This process, as reflected in the ART, will still exercise the jurisdiction of the current tribunals. However, the new process will ensure that the federal merits review system is streamlined with greater efficiency, performance and less duplication. In streamlining the structure of the ART, support personnel from existing tribunals and practices that have demonstrated success will be incorporated into the new structure. This will ensure that valuable corporate knowledge is retained and that the administration has continuity. It is always good to have that knowledge and history.By pooling specialised corporate knowledge on the merits review as part of the restructure, the ART is demonstrating an effective approach to knowledge management. Knowledge management creates efficiencies in an organisation by utilising resources, such as specialist knowledge on issues and subject matter that is readily available. Information and procedures are streamlined, ensuring greater efficiencies and practices. This avoids duplication of information and resources and improves the overall performance of a unit. In 1995, the Better decisions report noted that a single review tribunal with specialist divisions would return to the `comprehensive coherent and integrated system of Commonwealth administrative law' as envisaged by the Kerr committee. This would result in a more efficient use of public resources. One of the principles identified during this review process that led to the 1995 report was the potential for disparate practices and procedures in hearings and the appointment and remuneration of members as a result of specialist tribunals. This disparity led to the government's decision to put in place proposals from the report and to demonstrate its absolute commitment to ensuring that individuals have access to independent, high quality review of administrative decisions in an environment that is non-adversarial and has an emphasis on flexibility, informality and accessibility.In essence, the objective of this bill is for the ART to provide a mechanism for reviewing decisions that is fair, just, economical, quick and informal. Under the proposed legislation, all decisions will be subject to an internal review, often by a single member of the tribunal—the first-tier review. The review will be public, unless the ART decides that the confidential nature of the matter under review must be protected. Decisions will be reviewable by the ART only if provisions exist in another act or regulation permitting this review. The Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000 will amend those acts to provide review by the ART in place of the AAT and other specialist tribunals.The review of the ART of its first-tier decision, termed a second-tier review, will be available with respect to decisions in all areas. The Better decisions report of 1995 concluded that applicants wanting a second-tier review should not have that granted as a matter of right. According to respect for time and costs associated with the review and in keeping with the intention of the Better decisions report, the second-tier review will be limited to cases that raise an issue or a principle of general significance. For departments and agencies whose decisions are under review by the ART, there will be no requirement for them to physically participate by appearing before the tribunal during the review process. This reflects a consideration that review of certain cases can be undertaken much more effectively and efficiently without agency participation. It is the government's intention that reviews under the proposed ART will be less formal and non-adversarial in nature. The bill also provides that decision makers participating in the review process must use their best endeavours to assist the bill to achieve the correct and preferable decision, rather than just defending the original decision.A variety of procedures and practices will be encouraged under the new tribunal structure to ensure that the tribunal has flexibility to tailor processes and procedures to the type of decision under review. However, ART members are not permitted to make any determinations about the practices and procedures that are inconsistent with proposals in this legislation. Indeed, many of the review practices and procedures under this bill are similar to those being currently used by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, including those relating to appeals in the Federal Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. There is also no requirement under this bill for procedures to follow the rules of evidence or any stipulation that a person be represented only by legal counsel. Instead, a feature of the ART will be its more investigative approach to review. These features demonstrate the bill's commitment to effecting an informal, non-legalistic environment for merits review. It must also be remembered that the principal area of jurisdiction of the AAT, upon which much of the proposed ART is based, gave individuals affected by decisions the right to challenge a decision's correctness on factual grounds, not merely to challenge its legality. In ensuring the continuation of a fair and just decision making process and the merits review system, the proposed ART will be headed by an independent president, appointed by the Governor-General, but accountable also to the Attorney-General. All members, senior members and executive members of the ART will be appointed by the Governor-General following the satisfaction of the portfolio minister that each candidate has suitable qualifications and experience for the position. All members, including the president, will hold office for a fixed term of seven years. However, appointment may also be reviewed.In addition, the proposed bill will introduce two concepts: performance agreements and codes of conduct. These will enhance the ART's independence by ensuring accountability and transparency. Performance agreements are widely used in private enterprise and enable an effective means of identifying and clarifying the roles and responsibilities of an organisation's personnel. Under this bill, performance agreements will cover productivity, participation in the administration of the tribunal, participation in the performance appraisal scheme and adherence to the code of conduct. A code of conduct is an effective means for an industry or an organisation to set standards to ensure that personnel are aware of how they must act in the workplace environment. A code of conduct also enables individuals to be accountable to both the organisation and their clients in the correct performance of their duties. By ensuring accountability, the very process ensures transparency in the procedures undertaken by individuals and organisations. This transparency inherent in the proposed ART legislation before us today demonstrates the independence and fairness the federal merits review system will continue to wield under this bill. To further enhance the fair and just nature of the federal merits review system by way of this bill, the Administrative Review Council will continue to exist in monitoring and providing expert advice on the review of the Commonwealth administrative law system. The provisions under which it functioned under the AAT Act will remain unchanged in substance. This bill will also continue to apply penalties for offences associated with the disclosure of confidential information and these penalties will be increased.In its first year of operation, it is estimated that the ART will cost $17.3 million. However, within four years the operational costs of the ART will be less than the combined costs of the four existing tribunals. This reduction in costs will occur as a result of reductions in the duplication of infrastructure and support services. The opposition tell us that the proposed changes under this bill will erode the very independence the system has demonstrated since its beginnings over 25 years ago. They suggest, as the shadow Attorney-General has in a press release of 12 October, that `this seriously undermines the principle that review of government decisions should not only be independent but be seen to be independent'.The public nature of the review process, coupled with performance agreements and a code of conduct, permits transparency of the ART. By virtue of this transparency, independence of the tribunal from coercion is more visible. The changes sanctioned in this bill will ameliorate rather than hamper the federal merits review system. In establishing this bill, the government is committed to a federal merits review system that is effective, efficient, fair and independent. It will encourage a more investigative approach to the review process and enable greater flexibility in the process in order to improve the quality of Commonwealth administrative decision making. The inclusion of more accountable measures in the functioning of the ART and the continued existence of the Administrative Review Council will ensure that review of government decisions—to borrow the sentiments of the shadow Attorney-General—will not only be independent but be seen to be independent as well. I commend this bill to the House.01:00:0023753Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—It is a matter of regret that the opposition is opposing the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000—not a matter of regret in the sense that the opposition feels any unease with the course that it is pursuing but a matter of regret that it is forced on balance to feel that the government has so debauched the principles that underlie the recommendations of the Administrative Review Council's Better decisions recommendations that, on balance, we cannot support this proposal. The origins of this bill lie in a 1995 report commissioned by me when I was Minister for Justice from the Administrative Review Council to examine how the role of administrative review could be enhanced and to obtain a set of recommendations which would enable us to maximise the efficiency of the system but to ensure that the best and fairest outcomes were obtained. The result of that process was a substantial work presented to the government in the report called Better decisions, which argued that there should be an amalgamation of the various tribunals and that that could lead to significant improvements in the process of allowing citizens to have the decisions of government administrators and the executive examined. That report having been given to the government, a significant period of time has passed. A change of government occurred, and the bill that comes before us today bears some formal resemblance to the recommendations to the ARC but departs in very significant measure from those proposals. It is where it departs from those proposals that has alarmed the opposition and led us to take the view that it would not be sound to support this measure. The reason we on balance feel it is unwise to support these proposals is pretty straightforward. It is because, instead of consolidating the independence of the review process, this bill in fact undermines that independence. Instead of setting up an institution which is further removed from the direct influence of decision makers, it makes it closer to the control of ministers and departments, and leads us to take the view that the existing arrangements, no matter that they are flawed by contrast with the way in which a perfect system would operate, are preferable to the arrangements that are proposed in this legislation. There are a couple of key points that I suppose I should draw attention to. Firstly, the arrangements for funding the tribunal mean that each component of the tribunal remains entirely dependent on its funding from the agency for which review is sought. This is not an appropriate course. It would be absurd, for example, to imagine that courts would be funded by those against whom decisions were appealed, and in this instance it is equally absurd that the funding of the tribunal will be determined by the agencies whose decisions are the subject of review.Instead of being made by the Attorney-General, the appointments to the tribunal remain in the hands of the various ministers whose agencies' and departments' decisions and whose own decisions are the subject of review such that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs will be responsible for nominating the appointments of those who will serve on that division of the tribunal. The minister for social security will be appointing those who serve with respect to reviewing social security decisions, and the Attorney's role will be limited to the appointment of the generalist members of the tribunal.One of the key advantages that were put forward in the Better decisions review—that it would remove the tribunal from the perception of influence from direct ministerial control—has been turned on its head. Not only is the perception now present but the reality has been further entrenched. What makes this perception and this reality worse is the fact that ministers are given the powers to give directions with respect to the procedures the tribunal will operate under. One might say that, in some circumstances, it is appropriate to ensure that there is a capacity to make certain that procedures are streamlined, effective and not wasteful of resources by the tribunal or by the public. But the degree to which ministers are given the power to control tribunal processes goes far beyond that which is acceptable in a quasi-judicial forum and leads us to believe that this is intended to entrench the capacity of interference by the executive arm of government in the processes of review rather than to remove interference and to ensure the independence of the tribunal. Of course, there is also the fact that, contrary to the submission that the member for Petrie made immediately preceding mine, the terms of tribunal members are not automatically for a period of seven years. Rather, the bill provides that the maximum term is seven years and no minimum term is prescribed. That does leave the possibility of short-term appointments being made, and short-term appointments are notorious for placing holders of office under considerable pressure to conform their decisions to the whims of those who will have the power of reappointment. If you or I hold a particular office for a period of six months or 12 months, if we know that our future employment is conditional upon the goodwill of the minister and if it becomes known that that minister's goodwill will be enhanced by a particular course of decision making through the way in which the conduct of the minister is impacting on others, then plainly that will have an influence on the way in which decisions are shaped.For that reason, the Administrative Review Council's Better decisions recommendations—whilst recommending that the practice of fixed term appointments be allowed to continue and rejecting the submission made by some that appointments to administrative tribunals should be permanent in nature, as would be the case in a judicial appointment—said that there should be a minimum term. I think the minimum term that the ARC recommended was three years so that no decision maker would be placed in a position where they felt intimidated that there would be short-term consequences for failing to conform a particular decision to a view of the executive government of the day.I guess it is fair that the government would say, `We're above ever seeking to improperly exercise the powers of appointment, reappointment or dismissal,' but it is not unknown for ministers to feel highly aggrieved by decisions that are made by members of the AAT. In fact, we see frequent episodes of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs complaining at the level of overturned decisions in the Migration Review Tribunal. The minister was pointing out only the other day that the rate of overturned decisions in relation to that tribunal was in the order of 53 per cent. I would have thought that would have led the minister to look at why the primary decision makers were getting it so wrong so frequently, but apparently the minister's ire was raised and he takes the view that that is an unsatisfactory degree of overturned decisions and sheets the blame for that on the review process. It is not going too far to suggest that a future minister who is making frequent and short-term appointments might take the view that he would rather knock off people who were so frequently overturning such decisions. So the failure to provide even the barest of safeguards of a minimum term seems to us to be highly improper.A number of other deficiencies in the bill are worth mentioning. There are no provisions for minimum qualifications even of the senior members of the AAT, notwithstanding the fact that under various Commonwealth statutes now those members have powers to issue warrants for listening devices and the like. There are arrangements which allow for the exclusion of legal representation in circumstances where the opposition is not persuaded that a case has been made that an adequate alternative provision has been put in place to deal with the difficulties faced by unrepresented litigants.It is not correct to say that unrepresented litigants in all forums are inappropriate. In the small claims tribunals in Tasmania, where claims are made up to a sum of about $3,000, parties are not entitled to be represented by lawyers, and that seems to work, more or less, effectively and well. But decisions being reviewed by the AAT often are serious and there are no restrictions in the bill as to the circumstances in which legal representation can be excluded. That being the case, I do not think there is any confidence in the community that it is wise to give such unregulated rights to exclude professional representation to those who are actually challenging government, because government is always represented by skilled advocates. Whether or not those advocates are trained lawyers, those who appear before tribunals are highly skilled, and when their adversaries are citizens who have been excluded from the capacity to retain legal representation, the chimera of equal justice may be preserved but the reality excluded. So we are very concerned about those particular measures. We are not alone in drawing attention to the deficiencies in this legislation. Jane Mathews, who is a former head of the AAT, has indicated her concern about the downgrading of the merits review system. Earlier this year, I attended a dinner given by the Australian Institute of Administrative Law where complaints were widespread about what members of that institute regard as the deficiencies in this legislation. I would be surprised if government members were not aware of the widespread concern in the legal profession and in citizens groups generally, including community legal centres and a whole range of other bodies that have dealings with administrative review. It would be surprising if government members were not aware of the depth of concern that has been expressed about the perception that this government is cutting back on a commitment to enabling decisions by ministers and by public servants to be adequately and thoroughly scrutinised. Yet one after another of the speakers on the government side have lauded this legislation as if it conforms with the direction, thrust and content of the Administrative Review Council's report on better decisions and without any reflection on the criticisms that have been addressed so powerfully by so many sections of those who play a part in administrative law in the academic sphere, in the professional sphere and in the community generally.We have a bit of a culture of denial happening here. The background, I suppose, that I should relate this to is that few would imagine that our system of government and our system of administration have been moving towards greater openness over the last decade. In fact, many people would say that there has been a concentration of greater executive authority, that parliament is less able to exercise the powers of scrutiny that it once did, that the executive clings more and more to claims of commercial-in-confidence and various other devices to keep matters out of the hands of review tribunals, and that this is a government that is reluctant to expose itself to independent merits review. I guess that all one can say after reading this legislation is that that suspicion is confirmed by the way in which the bill is constructed.I end where I began, by saying that it is a matter of regret that the opposition finds itself unable to support this legislation. The basic, core ideas of this legislation are sound. They were core ideas that were advocated by me when I was Minister for Justice and responsible for administrative law in the Keating government. But the devil is always in the detail in these measures, and, regrettably, there is too much devil for the opposition to allow it to proceed without its strong opposition. I guess one could say that there is an alternative course open to the opposition, which would be to propose amendments. But this bill is, I understand, the largest and thickest piece of legislation ever tabled by the Attorney. Frankly, I think it is beyond reasonable expectation that the opposition, having drawn so many substantial objections to the legislation, could practically, in those circumstances, propose amendments without in a sense submitting its own bill. The opposition is not in a position to rewrite the bill; it is not resourced and, in the time available, does not have the means. Nor, were it to do so, would it expect that it would gain government support. So in this instance, regrettably, our course will be to oppose. We hope our objections will be noted and supported by the Democrats and the Greens. The present system is not too bad. It could have been made a lot better. This bill, regrettably, will make it worse. We are not going to board that vessel as it chugs its way towards destruction.01:20:0023756Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—The Administrative Review Tribunal, as proposed in the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000, will replace four existing tribunals: the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Social Security Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. This represents the most significant reform of the Commonwealth merits review system in the past 25 years. The ART Bill establishes a single merits review tribunal that provides ready access to review that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. The tribunal is proposed in a way that it will operate in a user-friendly manner and will have the capacity to tailor its procedures to suit the requirements of particular classes of applicants. It is designed to deliver more effectively than the present system the principal objectives of every merits review system: namely administrative justice to individuals, government accountability and a high standard of government decision making. The AAT was established in 1975 to provide administrative justice and to ensure government accountability. The intention was to create a single, independent tribunal with a very broad jurisdiction to review the exercise of administrative discretions. More than 360 different enactments now confer jurisdiction on the AAT. However, despite the wide range of the AAT's jurisdiction, specialist tribunals continued to be established. In 1994, the Australian Institute of Administrative Law held a workshop entitled `Towards a tribunal non-proliferation treaty'. In 1995, the Administrative Review Council also published a report calling for the unification of existing merits review tribunals into a single tribunal.Other aspects of administrative review at the Commonwealth level were discussed by the Australian Law Reform Commission in its report published in February on the federal civil justice system entitled Managing justice. Its finding that `the median duration of cases finalised in the AAT was longer than for cases in the Federal Court and Family Court' is of particular concern. One of the reasons for creating the Administrative Review Tribunal is to provide a generally quicker and more accessible review mechanism, particularly compared with the AAT.The new tribunal will not only benefit applicants; the amalgamation of a number of separate specialist tribunals means considerable savings to the community as a whole. This will be through the eradication of unnecessary and wasteful duplication in resources and infrastructure across separate tribunals. The ART will cost less to run than the combined cost of the tribunals that it will replace. The Managing justice report stressed that the Commonwealth review tribunals constitute `part of the executive arm of government and provide administrative, not judicial, decision making and dispute resolution processes'. The commission noted that a review body is intended not `to identify the winner from two competing parties' but `to make the correct and preferable decision after considering the whole of the evidence'. The commission also noted that review tribunals were intended to be investigative, with the tribunal controlling the proceedings, defining issues, deciding on the factual material to be considered and calling witnesses of its own motion. It concluded, `The legislation and practice of review tribunals should further emphasise the administrative and investigative character of tribunal processes'. The commission's views are reflected in a number of provisions in this bill before the House.The bill states that one of its objects is to enable the tribunal to review decisions in a non-adversarial way, except where this would be inappropriate. A decision maker may opt not to be a participant in the review, but a decision maker who participates must use his or her best endeavours to assist the tribunal to make its decision on the review. The bill expressly requires the tribunal to act with as little formality and technicality as a proper consideration of the matter permits and is not bound by the rules of evidence. The tribunal is also empowered to determine the scope of the review by limiting the questions of fact, the evidence and the issues that it considers. The tribunal is required to take reasonable measures to ensure that participants in the review understand the tribunal's procedures, the implications of a decision and the tribunal's reasons for making a decision. The chief executive officer of the tribunal is also obliged to provide all reasonable assistance to people to prepare their applications.The ART will have discretion to decide a review on the papers. Such a power is recommended by the Australian Law Reform Commission. The ART will be able to conduct a review on the papers only where it would be consistent with the duty to afford procedural fairness and after seeking the view of participants. Representation will be at the discretion of the tribunal, unless an act or the practice and procedure directions require otherwise. The tribunal may permit a person to be assisted in some other way before it. Generally, participants to reviews will bear their own costs. However, there will be cases where portfolio legislation expressly empowers the tribunal to award costs in particular classes of matters. The provisions of the bill dealing with representation have been criticised by some, including the Law Council. The government's intention is that representation be available in cases where it is really necessary and that it should not be the norm. It is expected that most first-tier reviews will be conducted by a single member. However, the tribunal will be constituted as a multimember panel if the president considers that an application raises a principle or issue of general significance or additional expertise is required. Currently, most Commonwealth administrative decision making is subject to only one tier of external review. There are two exceptions to this. The AAT provides a second tier of review of decisions made by the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Veterans' Review Board. However, within the AAT itself, there is no second tier of review. The ART, like the AAT, will continue to provide second-tier review of decisions of the Veterans' Review Board. The government has decided the current right of veterans to access a second tier of review should continue. It has also decided that, as at present, there will be no second-tier review in most migration matters. In all other cases, the ART will have power to grant leave to apply for second-tier review of a first-tier ART decision on limited grounds.The president or an executive member may grant leave to a person to seek a second-tier review. The decision on leave will generally be made on the papers. Leave will be granted only where the first-tier review is conducted by a single member and the president or executive member is satisfied that the application raises a principle or issue of general significance or where the application and the original decision maker agree that the first-tier decision involved a manifest error of law or fact and the president or executive member agrees. Therefore, in practice, most second-tier reviews will be reviews of decisions made by single members where a principle or issue of general significance is raised.The shadow Attorney-General and, this evening, the member for Denison raised concerns about the independence of the Administrative Review Tribunal, citing the proposed funding arrangements and the fact that each individual minister responsible for a particular division of the tribunal would recommend the appointment of members to that division. The Labor Party is also concerned that people would lose their present automatic right to appeal decisions of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal to the AAT.This bill will establish the Administrative Review Tribunal as an independent review body. Funding formulas will relate only to work flow and caseloads, not to how cases are decided. The funding model already works well for the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. Members of the existing tribunals are appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the minister with portfolio responsibility for the tribunal. There will effectively be no change to these arrangements for the various divisions of the ART. People concerned about social security decisions of the ART will be able to seek second-tier review on limited grounds. People affected by government decisions in other areas who have never had second-tier review will be able to seek it for the first time on the same grounds.The member for Denison tonight was expressing some concern about the terms of members. Members of the ART will be appointed for terms of up to seven years and they will be eligible for reappointment. The government does not consider that fixed term appointments mean any loss of independence for the members concerned. The existing tribunals have more than 400 members and 90 per cent of these are appointed for fixed terms. The only one of the existing tribunals with some tenured members is the AAT. In the AAT only the presidential members and some full-time senior members have tenure. The rest of the senior members and members have been appointed for fixed terms, yet this has not been seen as jeopardising their independence. Can I say as one who practised in the AAT to a reasonable extent before coming to this place, there was no doubt about the independence of the members of that tribunal. Independent statutory officers such as the Ombudsman also have fixed term appointments. This is not perceived as interfering with their independence. The independence of ART members will only be protected by strict removal provisions. Except in the case of bankruptcy, the president is subject to the same grounds and procedure for removal as apply to judges of the High Court and other federal courts under section 72 of the Constitution—that is, the president can be removed only if both houses of parliament resolve in the same session that the president should be removed because of misbehaviour or incapacity. Other members can only be removed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the president on restricted grounds set out in the bill—essentially, misconduct or an unacceptable level of personal indebtedness. The provisions of the ART Bill relating to the removal of members are designed to protect their independence and preclude any political interference in their decision making—quite contrary to the argument being advanced tonight by the member for Denison.Members of the tribunal will also be required to comply with a code of conduct to be developed and to enter into, and comply with, a performance agreement. The ART Bill precludes performance agreements dealing with the substance of the members' decisions. So the government considers that requiring members to meet performance standards is compatible with the independence of members. In fact, there have been instances reported in the press from time to time where judicial officers in courts around the country have been, to put it mildly, extremely slow in terms of bringing down reserved judgments to the extent that that has become a matter of public comment—indeed, scandal in some cases. Therefore, to require some degree of performance indicator on the part of members of the tribunal does not appear to me or to the government to be unreasonable.The honourable member for Denison was also making complaints in relation to representation. The tribunal will have the power to permit a participant to be legally or otherwise represented. The only exception to this would be where the practice and procedure directions or a Commonwealth law prohibits representation. One of the objects of the ART Bill is to enable the tribunal to review decisions in a non-adversarial manner and in such a way that applicants will not need legal representation in order to present their cases properly. For example, decision makers will not necessarily be participants in a review and, where a decision maker is a participant, he or she has a positive obligation to assist the ART in reaching its decision. The tribunal is also required to take measures to ensure that participants understand the nature and implications of any assertions made and, if requested, to explain to participants aspects of tribunal procedures, the implications of a decision and the ART's reasons for a decision.The chief executive officer, as I pointed out earlier, is also obliged to ensure that persons who ask for assistance in making applications to the tribunal, and participating in a review, are given reasonable assistance to do so. Where there is a potential or actual power imbalance between the applicant and the department concerned, for example in social security matters, the tribunal will have a discretion to allow representation if practice directions do not prohibit it, but this will be because the circumstances warrant it, rather than because the culture of the tribunal creates an expectation that representation must be available. If there were a trend towards legal representation in the new tribunal, that might make it difficult for people who cannot afford to be represented and they may be less likely to utilise the tribunal. The intention under the bill is not to discourage representation, but rather to encourage and empower people to conduct their own matters where this is appropriate. This bill has a series of important benefits that should not be neglected in this debate. First, the ART will remain independent and provide review that is fair, just and quick. It will review decisions in a non-adversarial way. Secondly, the bill will create a more efficient Commonwealth merits review system. It will rationalise resources and create efficiencies. It will cost less to operate than the four tribunals it will replace. Thirdly, the ART will be set up so as to achieve all the advantages of a single independent tribunal combined with the capacity for individualising the delivery of justice possessed by specialist bodies. Fourthly, the tribunal will also enable a move away from tribunal practices, mainly in the AAT, that have become too court-like, adversarial and slow. Penultimately, the quality and consistency of Commonwealth decision making will improve. The final advantage of this piece of legislation concerns the important task of increasing public awareness of review rights and the availability of external review that will be easier when there is one major tribunal conducting most federal merits review.The arguments advanced by the opposition against this bill, in my contention, do not stand up. Whilst they might sound plausible, in fact they stand in the way of what is a very important review of the way in which administrative review and administrative law are conducted in this nation. I commend the bill to the House. 01:37:0023760Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—It is a great pleasure this evening to address the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000. Prior to moving on to that bill, in the valedictory spirit that this House was engaging in earlier, I would like to take the opportunity, given that I think it will be the last time I address this House prior to the adjournment for Christmas, to thank my staff members for the very great support they have given me over the year, particularly Kathleen Riches, Michelle Fitzgerald, Carlos Baldovino and Terry Bracks. Thank you very much for the work that you have done. Having said that, this is a very important bill that is before this House. It is one that I think reflects upon our democratic tradition. We are rightly proud in Australia of our democratic system, which inherited its essential features from the Westminster system. Indeed, in the valedictory addresses tonight the Prime Minister referred to the tradition of democracy that we have inherited and how proud we can be of that tradition. Whilst we are rightly proud of the fact that Australia is the sixth oldest democracy in the sense that it is the sixth oldest of the countries that have functioned continuously under the same constitution since 1901, that is something that we need to treasure but also something that we need to guard. One of the things that is very fundamental to that democratic tradition is the fact that we have an independent judiciary and we have the ability to have access to independent decision makers and independent reviewers of administrative decisions. We need to note historically that the role of the judiciary was to deal with criminal matters when it was asserted that a citizen had broken the law and to deal with civil matters, that is, disputes between one citizen and another.Historically, in the judicial system there was no systematic role for the judiciary to oversee the way in which the government, that is, the executive, dealt with its citizens. A number of judicial review mechanisms were available by way of prerogative writ but such relief was expensive and the rules of those prerogative writs were quite arcane. It was an important sign that our democracy was maturing that we actually moved to a system whereby a citizen could appeal the way in which a government decision adversely affected them. That system, the current system of administrative law, was introduced by a Labor government—in the way in which all innovative law reform is introduced in this country; it is always introduced by a Labor government—in 1975. The central feature of that innovative system was that it gave citizens a genuine merit review system. That is, a citizen who had been adversely affected in their view by the decision of the executive of government could appeal to an independent decision maker for a fresh decision, and that independent decision maker would stand in the shoes of the original decision maker—that is, they would review the whole decision upon its merits. Rather than using the strict adversarial techniques that we are familiar with in our courts to ascertain what should be done in respect of that decision, the reviewer—the person standing in the shoes of the original decision maker—would use some of the investigative techniques that are more at home in other legal jurisdictions. We have an adversarial tradition; some other legal jurisdictions have an investigative tradition, and the system which Labor introduced in 1975 took the best aspects of the investigative tradition and the review decision maker would use those techniques to try to get to the truth. Consequently, that offered people who had been adversely affected by government decisions an independent, hopefully inexpensive and quick way of having those decisions reviewed. Whilst there is always room for improvement—nothing is ever perfect—as a whole Australia's system of administrative review has worked well. Accessible and inexpensive administrative review is particularly important in view of the fact that Australia does not have a bill of rights. As Justice Deirdre O'Connor pointed out in her evidence to a Senate committee considering this bill, the administrative review system established in 1975:... was intended really to play a role that perhaps in other countries is played by rights which arise under constitutional guarantees. ...We do not have a bill of rights in this country but we do have, with the current system, the capacity to have individuals ... assert their right to question the behaviour of the executive government.'So it has been a good system, but there is always room for reform and improvement. The Labor Party supports reform and improvement in this area. In particular, we support the conclusions of the report entitled Better decisions which reviewed this area of legal work. However, it is disingenuous of the members opposite to claim in this debate, as they have, that these bills before the House are simply a codification of the many reports that have made recommendations in relation to this area of administrative law. This bill is not simply an implementation of the Administrative Review Council's recommendations and it is not simply an implementation of the Better decisions report. Indeed, this bill, under the guise of implementing those things, actually moves to diminish the quality and independence of administrative review as we have known it in the Australian context. Before moving to the specifics of the problems contained in these proposed changes, I would like to say to members opposite that perhaps they need to consider the fact that when we are amending the rights and capacities of citizens to appeal decisions which affect them—judicial and administrative decision making; perhaps when we are dealing with that structure which really affects the shape of our democracy and is one of the pillars upon which it stands—we really should be striving for consensus in this chamber about those changes. It is not really appropriate for a government to come into this chamber and to just use its numbers to say, `We will have the following changes to our administrative review system.' That is really not good enough. This is one of the central tenets, if you like, of our democratic structure and, on that basis, if it is to be changed, it ought to be changed through a consensus approach, and that is not what we have before us today.To consider the defects present in the system that is proposed, let me turn to the question of legal representation. As a former lawyer, I think it can seem a little bit self-seeking to argue that it is important for people to have the right to legal representation. However, issues of fairness do arise for unrepresented persons, particularly in circumstances where a citizen is fighting for his or her rights against a government department. In those circumstances, the department can be unrepresented, in the sense that it is unrepresented by a lawyer, but still represented by an expert—that is, it can be represented by a public servant whose job it is all day every day to appear before the relevant tribunal.In those circumstances, when the refugee or benefit recipient is forced to represent themselves, the advantage clearly lies with the government department. This advantage in the hands of the department can be neutralised if the citizen appearing before the tribunal is ably represented. In our system, that tends to mean that the citizen is represented by a lawyer. There is certainly a question of cost, and it is undoubtedly true that the right to legal representation is completely meaningless unless there is appropriate legal aid available so that the person affected can turn a theoretical legal right to legal representation into an actual right—that is, they can actually get the services of a lawyer. We all know that the record of this government on legal aid is not a good one. However, the best system to aim for, in my view, is one where representation is of right and legal aid is available to assist those who are unable to afford legal representation for themselves. Undoubtedly, there will be some tribunals dealing with small claims and matters between citizens where no-one is an expert and the costs of hearings are minimised by keeping the lawyers out. However, in cases involving individuals and government, such representation should be allowed as of right. This proposal is therefore deficient in leaving the question of representation to the discretion of the tribunal. It will also be possible for ministers to make practice and procedure directions which completely exclude legal or other representation in certain classes of cases. I will say something about practice and procedure directions later.If the foundation of the decision to exclude legal representation is cost, the decision is misconceived. The Australian Law Reform Commission has found that legal representatives have the potential to enhance the efficiency of tribunals. As a practitioner who has watched unrepresented persons struggle with the system, I can say that there is no doubt their lack of familiarity with the forms of the tribunal before which they appear means that far more tribunal time is used to resolve a matter than would have been used had they been represented. Most of the costs of justice are incurred during hearing time, and wasting hearing time is clearly an undesirable result. The involvement of legal practitioners can also lead to an increase in the number of matters settled, as people can access an expert with a body of knowledge about how the tribunal runs and the ability to make some sensible predictions about the outcome of a particular case. Without that advice, an unrepresented person has no reference point by which to judge any offers being made.That is one defect in the system that is being proposed, and Labor believes that the system really needs to be amended so that there is legal representation as of right. But that is not the only defect in the system being proposed. As I indicated earlier, it is fundamental to our tradition of Westminster democracy that we have an independent judiciary. When the state, the executive, in the Westminster system is subject to review, it is vital that the reviewer be an independent one—that is, the reviewer must have the same degree of security about independence that we accord to the judiciary. Unfortunately, the provisions of this bill leave you with the impression that the Howard government believes not in the Westminster system of democracy but in the Yes, Minister system of democracy, because this bill has ensured an unprecedented degree of ministerial control over tribunal appointees—that is, over those people who are supposed to be independently and fairly reviewing the system.The first feature of the Yes, Minister system of democracy proposed in this bill is that all members are appointed to the division of the tribunal upon which they serve on the recommendation of the minister whose department will be subject to review by that division. That is, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs will approve the appointment of members to the immigration and refugee division, and the minister for social security will approve the appointment of such members as need to serve in the income support division. This is an unsatisfactory position. I note that it reflects the current situation, where current appointments to the SSAT, the MRT and the Refugee Review Tribunal are made by the minister for social security and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs respectively. However, I think in a circumstance where we are reviewing and restructuring the system, we should strive for better than we have and, if we were to strive for better than we have, we would be striving for a system in which portfolio ministers play no role in the appointment of tribunal members. The difficulty with portfolio ministers being the ministers responsible for the appointment of tribunal members is compounded by the second feature of the Yes, Minister system—that is, the fixed term nature of the appointments to the tribunal. Under the system proposed, all members including the president will be appointed on renewable fixed term contracts. There will be a maximum of seven years but no minimum term. Accordingly, it will be possible for a minister to appoint members to the tribunal with a term of only two or three years. This system is highly undesirable. When we are looking at fixed term appointments—particularly short-term, fixed term appointments—they clearly leave open the possibility that a minister will refuse to reappoint a tribunal member because the decisions of that tribunal member have not been to his or her liking. Equally disturbing, a tribunal member could be tempted to render decisions that a minister is likely to find acceptable in order to maximise the chance of reappointment. Indeed, this might not even be a conscious process. A tribunal member may not even realise that this process is going on, but it is an ordinary human reaction to behave in a way which will maximise your employment security. It should be noted that this conclusion—that short-term appointments cause insecurity—is detailed in the Better decisions report. Short-term appointments also mean that the best may not make themselves available for appointment. Clearly when we are dealing with this area of law, not all of the appointments will be people who have had legal training; but some will be and, to the extent that they are, the best legal minds will be weighing up for themselves what they can do for themselves career wise as a solicitor, as a barrister, if they get a proper judicial appointment including life tenure or if they are appointed to one of these tribunals. In weighing those various career outcomes, it has to be a factor that the appointment of a tribunal member is not guaranteed in the long term. One must therefore conclude that it is likely that the best will not present for those appointments.The third feature of the Yes, Minister system that this scheme contemplates is the ability of ministers to constrain tribunal members by administrative practice and procedure directions. Ministers whose decisions and whose department's decisions are reviewable by a division of the tribunal are empowered by this scheme of arrangements to issue directions which will apply within that division. The minister's directions prevail over those of the president and the executive members of the tribunal. Clearly, this system gives rise to the reasonable apprehension that ministers will seek to instruct the tribunal in procedural ways which will have a substantive effect upon the decisions made—that is, the ministers will use this system to compromise the integrity and the independence of the tribunal. Even if it does not happen, any perception that it could is unacceptable. That squares with the notion that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done. If anybody had the reasonable apprehension that the minister's directions had had some substantive effect upon the decisions of the tribunal, that would clearly be an unacceptable result and an unacceptable feature of these arrangements as they are currently presented.Another problem with the provisions in this scheme of arrangements is the way in which they deal with funding questions. This bill contemplates a funding system whereby the portfolio agency whose decisions are being reviewed is responsible for funding the relevant division of the tribunal. This means that the president of the tribunal and executive members who head a division will be expected to sit in hearings and be robustly independent and impartial. They must do that for a few hours and then go cap in hand to the department that they have just been criticising to see whether they can negotiate their budget outcomes. That system will clearly create tension: people cannot review fiercely and impartially the decisions of a particular department on the one hand and, on the other hand, discuss budget outcomes with that department. The potential tensions are obvious. That gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that the tribunal is not being robustly independent but trying to curry favour with the department for the next funding round. That apprehension may or may not be true. However, in the context of the notion that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, it is an unacceptable outcome if a person outside the system can have the reasonable apprehension that tribunal members are currying favour with regard to their budget round. If the system is predicated on that design feature, the system must be changed.Labor opposes this bill not because it rejects streamlining the current system but because the proposed system has profoundly unacceptable features. I have identified four unacceptable features of what I have dubbed the Yes, Minister system: the way in which portfolio ministers are involved in the appointments process; the ability of portfolio ministers to limit the terms of tribunal members and to refuse to reappoint them; the ability of portfolio ministers to wreck the tribunal; and the ability of portfolio ministers to limit funding for the tribunal. For those reasons, the bill should be rejected by this House.01:57:0023764Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I rise to support the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000. These are important pieces of reforming legislation that have taken a long time to come to this House. The principle that a citizen who may have been affected by a decision of a court, government administration or some other community body is entitled to a fair hearing before any action is taken is embedded in natural justice and can be traced back as far as biblical times. In fact, when there has been no provision for any sort of hearing, courts have often taken the view that government administration or other community bodies have a duty to act judicially.As a result, the principle has developed to the point in Australia today where all levels of administrative structure—whether it be local government, commerce, education, senior officials or even ministers—have been compelled at some time to observe the rules of natural justice and review a decision before any action was taken. The rules of natural justice have three basic requirements. The first rule is that the individual is entitled to a hearing. This is a variable requirement that is driven by the circumstances of the matter being heard. For example, hearing requirements may involve anything from the opportunity to put a case by written submission to a full adversarial hearing in which a party is entitled to advance notice and particulars of the case against them, representation by counsel and the chance to cross-examine witnesses. The second requirement of natural justice is that the hearing must be free from bias and the third is that it must be affordable.The process of administrative review in modern government terms can be traced back to Sweden and the appointment of an ombudsman in 1909. Finland followed in 1919 and Denmark in 1954. New Zealand established an ombudsman in 1962 and the United Kingdom its Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration in 1967. Here in Australia, Western Australia legislated for a Parliamentary Commissioner for Administrative Investigations in 1971. At the Commonwealth level, in 1971, the Commonwealth Administrative Review Committee, which was known as the Kerr committee, and the Committee on Administrative Discretions, also known as the Bland committee, both recommended that a single review body be established.Following the report of these committees, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was established in 1975 to provide administrative justice and to ensure government accountability. It was set up and intended to be a single, centralised body. The legislation was described at the time by our present Prime Minister as being a momentous event in the evolution of our system of government, and so it was. But that was 25 years ago. Today there is a range of well-utilised, informal, dispute resolution options available for federal civil disputes. For example, there are federal tribunals, government and industry ombudsman schemes, court and community based alternative dispute resolution processes, conciliation schemes in the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, community justice and dispute resolution centres, and family and relationship counselling. They all play a significant part in dealing with legal and administrative disputes between government bodies and citizens. The provision of justice is an ongoing process. As the Australian Law Reform Commission report entitled Managing justice points out, there is no simple, once and for all solution to the problems of civil justice systems. There is no single best practice for managing or resolving disputes. This is not just the experience of Australia; it is also the international experience. After 25 years, the need for a major reform has long been recognised. It has been recognised both by the present government and the former Labor government that established an administrative review in 1993.I read in the October 2000 proceedings of the Australian Institute of Administrative Law, in a speech that the member for Barton gave, that each year there are over 50 million decisions made by the executive arm of government that affect ordinary Australians. Of these, 36 million relate to social security and only a fraction are challenged. It is interesting to compare the business of government with that of business. According to the Australian Law Reform Commission report Managing justice, the major industry watchdogs in the areas of federal jurisdiction—that is, the Australian Banking Industry Ombudsman, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman and the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman—saw a rise in contacts from 27,000 in 1995-96 to over 100,000 in 1997-98.Given the enormous volume of decisions and the significant impact they have on Australian citizens, keeping the system under review and tuned is crucial to the democratic government of our nation. The breadth of impact can be understood when it is considered that more than 360 enactments now confer jurisdiction on the current Administrative Appeals Tribunal. In 1995, the Administrative Review Council published a report, Better decisions: review of Commonwealth merits tribunals, calling for the unification of existing merits review tribunals into a single tribunal. The bills that we are dealing with here tonight, the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000, are in line with the findings of that report. This legislation will put in place reforms that are long overdue, that have been well considered and that are the result of wide community consultation.The new tribunal will operate in a user-friendly manner and will have the capacity to tailor its procedures to suit the requirements of particular classifications of applicants. It will deliver administrative justice and government accountability. It will ensure a high standard of government decision making. The bill will replace four existing tribunals. They are the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Social Security Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal.The bills are also a response to the Australian Law Reform Commission report I referred to earlier entitled Managing justice: a review of the federal civil justice system, published in February this year. That report was a culmination of a major four-year inquiry tasked to consider the need for a simpler, cheaper and more accessible system. Of particular concern was its finding that the median duration of cases finalised at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was longer than for cases in the Federal Court or the Family Court. By streamlining with better utilisation of resources, the Administrative Review Tribunal that these bills will put in place will provide for a quicker and more accessible review mechanism. It will do this by the cross-appointment of members to more than one division. That will give it the potential and flexibility to make available a broader range of expertise. This will encourage the cross-fertilisation of ideas and practices between the tribunal's divisions. The bill will establish a single merits review tribunal that will provide ready access that is fair, just, economical, informal and quick. Some concerns have been expressed about the independence of the new body, but the independence of the members of the new Administrative Review Tribunal will be protected by strict removal provisions. For example, except in the case of bankruptcy, the president is subject to the same grounds and procedure for removal as apply to judges of the High Court and to other federal judges under section 72 of the Constitution. This means that the president can only be removed if both houses of parliament resolve in the same session that the president should be removed because of misbehaviour or incapacity. Other members can only be removed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the president of the tribunal on restricted grounds as set out in the bill. Essentially these are misconduct or an unacceptable level of personal indebtedness. This will ensure their independence and stop any political interference in their decision making.On the other side of the coin, members of the tribunal will be required to comply with a code of conduct to be developed and to enter into, and comply with, a performance agreement. The bill precludes performance agreements dealing with the substance of members' decisions. Requiring members to meet performance standards is compatible with the independence of members and is a safeguard on the performance of their duties. I said before that there were three requirements of natural justice. The first is that every individual is entitled to a hearing, and that requirement in Australia depends to a large degree upon the administrative quality justice system. Keeping the system up to speed, which these bills do, can only help with that process. The second requirement is that the hearing must be free from bias, and I have already spoken about the independence of the Administrative Review Tribunal a few moments ago.The third requirement is that the system must be affordable to all who are affected by the decisions under question. In 1997-98 the public cost of funding federal review tribunals and the Australian Industrial Relations Commission was $107 million. Other disputes resolution agencies in federal jurisdiction cost $98 million. Not included is the cost of the government's own legal services. The federal justice system as a whole—the courts, tribunals, commissions and ombudsmen—undertook the consideration, resolution and determination of close to 300,000 complaints, disputes and matters in 1997-98. The median total legal cost for represented parties at the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, according to the Australian Law Reform Commission, is $2,585 for applicants and $4,006 for respondents. The range of cost varies, however, from $50 to $131,696 for applicants and $375 to $29,586 for respondents. It is important, therefore, that costs be kept constantly under review and held in check.One of the driving objectives of setting up the Administrative Review Tribunal was to consolidate review functions into one body. As I mentioned earlier, in the early 1970s both the Kerr committee and the Bland committee recommended that a single review body be established. Unfortunately, the consolidation was soon broken down, and dispersion and diversification ensued. But these bills will rectify the situation and restore, amongst many other benefits, the cost savings that come with unification.The 1995 report by the Administrative Review Council was the result of a four-year inquiry into `the need for a simpler, cheaper and more accessible legal system'. I believe the bills before us today deliver what was identified as a need nearly 10 years ago: a simpler, cheaper and more accessible legal system. I commend these bills to the House.02:10:0023766Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—The Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000 is an important bill. As a matter of fact, I think it is far too important a bill to be snuck through the parliament on the last day of the last session of the year at about 2 o'clock in the morning. This bill is important because it potentially confiscates from the people of Australia a security that they have had for a couple of decades. That security has been found in the system of separation between the parliament and the judiciary. According to my reading of it, the bill will endeavour to remove that separation and give more control to the executive. These days we see much control being ceded to the executive in our national parliament and much being taken away by stealth from the average person. That is my view. Rather than spending the next 20 minutes or so discussing that, I would like to talk about the views of a couple of organisations that I believe are very important. The first of these organisations is the Vietnam Veterans Federation of Australia. It is a federation of veterans who do an immense amount of work in the best interests of the veterans community. It comprises mainly volunteers who spend an immense amount of time working in the interests of others. Under the heading `Minister's grab for control of the appeals system', the Vietnam Veterans Federation says:Apparently the Minister for Veterans Affairs is discomforted by having so many of the decisions of his Department overthrown in the appeals system. Rather than seeking a remedy in improving the quality of his Department's decisions (readers will know that in NSW, resources have been withdrawn from the area), he is making a blatant grab for control of the staunchly independent Administrative Appeals Tribunal.Readers will know that if the Department rejects a veteran's claim for compensation for war-caused illness, the veteran has the right to appeal that decision. He may first appeal to the Veterans Review Board. If this body again rejects his claim, he may appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. This Administrative Appeals Tribunal to which we now have access has the following valuable attributes .... Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you will be very interested in this as you have followed these issues closely and are a person of some noted independence. It continues: It is completely separate from, and independent of, the Minister for Veterans Affairs and the Department of Veterans Affairs both in the selection of its members and in its financing. Secondly, it is a legally competent body having well qualified members and being headed by a judge. These attributes have proved to be very important in ensuring veterans' Repatriation compensation claims are given a fair hearing.Since 1943 there has been a gap between the promises of the Australian Parliament when enacting Repatriation legislation and the Repatriation Commission's implementation of it. This has been a continual matter of contention between the veteran community and the Repatriation Commission. The proof of the gap's existence came when the Repatriation system was opened up to the scrutiny of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the courts in the late 70s. Then, with the legally competent Administrative Appeals Tribunal and courts interpreting the law in line with the intentions of Parliament, the success rate of veterans' Repatriation compensation claims rose dramatically. During this process, the Repatriation Commission, fighting a rear-guard action, lost almost every important case before the High Court of Australia and Federal Courts.But the Repatriation Commission was not dissuaded from its perverse course by these setbacks. Indeed, it could be argued that it has largely ignored them. Take, for instance, two recent court cases. As recently as February 2000 the Repatriation Commission was arguing in the NSW Court of Appeal that when the Repatriation Medical Authority and Specialist Review Council are determining medical causation, that causation should not be determined using the concessional test of `reasonable hypothesis'; rather it should be using something more onerous. And this even though the Minister, when introducing the RMA legislation in 1994, specifically promised that `reasonable hypothesis' would continue to be the test. Happily, the court followed the Minister's intentions for the legislation and the Repatriation Commission lost again.More notorious is the Deledio Federal Court case in which the Repatriation Commission blatantly argued that the correct standard of proof in determining whether a veteran's operational service is linked with his illness or death is `balance of probabilities'. The Repatriation Commission lost the case and appealed. In appealing, the Repatriation Commission was able to have words included which, with a big stretch of a twisted imagination, could be interpreted so as to make the process of identifying a `reasonable hypothesis' into the test of `balance of probabilities'. In writing its guidelines for decision makers following the Deledio decision the Repatriation Commission interpreted the decision in just this perverse way. The veteran community has been in dispute with the Repatriation Commission on this matter now for over a year.Appeals to the Minister to pull his errant Department into line have been ignored. The only protection veterans have against the bureaucrats' maverick behaviour is in an appeal to an independent, legally competent body such as the existing Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The government has introduced a bill into Parliament which would do away with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is to be replaced by the Administrative Review Tribunal. The members of the veterans' division are to be, in effect, selected by the Minister for Veterans Affairs on the advice of his Department. Its rules are also to be effectively written by the Minister for Veterans Affairs on the advice of his Department. It is also to be financed by the Department of Veterans Affairs. The very Department with which veterans have been in such disagreement, gaining a much greater control over the review of its own flawed decisions. The Department's and the Minister's substantial control over the new appeals body is akin to assigning the fox to protect the chicken coupe.The Administrative Review Tribunal's members would be further controlled by productivity agreements. This means that the members will be pressured to get through your case as quickly, not as thoroughly, as possible. Bad luck if your case is a complex one. And, of course, if the member ignores the productivity agreement in the interests of better decision making, he can be sacked. There is the intention, too, to lower the overall competence of the Administrative Review Tribunal by having fewer Senior Members. Presently there is a highly qualified Senior Member at nearly every hearing. This government will allow only 10% of members to be Senior Members, reducing the hearings at which one can sit, substantially.There is also the possibility that selection criteria for all the members of the new Administrative Review Tribunal may be less demanding than at present with a tendency to select public servants (perhaps even one from the Department of Veterans Affairs). And here's the big one. The new tribunal's focus will not be so much on the law. The Minister's directive to the new Tribunal members states that Departmental policy must be the primary criterion when making decisions. Indeed, if a Tribunal makes a decision at variance with Departmental policy, it must specifically justify such a deviation in its reasons for decision.As if to re-enforce this shift away from legal competence, a public servant, not a judge, will be appointed as the new Tribunal's head. In short, the Minister, the Hon. Bruce Scott MP, wants to dumb down veterans' second level of appeal and to change its focus from what the Parliament promised to what he and his Department wants. And make no mistake there has been a huge difference between what Parliaments have promised over the years and what this Department has tried to impose on veterans. An administrative review system's purpose is to ensure that bureaucrats are accountable to the people who are affected by their decisions. Even in the most benign circumstances, an administrative review system must be as independent as possible from the body whose decisions are under review. In the case of war veterans, there is a history of disagreement over the meaning of the Act so there is an even greater need for this independence. And with the tribunal directed to give primacy to Departmental policy, veterans may once again find themselves subject to the Departments maverick interpretation of the law. The present system has given veterans a guarantee of fairness in the Repatriation system. It should not be changed. The article goes on to ask: When will these attacks on veterans' rights and benefits end?In this article from the Vietnam Veterans Federation, there is a real concern that the traditional separation between the parliament and the judiciary is about to end. As I pointed out when I began speaking on this bill, the executive is gaining more power at the expense of the individual, and that is an important issue in a country where we do not have a bill of rights. This legislation is important and it is a real shame that we are pushing this legislation through at 20 minutes past two in the morning on the last sitting day of this year. This is the sort of legislation that should see the full light of day. It ought to be out there, fully exposed to the average person in this nation. It is not and it is a disgrace that we are seeing this legislation snuck through by this government.The other body I want to mention is the Vietnam Veterans Association. They also have some serious concerns about this bill. Their concerns relate to the lack of separation between the appeals process and the department or agency under review with regard to funding, appointment of members, practice directions, code of conduct and performance agreements, and the lack of procedural equity with regard to reviews on the papers, the right to representation, restriction of material, provision of written reports and uncertainty of panel composition. All of those points concur with the concerns that have been raised by the Vietnam Veterans Federation and they concur with the concerns that many people on this side of the House have in relation to this bill. I do not have a view from the RSL, and I am sorry that I do not, but my understanding from many of my friends in the RSL is that, where initially they supported this legislation, they have now moved away from this support. I understand that they are drawing up a submission which will go to the Senate review and their submission will be under the heading that we are moving away from a system of external review to a system of internal review where the department and the minister hold all of the keys to the important components in the structure of that review.For the third time in the course of my short contribution tonight, I want to come back to this traditional safeguard that we have had in this nation. That safeguard has been the separation of the parliament from the judiciary, which is a separation that has traditionally given the ordinary Joe Blow in our society a fair go. I was brought up to believe that one of the great things about Australia is that we stand for a fair go. If this legislation goes through in the way the government wants it to go through, that fair go will vanish. I make this point again: it is an absolute disgrace that, at 25 minutes past two on the last morning of the last sitting of this year, we are trying to push through legislation which will confiscate from the average person in Australia that opportunity of a fair go. I know that this is the time of goodwill and what have you, but I do not feel that goodwill in relation to this bill—it is a disgrace. The government has had all year to deal with this bill up-front and in the full light of day. I find it absolutely reprehensible that the government has chosen to sneak this legislation through in the early hours of the morning.I hope that when this bill gets to the Senate the Senate committee will turn it inside out and let the people of Australia see exactly what this government is about in relation to this legislation. We are seeing more and more veterans' entitlements being confiscated by stealth. The minister says one thing on one hand and his other hand is behind his back, stealing from veterans the rights and entitlements that they have had for a long time.This bill does not deal with just veterans; it deals with every person in every walk of life in Australia—migration, social security, et cetera. Even unions, who from time to time want to have recourse to the existing situation, will have that opportunity taken away from them. It is, once again, an example of this government wanting to let the executive take over to the exclusion of the average person. It is not good enough and I absolutely oppose this legislation. I hope that, if we cannot make it fairer, we can at least knock it off. Having said those things, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I thank you for your attention and I wish you all the very best for the season.02:28:0023769Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—American popular songwriter Billy Joel wrote these words in a song titled Summer, Highland Falls:For all our mutual experience, our separate conclusions are the same.These words come to mind when summarising this government's paradigm that has led to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000. I first turn to the historical relevance of the Commonwealth administrative review jurisdiction. I speak from my own experience as a Commonwealth public servant of 28 years and with the benefit of the historical review of the administrative review in the Bills Digest. In short, the history of administrative review can be described as a waxing and waning of administrative review rights by certain classes of persons. Some persons did not possess administrative review rights until recently—for example, visa applicants or visa sponsors. Such rights have been granted by statute only in the last 20 years. Other persons have always enjoyed administrative review rights—either through specialist jurisdictions or by virtue of the original jurisdictions of our courts, including the state supreme courts and the Commonwealth courts. However, this is not about adjustment based on fairness. This is about adjustments of the administrative review jurisdiction based on factors other than adherence to the jurisprudential concepts of universalism and procedural fairness. I put to this House this evening the proposition that this government has yet again demonstrated its expediency in making law that is manifestly self-serving. This proposition raises two questions. First, in what way has this government demonstrated its expediency in self-serving legislation? Secondly, what are those self-serving ends? I put to this House this evening—or should I say this morning—that the government has demonstrated its expediency in drafting self-serving legislation like the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, the Family Law Amendment Bill 1999 and the Compensation for Economic Loss (Social Security and Veterans' Entitlements Legislation Amendment) Bill 1999 amongst others. These bills demonstrate that the government is obsessed with its categorical imperative of cost cutting. Money is the ultimate end of this government. To put it more precisely, this government, in this bill and bills such as this bill, is prepared to sacrifice the ultimate good end of making just laws which uphold our law's universal jurisprudence, in favour of a lesser good of cost cutting. In doing so, this government has surrendered one ultimate good end for a penultimate end of cost cutting, at the expense of justice.What is the evidence in these brave words? Again, one only needs to read the conclusions in Bills Digest No. 40 to see the clear message from learned opinions such as P. Johnston's article titled `Recent developments concerning tribunals in Australia', published in 1996 in Federal Law Reports, 24, 323. Johnston's opinion is supported by other noted writers such as the Hon. G. Brennan, Creyke and Bayne amongst others. Indeed, on a point of fact I may say that the greater weight of legal opinion on this bill is against the government.Have we not learnt the lessons of history? What lessons does history teach us about judicial review and its administration? The history of administrative review is simply one of endless fluctuations and shifts in jurisdictional powers. I am not saying that these fluctuations are in themselves a bad thing. It is indeed necessary for any functional legal system to adjust to new demands on the legal system and cope with a myriad policy rationales that must each be simultaneously addressed, including access to justice, including cost effectiveness, reasonableness of time to hearing and access to legal representation; duty to law, including the locus standi of all persons reasonably seen at law to be relevantly proximate to a cause of action so that they are considered entitled to administrative review; and duty to the taxpayer and to the government as a body corporate, to ensure that justice is dispensed in the most economical way, without trammelling justice in the process. However, it is a sad day when the third of these criteria takes precedence over the first two criteria—that is, that the government's obsession with cost cutting should contaminate its jurisprudential perspective by giving a value to economic imperatives over and above the ultimate good ends of dispensing justice through the legal system.The figures are impressive. The administrative tribunals to be amalgamated include the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. Together these tribunals hear approximately 40,000 matters per year. There is no doubt that the cost of administrative law is expensive and that this expense can only rise. Is not the question of how to reduce costs really a question of how to reduce the incidence of necessity for recourse to judicial review? The answer is that this government, through bills such as the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, which will be debated here tonight, has demonstrated that this government is fixated on eliminating judicial review absolute in a growing number of areas.I next turn to the second point of this speech—the policy rationale that underlies the government's decision to create the so-called supertribunal. A review of the conduct of this government demonstrates the Realpolitik that underlies the government's intention to create the supertribunal. This government has not contented itself to deny administrative review appeals to the Federal Court of migration decisions of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. No, this government has now, through the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill, denied administrative review to the High Court itself. This government has reached the ends of constitutionality in attempting to deny even the High Court of Australia itself its original jurisdiction that is statutorily preserved in the Commonwealth Constitution. It seems there is no end to this government's obsession with the ultimate end of cost cutting. This goes to the heart of this bill today. This government is enacting legislation that trammels the most basic original jurisdiction of the High Court, courts in general and even the operation of universalism.This brings me to the third matter of my speech: the moral goods that are in issue following this government's decision. I have used the word `universalism'. But what does that word mean in jurisprudence? It means one person, one law. The term `universalism' may be applied in two senses. The first or narrow sense is that a law, once made, applies to each person in an impartial, indifferent and non-biased manner. Therefore, on a narrow reading, this bill, if enacted, would be applied universally in the narrow sense insofar as the bill would apply to all persons the subject of its jurisdiction.However, it is in the broad definition of universalism that this bill offends—that is, the jurisdiction of administrative law is a universal jurisdiction that is part of the inherent jurisdiction of the courts. This bill is a classic example of the application of the legislature's powers in the making of laws that may restrict, expand, redirect or otherwise amend the jurisdiction. However, it is critically important to remember that the legislature can never extinguish the judicature's original jurisdiction—that is, the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court and other Commonwealth courts.Judicial review jurisdictions' universality in the broad sense means that any person is entitled to judicial review as of right. It is a right based on the natural law that a person aggrieved by a decision of the legal system—which, acting predictably and basing its decisions on probative evidence and other rules of natural justice, nonetheless produces an absurd result—ought to be entitled to administrative review. The rule is natural in that it is the fundamental role of the Commonwealth executive to oversee the operation of the broader law as we know it. The law will never be perfect and is always in a state of review. It is therefore expected that decisions of a mechanical legal system will, like a motor car engine, need perpetual tuning and balancing. Denying this function in any area of our administrative scheme is a serious gagging of the executive's powers.I have repeatedly raised these points in parliament, and these points have been repeatedly ignored by the government. What this government fails to understand in the passage of bills such as the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000 and the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000, to be debated later today, is that these subversive acts of parliament are short-lived. Throughout history, natural law predicts with frightening regularity that any attempt by any political regime to create law which violates reason will ultimately come undone. Whether it be a totalitarian regime of any kind—ideological, religious or political—no system built on tyrannical laws, biased laws or laws based on an artificial restriction of natural law ultimately can survive as the stress and strains of reason defeat the laws that seek to undermine reason.The reason latent in this bill is fundamentally defective. Its reason is based on economic imperatives which deny the higher reason built on a system of review. That raises legitimate expectations that justice will be done when an absurdity in administrative decisions results. That is the reason why I safely predict that this bill, if and when enacted by parliament, will result in failure and further haemorrhaging of our legal system. This is the dire warning of the learned legal opinions who have predicted the same. It is more than glib legalism that constitutes the basis of this speech; it is the reasoning that lies in the hearts of men and women who know that there is an injustice. Who here cannot recall when they know in their heart that they have been wronged? It is not based on any law or scholastic knowledge of law or rights; it is a sensation of wrongness. Of course, there are situations where people think they have rights when none in fact exist. People do act and think foolish thoughts about their notions of justice. But, for the majority of people, it is this basic awareness of a formed conscience, a right mind and a sense of wrong that cries for justice where in fact none is afforded to them. That lack of justice is the gist of this bill. The ultimate result of this bill is to create whole classes of people who either will be denied access to judicial review absolutely or will be substantially diminished. In short, the loss of universalism as a jurisprudential concept within the Commonwealth's jurisdiction is the single greatest loss that can be counted against the perceived gains in any financial sense. The second cost in moral goods is the prevailing utilitarianism that I raise again and again in seeking the perceived financial good of most in a taxation sense, but in reality the government is acting for its own hedonistic self-interest by seeking to cut costs. This may have a short-term benefit, but the long-term costs of social dislocation, the resentment of the legal system and the growth of cynicism can only further harm Australia as this government moves Australia towards an unjust, biased and tyrannical system of law.On what basis do I make these comments? I now turn to the fourth matter in this speech: highlighting electorate impacts that I have experienced as the federal member for Lowe. I turn to a letter dated 29 November 2000 which I have received from the Communications Electrical Plumbing Union's Communications Division opposing this bill. In that letter, the CEPU notes:Currently the AAT provides our (Union) members with a right to legal representation and the costs for that legal representation, medical reports and Barrister's fees are usually paid if their claim is successful.The CEPU notes that, under the new ART, injured constituents will potentially have to pay an application fee, whereas currently they do not have to do so. Further, they will have to represent themselves unless the ART agrees otherwise. Union members will have to pay their own costs, including medical reports, even if their application is successful. The CEPU concludes that this is a law designed for the employer and is `definitely not a law for a victim of workplace injury'.I turn next to the broad area of immigration law. By now, this House will be well aware of the cultural diversity of Lowe and the predominance of immigration matters that consume a considerable amount of my electorate's resources. Many of these cases are appeal matters to be heard properly before the MRT or RRT, and my electorate office refers them accordingly. These tribunals are both merit and administrative review tribunals or what are called de novo hearings. In the case of the MRT, these tribunals are already substantially delayed as a result of the administrative changes from the old Immigration Review Tribunal. The tribunal's lists have barely caught up. A typical waiting period of eight months or more is not uncommon for appeals to that tribunal. A further administrative change at this time, so shortly after the creation of the MRT, is madness.I note particularly that the large number of family migration visas are amongst the most maladministered visa subclasses and one of the most embarrassing hallmarks of this government. I again raise the issue of parent visas—the infamous subclass 103 visa—with waiting periods introduced by this government on top of capping and queuing. Through such draconian measures, this government has seen fit to keep applicants waiting some 40 years for those visas.I turn next to the privacy law and its applications. My electorate office experience indicates that there is an increasing incidence of privacy law misapplication under the Commonwealth Freedom of Information Act. I need only cite the string of questions on notice that I have tabled in this House over the past nine months on matters such as the deliberate withholding of information in the case of former Senator Malcolm Arthur Colston. This case demonstrates how privacy and FOI legislation have been used with impunity by government agencies basically to deny their responsibilities to the public and the public interest. I say this of government and non-government agencies alike, but I am specifically critical of the conduct and attitude of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions towards former Senator Mal Colston. The DPP cynically decided to reopen the Colston case only after repeated questioning by me and this House over a nine-month period. If I had not been a member of parliament, what recourse would I have had to take the DPP to task over its application of privacy law and other powers under other acts and instruments, such as the DPP's prosecution policies? What will be the likelihood of commencing such proceedings under the new ART? What does this mean for public accountability of discretionary decisions by bureaucrats such as the DPP, who remained silent for more than one year whilst the Colston affair gathered dust? What happened when reports appeared that the DPP was having another look at the Colston file? Dr Colston ducked for cover, with media reports claiming that recent medical tests had shown that his cancer had spread to his vital organs. If this is the case, I call on the DPP to have Dr Colston independently assessed by appropriately qualified medical specialists so that the Colston matter can be settled immediately. If Dr Colston were so sick, one would expect that he and his family would be only too pleased to have his alleged terminal medical condition proved to the public. No wonder the public is so cynical while the DPP remains silent and Dr Colston continues to defy medical science. As I have said before in this place, I do not wish ill of Dr Colston; I only want the truth. That is in the public interest.What about the Reith telecard scandal? What protection will the ART afford to people acting in the public interest in matters going to privacy and FOI applications? What of the radiologists' scan scam? It has become clear that this legislation diminishes further advocacy in the public interest through prohibitive attacks on the instruments and means for the public interest to be heard. Denial of administrative review avenues means that the public interest cannot be made available so easily through legislative means. The result is likely to be a rise in self--help remedies and other nefarious means.I turn to the battery of administrative reviews dealing with third party rights. This issue concerns matters going to spouse rights in estranged visa applications; third party rights in child support actions; third party rights in taxation matters, going to spouse and child payments; and third party rights for student and business visa sponsorship applications. All these examples show that third party rights are intrinsic to an applicant's rights, but are denied through the current system. Far from increasing rights of access to such persons, this law has further constricted access to administrative review even for the applicants, taxpayers and child support payees. In short, the polarity of this bill is entirely wrong.Finally, I turn to the fifth matter—the judgment on what direction this government is leading Australian jurisprudence in. I can find no better conclusion than that found in the Bills Digest itself. The Bills Digest on page 19 in its conclusions makes the following comments, which only corroborate what I have said throughout my speech today:A number of commentators have suggested that retaining the present system of separate tribunals is preferable, and have resisted the push for a super-tribunal, for a number of reasons including the maintenance of three member panels which is more likely under the existing system, as under the new system `financial and political pressures for rationalisation might predominate'.No truer words have been spoken—`financial and political pressures for rationalisation might predominate'. I further cite the opinion of Justice Jane Matthews in her article titled `Whither the Administrative Appeals Tribunal', at an AIAL twilight seminar address on 5 August 1998, who noted:The proposed amalgamation constitutes such a downgrading of the merits review system as to fundamentally threaten the quality and independence of external rights review. There are many other quotations and authority that could be cited and are cited in the Bills Digest and elsewhere. To put it bluntly, this bill is a failure in jurisprudence. The bill is illogical. The bill is absent of right reason. This bill is an attack on the natural law and an attack on right reason. This bill denies natural justice to those who have a natural right to access it.Rather than seek ways to slam the door shut on prospective litigants and applicants to natural justice, the legislators must approach our law making from a perspective of making laws more just, not more inhibitive. Bills such as this bill tonight, the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2000 and another privacy bill, the name of which escapes me at the moment, demonstrate a fundamental failure in jurisprudential and moral reasoning and a collapse of integrity within our system. I am particularly interested to ask the Attorney General who was responsible for advising the government on this bill. I am also interested to know who was actually responsible for drafting this bill. I would also like to know the names of those who have seen fit to press ahead with this bill inside the coalition party rooms and those who would honestly stand up and say with pride, `I voted for this bill tonight.'In the annals of history, it will be shown that this government's contempt for the natural law, universalism, right reason and natural justice through open and accessible judicial review jurisdiction is precisely the `cheapskate' approach to quick-fix law-making that only brings more problems than it solves. If my words on the many ancillary bills that touch on the matter of administrative review mean nothing, then I hope my speech tonight hits home. This bill and bills like it are a failure. They promise more exposure of our legal system to bad law-making.At its simplest, this bill promises less accountability for administratively flawed decisions. It achieves this through super amalgamation of tribunals and with it loss of expertise, loss of specialisation and loss of accessibility. This bill spells out the incompatibility of jurisdictions under one roof of matters as legally diverse as refugee appeals, social security appeals, migration appeals and the huge jurisdictional field of administrative review that is identified in schedule 3 of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act. I ask every member of this House to peruse the jurisdiction of the AAT. It is mind-boggling. There are special sections of certain acts that bind the AAT as the appropriate appeals body. Add into this the MRT, the SSAT and the RRT and you have a tribunal registrar's nightmare. I urge this parliament and especially the Attorney-General to reconsider the ambit of this bill. It is for this reason that the opposition opposes the bill. This bill must be withdrawn in its present form. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Ms Worth) adjourned.Bills23774S276Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.2377402:49:0023774Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr STONEEM6MurrayLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2000 bill amends the application of the provisions of the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Act 2000 to coincide with amendments to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 which delay the commencement of the mandatory renewable energy target.The Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Act 2000 imposes the rate of penalty for non-compliance with the mandatory renewable energy target, to be implemented through the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000.The delay in finalising the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 has meant that the commencement of the scheme must be delayed by several months. The government has moved amendments in the Senate to delay the commencement of the scheme until 1 April 2001. However, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Act 2000, as it currently stands, will impose the penalty of $40 per megawatt hour for the year commencing 1 January 2001. As the renewable energy target will not now commence on this date, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Act 2000 is being amended so that the obligations imposed under the mandatory renewable energy target and the penalty for non-compliance with those obligations commence at the same time.These amendments have also been amended in the Senate so that the rate of charge, which the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Act 2000 imposes, has been indexed to the consumer price index.The government does not accept the opposition's amendment to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2000, which aims to index the shortfall charge to the CPI. The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000 passed by the Senate includes a specific provision to review the possibility and need for CPI indexation after the measure has been in operation for two years. This makes the need for CPI indexation now redundant. The government therefore supports the proposition originally put by Senator Bolkus that this question be reviewed in two years time.I commend this bill to the House and I present the revised explanatory memorandum.Leave granted for second reading debate to continue forthwith.02:51:0023775Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—The Renewable Energy (Electricity) (Charge) Amendment Bill 2000 is almost ancillary to the principal bill, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Bill 2000, and it has the essential constitutional features of imposing the rate and charge of the penalty, which effectively makes the principal bill workable. Without the compulsory penalty charge, there would be no reason for people to purchase more expensive, renewable energy.What the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage omitted to indicate is the incredible delay which has taken place in producing this bill. The government has been considering this matter for a very long time now. It was produced initially in response to the Kyoto discussions and it has been on the table for a great deal of time since. It was rushed through this House under almost identical circumstances at the conclusion of the last session, which is when the parliamentary secretary and I last discussed this measure in the chamber. Very little occurred subsequent to that, despite the many months which were available for discussion and negotiation. Let us hope that the experience of the Minister for the Environment and Heritage at The Hague is what has prompted him to finally move this measure forward and to ensure that it receives parliamentary attention at this hour of the last day.The opposition will continue to support the view that the indexation measure is desirable—indeed, essential—to maintain the real value of the charge. Although it is true that the bill will now be reviewed in accordance with the opposition's view about the review mechanisms, the reality is that even in the meantime there is no reason not to index the charge since indexation, by definition, only maintains the status quo, and that was our intent. However, I understand we can debate that in more detail if required during the consideration in detail stage of the bill, so I am happy to give in principle and opposition support to the bill as it stands.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.23775Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.Amendment (by Dr Stone) proposed:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 5 to 7), omit the item, substitute:1 Section 6Repeal the section, substitute:6 Rates of charge (1) The rate of charge is $40 per MWh.02:54:0023775Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—The opposition is of the view that the indexation amendment should remain, and I know the parliamentary secretary is aware of the review period and is also aware of our views about why that indexation is important. The matter has been canvassed at length in another place, and I do not think we need add to it here. Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.23776Bill (on motion by Dr Stone)—by leave—read a third time.Bills23776R1126BillsR116623776Debate resumed.02:56:0023776Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I rise in the House to speak in the debate on the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000 and the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000. These bills propose to form one super tribunal, replacing four existing tribunals. I will begin by stating that I am not opposed in principle to the establishment of a super tribunal. Government members have delivered arguments as to why one tribunal is more efficient and cost effective. However, that is not the problem with this legislation. The problems that I see in the bill arise from the government sacrificing fairness for speed of decision. Nearly 30 years ago in 1971, the Kerr committee report found that the previous methods of review were inadequate. One of the recommendations of the Kerr committee was for the establishment of a general administrative review tribunal. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was established in 1975 as a general administrative tribunal empowered to undertake merits review. It commenced operations on 1 July 1976. In the course of time, other specialist merits review tribunals were established to deal with specific areas. They included the Veterans' Review Board, Social Security Appeals Tribunal, Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. All these bodies are currently in existence and, apart from the VRB, are proposed to be abolished and incorporated into the new Administrative Review Tribunal.During the time of the Keating government in 1995, the Administrative Review Council brought down a report entitled Better decisions. This report recommended the establishment of a single review tribunal, comprising a number of specialist divisions to hear first instance review cases and one review division to review cases raising a substantial question of law. Will the proposed ART be cost effective? The government has yet to provide us with any concrete evidence to prove that this will be the case. The bills presently before the House concern me because they appear to have the effect of reducing the quality of merits review. I am concerned by the methods of funding proposed; the selection, qualifications and removal of members; availability of second-tier review; availability of legal representation; ministerial control over practice and procedure; and the provision of reasons for decision.Let us examine the structure of the new tribunal and its membership. I am concerned by the restriction of senior members in the ART. This could seriously impact upon the quality of decisions, particularly when the matters before the tribunal are more complex. Under this legislation senior members comprise less than 10 per cent of the overall amount of members. The current AAT has a senior member level that is about 30 per cent of the overall number, so the government is proposing a vast reduction. Another example of cost cutting, perhaps? Again, as with the industrial relations legislation, the government is attempting to impose its will upon an independent body by prescribing a maximum term of seven years with no minimum term. So we could see a scenario whereby members who have a record of overturning departmental decisions are themselves given the boot after a couple of years. As with the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, the government is, in effect, playing the `godfather' over supposedly independent tribunals. This government is obsessed with pulling everybody around to its philosophical predilections. The separation of powers principle is only relevant when it suits this government. I now turn to the issue of funding for the ART. To my absolute disbelief, each division is to be funded directly by the portfolio agency that it is responsible for reviewing. So the head of the Immigration and Refugee Division will have to approach the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs for an increase in funding, or the head of the Income Support Division will have to approach the Minister for Family and Community Services. What happens if, in the last 12 months, that division has overturned on review a number of decisions from those departments? This government's record makes it easy to answer that question. I am sure that the ministers will be quite blunt to the divisional heads in stating that, unless the philosophical bent of that division changes in the near foreseeable future, that division will be starved of funds. So much for a fair and just review!Eminent experts in administrative law have their concerns about this funding approach. The current President of the AAT and former president of the AIRC, Justice Deidre O'Connor, has said:There is the danger that the tribunal may be considered to be under pressure to make decisions which favour the agency.The ARC in its Better decisions report stated:Where a review tribunal receives its funding from an agency whose decisions form all, or a large part of, its workload, it is possible that the tribunal's independence will be, or will be perceived to be, compromised by that agreement.Justice Jane Mathews of the Federal Court has said:Not only does this involve a very significant independence issue, at least in perception and possibly also in practice, but it threatens to create a bureaucratic nightmare.Again, where is the fairness in the system? I know the SSAT is funded by its department, but the AAT has a single appropriation from the Attorney-General's Department. If the government were in any way concerned with cost effectiveness and efficiency they would seek to have the one appropriation from the Attorney-General's Department.Still on the independence issue, the relevant ministers will appoint the members to the division that will review their agency decisions. Minister Ruddock will appoint the members in the Immigration and Refugee Division, Minister Newman will appoint members to the Income Support Division, and Attorney-General Williams will appoint members to the Commercial and General Division. So some of these ideologues propose to have total control of the merit review decision making.The President of the ART will need no formal qualifications. The government claims that this will ensure an informal and quick process. I contend that the opposite will occur. Why would the Administrative Review Council's report Better decisions have recommended the president have strong legal qualifications unless the president was required to have a degree of knowledge of the complexity of the law?Justice O'Connor has shown herself to be a president of the highest quality as she was as President of the AIRC until the minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business made her position untenable. Maybe we will see a Moore-Wilton, Shergold like government boffin appointed to head the ART. Added to this is that there is no mention in the bills before the House as to what qualifications will be required of other members of the ART, another lot of ideological hacks. The ARC requires members to possess a minimum level of skills. These include an understanding of merit review, knowledge of administrative review principles, analytical skills, personal skills and communications skills.The bill also appears to allow for an easier passage for the removal of tribunal members. Remember that they will be appointed for set terms by the relevant portfolio minister. Add to this the following grounds for dismissal: firstly, refusal or failure to enter into a performance agreement; secondly, serious or continuing breach of a performance agreement; and, thirdly, failure to comply with a direction from the president relating to a performance agreement. That is right, performance agreements for members of a supposedly independent merit review tribunal. What are going to be the indicators of satisfactory performance—the number of favourable decisions we provide for the agencies? If these requirements are not indicative of this government's manic obsession with corporate ideology then I am a bad judge. This legislation has also made it difficult to qualify for a second-tier review. Second-tier reviews will only be available with the leave of the President of the ART or the relevant executive member of the division. Leave will only be granted if the first-tier review was made by a single member and raises a principle or issue of general significance or if the applicant and decision maker agree that the first-tier decision was materially affected by a manifest error of law or fact. What is even more concerning is the fact that, if a matter does reach second-tier review, there is no requirement that it be heard by a senior member of the ART. Second-tier review will not be available for migration decisions; hence any appeals will have to be made to the Federal Court. So much for making merit review more economical, fair and quick. The government argues that second-tier review for normal cases will only require a single member to hear them. It believes that multiple member panels will only be required when there are issues of principle or public interest.We may have a case that arises that the President of the ART determines to be a case whereby a principle could be established. Earlier I mentioned that this legislation has no requirement for the President of the ART to have legal or formal qualifications. Senior members' qualifications are yet to be determined. How are these members going to be able to determine matters of complex legal principle? What is going to happen? More and more of these matters that should be determined at the ART level will be thrust into the court system. As Justice O'Connors has said, the tribunal should have members that are `competent, well trained and meet acceptable publicly known standards'. I believe this legislation does not meet acceptable standards.I am also concerned about an individual not having the right to legal or other representation before the ART. Even though we do not have a bill of rights, it is taken as fundamental to a fair and just review process that some sort of representation be allowed for an individual. In more complex cases it would be preferable for individuals to have access to legal representation. The public have the right to be concerned that this new tribunal will be nothing more than a rubber stamp of departmental or portfolio decisions. The Australian Law Reform Commission in its report entitled Managing justice has commented on the need for management of representation rather than the need to restrict representation.Added to this, individuals will have to meet their own costs. This will undoubtedly discourage many people from challenging what may well be an unjust government decision. We have to remember that probably a majority of the people who seek these reviews are at a low socioeconomic level. The current review system is in place to assist these people in their battles with government bureaucracy, not to become a hindrance and to browbeat people into accepting the inevitable. I always thought Australia was about providing fairness to its people. However, under this government this is no longer the case. I will conclude by commenting on the worst aspect of this legislation—that is, the proposal for ministers to establish the guidelines and procedures by which the division of the tribunal which they head will have to apply. This is an exercise of high cynicism by this government. If restricting the appointment of members, controlling the funding and allowing people with few or no qualifications is not enough, they will now control the mechanics of their divisions.The AAT has had total independence; the ART should have the same level of independence. But no, not with this government—a government of control freaks. This really is the essence of this legislation. The government is not happy that independent tribunals have the temerity to challenge and override some of their decisions. This government demands blind obeisance. Too bad that the less fortunate in our society could have their lives ruined by poor government decision making; what matters is power and money. This government, as with all other areas of public policy, is intent upon the creation of two Australias, and this legislation adds to that long, long list. Debate (on motion by Ms Hall) adjourned.Bills23779R116823779Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments— (1) Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 9), after item 15, insert: 15A Section 195-1 (at the end of subparagraph (a)(i) of the definition of first aid or life saving course)Add “including personal aquatic survival skills”.(2) Schedule 3, page 18 (after line 12), after item 9, insert:9A Subsection 69-5(4)After “subsection (3)”, insert “or (3A)”.(3) Schedule 5, item 18, page 40 (lines 13 to 16), omit subitem (1), substitute:(1) The amendment made by item 2 of this Schedule authorises the Commissioner to decide, as a date on which the cancellation of a registration under section 25-57 takes effect, any day occurring on or after 1 July 2000.(4) Schedule 5, item 18, page 40 (after line 16), after subitem (1), insert:(1A) The amendment made by item 4 of this Schedule applies, and is taken to have applied, to a requirement that would otherwise arise, or have arisen, under section 8AAZL of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 on or after 1 July 2000.(5) Schedule 6, item 21, page 46 (line 19) to page 47 (line 6), omit subsection (2), substitute: (2) The amount of the increasing adjustment is 1/11 of the amount that represents the extent to which the payment of excess relates to *creditable acquisitions and *creditable importations made by the insurer directly for the purpose of settling the claim. (6) Schedule 6, page 48 (after line 2), after item 25, insert:25A At the end of Subdivision 78-AAdd:78-42 Adjustment events relating to increasing adjustments under section 78-18 Division 19 applies in relation to an *increasing adjustment that an insurer has under section 78-18 as if: (a) payments of excess under an *insurance policy to which the adjustment relates were *consideration for a *taxable supply that the insurer made; and (b) the adjustment were the GST payable on the taxable supply; and (c) any refund of that payment of excess made by the insurer were a reduction in the consideration for the supply.(7) Schedule 6, item 49, page 53 (line 4), after “, 21”, insert “, 25A”.03:13:0023779Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I indicate to the House that the government proposes that amendment No. 1 be disagreed to, and that amendments Nos 2 to 7 be agreed to. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House first to consider amendment No. 1 and, when that amendment has been disposed of, to consider amendments Nos 2 to 7. I move:That amendment No. 1 be disagreed to.The government will not be supporting the Democrat and Labor sponsored amendment to the bill. This amendment by the Democrats seeks to expand the GST-free treatment of first aid and lifesaving with a scope so wide that it will include swimming lessons. This goes beyond the agreement between the government and the Democrats whereby lifesaving and similar courses became GST free. In addition, GST revenue goes to the states and territories. They have insisted, therefore, under the terms of the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Reform of Commonwealth-State Financial Relations, which is a schedule to A New Tax System (Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements) Act 1999, that the Commonwealth seek the agreement of the states and territories before making any changes to the GST base. The Commonwealth intends to stick with this agreement. For these reasons, the government will oppose the amendment. Any delay in the passage of this bill will be as a result of actions by the Democrats and Labor. Their manoeuvring will jeopardise measures which businesses have sought in relation to more flexible GST registration provisions and restricting the tax liabilities that can be offset against BAS refunds. The government has also agreed to an amendment to provide the Commissioner of Taxation with the discretion to backdate GST deregistration to July 2000. Let the Democrats and Labor be accountable for their actions. 03:15:0023780Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—In commencing my remarks, I thank Chris from Simon Crean's office for his assistance in providing notes and Virginia from Kim Beazley's office for her assistance in providing this figure of sartorial elegance that you see before you. The non-government Senate amendment to the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000 concerns aquatic safety courses—that is, the government, with the connivance of the Democrats, imposed a GST on water safety. It is absurd that we are even debating this issue—and at 3.15 in the morning, let me say amen to that. We live on the world's only island continent and much of Australia is hot for much or all of the year. Who can disagree with that? Swimming is a national pastime, be it at inland rivers and lakes or at our magnificent beaches. Hand in hand with the enjoyment of the water is the reality of danger involved in that environment, and many people do die in our waters. If we did not have the magnificent contribution from our lifesavers, more would die. Yet the government and the Democrats imposed a tax on aquatic safety lessons. This is an example of yet another mistake and another anomaly. It is yet another example of botched implementation of the GST. Unbelievably, the government has opposed this amendment in the Senate. Labor ensured that it passed. We should not be in this situation, however. This tax on lifesaving instruction is symptomatic of the totally unnecessary, unproductive impost that the GST has become for the charitable and non-profit sectors of the Australian community. It is outrageous that the Democrats would have made an agreement with the government to tax these vital community services. What is the response from the government and Senator Kemp concerning this tax on aquatic safety? His response is: `But think about the tax cuts.' If you are out there drowning and you are singing out to Senator Kemp, he would say, `It's all right; you've got the tax cuts.' What swimmers in trouble need is more people trained in aquatic safety, not some economic model concerning the virtue of tax cuts. Tax cuts are not going to save a swimmer who has got into difficulty, but we believe that better access to aquatic safety classes will. Labor supports this amendment. Our support is the reason why it was successful in the Senate and we remain committed to it here in the House. It is outrageous that these essential services have been made subject to tax and we condemn the government for not accepting it.Let me conclude by making this point: the government endeavours to say that we are holding up or making hostage the changes in relation to registration for GST and the capacity for people to have their inadvertent registration for GST cancelled. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is pressure from the opposition and pressure from small business which forced the government to bring in legislation which would alter the GST registration arrangements. We absolutely support that legislation. We have supported it all the way through and we continue to support it. The only basis on which it will be held up is if the government refuses to support a totally reasonable proposition which we are now putting forward—one which is important as we approach summer—that the kind of training that lifesavers need can be provided without the impost of the GST. We urge the government to come to its senses in relation to this issue, not to put lives at risk and to take the GST impost off this aquatic safety training which we see as being an essential feature in a country such as ours. Question resolved in the affirmative. 03:20:0023781Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to Senate amendment No. 1, and I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Motion (by Ms Worth) proposed:That Senate amendments Nos 2 to 7 be agreed to.03:20:0023781Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Labor welcomes the decision of the government to agree to these amendments. I repeat, we are astonished that they have not agreed to amendment No. 1. The Labor amendments that the Senate has agreed to propose to introduce some badly needed and increased flexibility into the government's proposals concerning the power of the commissioner to cancel GST registration. There are a large number of people who have been registered for the GST who either accidentally registered and who wish to deregister, or who are carrying on an enterprise but who were wrongly registered by the tax office and who wish to deregister, or did register because they thought they had to but now wish to deregister and have a turnover low enough to justify deregistration. I suspect there are a number of people that have been registered for the GST by outright mistake on the part of the tax office. At the moment, under the legislation that the Treasurer boasted that he had got right earlier in the year, these taxpayers have to remain in the system for 12 months and collect and remit the GST before they can be deregistered. Clearly, this is absurd, and it is doubly absurd in the context of the blitz advertising that was running earlier in the year imploring people to register for an ABN and/or the GST. Obviously many people and non-profit bodies registered for the GST in inappropriate circumstances. What is a very harsh 12-month rule applies, even where taxpayers that are carrying on an enterprise have been incorrectly registered by the tax office.One category of these taxpayers is those who meant only to apply for an Australian Business Number but wound up being registered for the GST. Many of these people are not even aware that they have registered, or had not been aware, until they were sent one of the BASthe Business Activity Statementforms to fill out recently. They have not been charging the GST on their supplies as they are below the turnover limit, and they do not want to get caught in the paperwork, expense and hassle of the GST, yet they have now found that they are being caught in that way.The bill as presented by the government will grant the commissioner the discretion to deregister someone where they have not been registered for the full 12 months. Labor welcomes this overdue move. Clearly, it is preposterous to keep someone in a system for a year before letting them leave it when they should not be in the system at all. However, under the government's preferred provisions in this bill, the deregistration can only be effective from after the date of royal assent of the bill. Paragraph 5.5 of the explanatory memorandum on page 48 confirms this view, as does the tax commissioner's press release on the issue. The commissioner issued this release on 26 October, estimating that, with the passage of the bill this year, deregistration can occur for taxpayers who have already applied from 31 December. Labor has bent over backwards—and that is important—to facilitate passage today, despite having totally inadequate debating time both here and in the Senate this evening where only one opposition senator contributed to the debate. The effect of the government's proposals is confirmed by the commissioner's press release in the following paragraph:Important note: People who now expect to have their GST registration cancelled effective 31 December must note that they will still have GST reporting obligations for all tax periods up to and including the end of December 2000. This means that all of the people wrongly or accidentally registered for GST currently can only be deregistered from this time and that they will have a GST liability from the period from 1 July 2000 until the time of deregistration—a liability that continues to grow as we speak. Many people will not have collected the GST and will face hardship in paying it to the government. The Prime Minister promised that no-one would be penalised for inadvertent mistakes. What is going to happen to people who have been registered for the GST and who have not collected the GST? Even with this proposed government amendment, these people will have to pay two-quarters of GST, one assumes, from out of their own pockets. In addition, they have all the expense and hassle of filling in the BAS returns. Whilst Labor supports the proposal in the bill, it does not go far enough. Labor's amendment will allow deregistration to be retrospective. This will allow people who should not have been caught in the net to be deregistered as of 1 July 2000. The nightmare facing them at the moment—that is, having to pay GST when they have not collected it—should be removed. Unless it is removed, these people will definitely be the losers under the new tax system—in direct breach of the pledge by the Prime Minister. (Extension of time granted)Let me just note in conclusion that this is the last amendment of the GST for the millennium. It is, in fact, Labor's amendment. Instead of punishing small business, as the GST normally does, this amendment will be lifting the burden from taxpayers. This will allow a measure of justice for those who should never have been in the system. This is absolutely typical of Labor's approach. We seek tax justice rather than having the tax burden lifted from the wealthy and placed on those who are poorer in a less advantaged situation as the government so frequently endeavours to do.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills23782R1126BillsR116623782Debate resumed. 03:27:0023782Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—When I was elected to this place two years ago, I had no idea that I would be debating legislation as complex as that covering the establishment of the Administrative Review Tribunal at 3.30 in the morning. This legislation sets up the Administrative Review Tribunal, which will replace the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal. The legislation details the ART's membership, structure and new procedures and re-establishes the Administrative Review Council. This legislation has been presented as an efficiency measure—one that will streamline the merit review process and improve its efficiency whilst at the same time reducing costs. But these efficiency costs come at a very high price. One Federal Court judge stated, `The proposed amalgamation constitutes such a downgrading of the merit review system as to fundamentally threaten the quality and independence of external merits review.' That is disgraceful.Whilst I do not oppose the amalgamation of the merit review tribunals in principle, I am concerned about the effects of the amalgamation of the merit review tribunals as outlined in this legislation and how this will impact on the independence of the ART, the access that will be available to it and the quality of the review process. I might add that these concerns that I have are shared not only by the Federal Court judge whom I quoted earlier but also by a large number of community groups, welfare rights legal centres, the veterans' rights groups—as the member for Cowan so aptly detailed in his contribution a little earlier tonight—former tribunal members and judges and the Law Council of Australia.I would like to refer to a paper of the Law Council of Australia. It was presented by Anne Trimmer, the President of the Law Council of Australia on 25 October this year. She said that the Law Council strongly supports the continued existence of a truly independent Commonwealth merit review tribunal. We are faced tonight with the loss of this truly independent merit review tribunal. The council said that it agrees that benefits and efficiencies may be gained by restructuring the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and other tribunals, but points out that we have got to be very careful that these efficiencies do not cost too much and that we as a society do not pay too much. It goes on to say that the restructure goes far beyond organisational changes and undermines currently accepted principles of administrative reviewing of which Australia should be proud. The federal government has publicly relied on reports from the Better decisions report as a catalyst for the change for the structural reforms, yet it has not followed the recommendations of that report. It has chosen only the parts of the Better decisions report that it wishes to implement. This is of great concern and I agree with the Law Council of Australia that it has been a whittling away of the independence of the external merit review tribunal which is being absorbed into the bureaucracy of our country.The Commonwealth established the Administrative Appeals Tribunal in 1975 and it became operational on 1 July 1976. The AAT was established to address the imbalance of power between the government and the people affected by the decision. Previously the only redress that people had if they felt that they had been unfairly treated by a decision of government was either to take it to the courts or to appeal to a minister for a ministerial review. We all know what a lengthy, costly process the legal system is and how frustrating it is for people that are involved in it. It is a system that really favours the government rather than a person that may be caught in the social security system and have to go through a very complex system to get some redress.It was found that that system was unfair and it discriminated against people, so the AAT was established. It had the principle of standing in the shoes of the original decision maker, so it could review the decision of that original decision maker. It was a second-tier merit review process that was available for the Veterans' Review Board and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. The bulk of decisions were made in the social security jurisdiction, a jurisdiction where applicants are generally socially and economically disadvantaged. This legislation will make it more difficult for these people, whilst at the same time removing one level of merit review.This government believes in making it difficult for the battler: `If you are down and out on your luck, then it is your fault and we will make it a little bit harder for you.' That is what I see this legislation does—it makes it harder for the battler to appeal a decision of government; it makes it harder for the ordinary average Australian to get justice. It is taking us back to the days before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was established. That is a feature of this government: it is always looking back, looking to the past to get inspiration for its policies. The inspiration it has here is to plunge Australians back into a system where they do not have real redress in disputes over decisions of government. So we are faced here tonight with considering legislation that is flawed, when we could have been considering legislation that would improve a system that has become fragmented and needs reforming if the government had followed the recommendations of the Better decisions report of the ARC, which I referred to a little earlier, instead of selectively choosing to implement those parts of the report that meet the government's agenda.I will now concentrate on some of the concerns I have with this legislation. The first is the structure that is outlined in the legislation. There will be six executive members, one head appointed to each division: Immigration and Refugee Division, Income Support Division, Veterans Appeal Division, Tax Division, Workers Compensation Division, and Commercial and General Division. No more than 10 per cent of the staff can be senior staff, and no more than 15 per cent of the total number of any division can be senior. What this does is affect the quality of decisions of the ART. And I believe that the government has gone down this track purely and simply for cost-cutting reasons. It is not looking at the purpose of the ART and at achieving the best results through the ART; rather, it is looking at cutting costs. Currently, 30 per cent of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal staff are senior, they have expertise and they use that expertise to ensure that the decisions that are reached are fair and that all parties can obtain justice. All members of the ART, including the president, will be appointed on renewable fixed term contracts for a maximum of seven years and with no minimum. What does this mean? It means that those members will have to be very cognisant in the decisions they make of not wanting to upset their bosses. They will not want to make decisions that will upset the minister who has responsibility for the division that they are appointed to because they will not be reappointed. Even worse, they can have their term shortened, but I will concentrate on that a little more later.Currently the situation is that full-time members, senior members, the deputy president and president have tenure; only part-time members of the tribunal have fixed term contracts. Also, through this legislation they will be funded directly through the portfolios. So, again, the minister who oversees his or her department is responsible for the division that considers the appeals. I do not see how that can create an environment that fosters independence. Funding should not be provided by the agencies whose decisions are to be reviewed; rather, it should be provided through the Attorney-General's Department. This is a government that will not tolerate any opposition and one that has made a career out of being partisan.Appointment to the ART, the qualifications and the removal of members are not detailed fully in the legislation. There is deficiency in the appointment process for members and, again, this can undermine the independence of the ART. Members are appointed to the division upon, again, the minister's recommendation. You might note that we are constantly coming up with the minister being involved in the process that is supposed to be independent. It is the minister whose department will be subject to the review who appoints the members—for instance, the minister who is responsible for social security matters will be appointing members to the division that looks at income support. I do not think that is good enough.No qualifications are detailed in the legislation. That departs from the recommendations of the Better decisions report. Core skills, knowledge of administrative review principles, analytical skills, personal skills—all those types of things should be detailed in the legislation. It greatly expands the process for the removal of tribunal members, and that is a real concern. It details things that are already included, such as misbehaviour, absence from duty, failure to comply with obligations. It also details—and this is where we get to issues that really concern me—refusal or failure to enter into performance agreements, serious continuing breaches of performance agreements and breaches of codes of conduct. These are all very subjective guidelines in the legislation and it is very easy for them to be interpreted in whatever way that the person chooses.The availability of second-tier review will be very limited under this legislation. It will be so stringent that it just will not happen. There is no automatic right of second-tier review, as there is now from the Social Security Appeals Tribunal. That is abolished, out the door. There is no second-tier review for the migration review decisions. The availability of legal or other representation to the Administrative Review Tribunal is gone; it is only available with special leave. That is really going to have a very detrimental effect, particularly on those people who are most disadvantaged—the people with intellectual disabilities. Having worked over a number of years with people with disabilities and people who have come from very disadvantaged backgrounds, I know the assistance and support they need and that they need to have advocates to help them through the process. This is going to be a lot harder to organise. Legal and other representations help redress the inequality between government departments and the Australian people who are subject to decisions of government. We should not be trying to restrict this access; rather, we should be trying to enhance it. We should be giving people the opportunity to have some equality and some access to redress decisions that are not correct. What will happen is that fewer and fewer decisions will be made that favour people who will be in a position to dispute those decisions. The ministerial control over the code of practice of the Administrative Review Tribunal will really impact on its independence. Ministers whose decisions will be reviewable by a division will be able to issue directions which will apply within that division. They will be able to instruct the tribunal and there will be inappropriate interference in the ART. This will impact on its independence. This is typical Howard government legislation—legislation designed to get the result that the government wants; legislation that entrenches the power of people in positions of power whilst disempowering people whose lives are truly affected by government decisions. The government has missed an opportunity to develop legislation that would truly benefit, truly create efficiencies and truly create a system that would work better than the current system. Rather, it has sought to cut costs and restrict the right of appeal of individuals, and it intends to set up a system that will create hardship and will be unfair.03:46:0023785Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—We have two bills in cognate debate—the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000 and Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000—and the House ought to understand that these are quite important bills. I thank all members who have contributed to the debate, some of whom have contributed at very late hours in the day. A number of issues have been raised, and I think some of those issues are throwing balls at Aunt Sallies—throwing stones at ghosts. Like a lot of what went on in the republic debate, people are not criticising what is proposed but what is, and has been for a long time, the current situation. Let me start with the question of the funding of the proposed Administrative Review Tribunal. The ART will be funded through portfolio agencies in the same manner as the SSAT and the VRB are currently funded. These funding arrangements have not raised any concerns about the independence of the SSAT or the VRB. Similarly, the independence of the ART will not be compromised by the proposed funding arrangements. The ART will develop a transparent model for calculating the costs of review by the tribunal of decisions made in each of the divisions. This model will relate only to workloads and case loads and not to how individual reviews are decided. I seek leave to continue my remarks in reply on the second reading debate at a later stage. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Bills23785R108523785Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate has considered message No. 562 of the House relating to the bill; that the Senate does not insist on Senate amendments Nos 2, 7, 22 and 24 disagreed to by the House, insists on Senate amendments Nos 1, 5, 6, 17 to 20 and 23 disagreed to by the House, has made amendments in place of Senate amendments Nos 2 and 7, has not agreed to the amendment made by the House in place of Senate amendment No. 24 and has made an amendment in its place, and has made further amendments to the bill, that the Senate desires the reconsideration of the bill by the House in respect of amendments Nos 1, 5, 6, 17 to 20 and 23, requests the concurrence of the House in the amendments made by the Senate in place of Senate amendments Nos 2 and 7, requests the concurrence of the House in the amendment made by the Senate in place of the amendment made by the House in place of Senate amendment No. 24, and requests the concurrence of the House in the further amendments made by the Senate.Ordered that the message be taken into consideration forthwith.Amendments (by Dr Stone) proposed:That:(a) Senate amendments Nos. 1, 5, 6, 17 to 20 and 23 insisted on by the Senate, (b) the amendments made by the Senate in place of Senate amendments Nos. 2 and 7, (c) the amendment made by the Senate in place of the amendment made by the House in place of Senate amendment No. 24, and (d) the further amendments made by the Senate to the Bill, be agreed to.03:50:0023786Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—I am under instructions to say—if I could borrow the words of my good friend the Minister for Defence—that Labor's policy is well known.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills23786R1126BillsR116623786Debate resumed.03:50:0023786Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—Earlier, I dealt briefly with the funding of the Administrative Review Tribunal. I would like to thank all honourable members who have contributed to the debate on this important legislation. The Commonwealth has a good system of merits review, but, as the member for Barton has conceded, there is room for improvement. There is broad support for amalgamating merits review tribunals and the opposition supports amalgamating those tribunals. The opposition's position on this legislation is disappointing. I emphatically reject the suggestion made by opposition members that the government is not interested in increasing access to justice but only interested in reducing costs. The government is in fact committed to an improved civil justice system. The quality, fairness and independence of the merits review process will not, as opposition members have suggested, be reduced by this legislation; on the contrary, it will be improved.A number of issues have been raised in both public debate and debate in this House. Among them is the issue of the independence of members. Opposition members have asserted that the members of the ART will not be independent of government. This is simply not the fact. The members of the ART will be appointed for terms of up to seven years and can be reappointed. Fixed term appointments do not mean a loss of independence. Most of the members of existing tribunals, including the AAT, are appointed for fixed terms and the independence of these members has not been questioned. Independent statutory officers such as the Ombudsman and the Privacy Commissioner also have fixed term appointments without jeopardising their independence. Strict removal provisions protect the independence of members. Apart from bankruptcy as a ground for removal, the president is subject to the same criteria and processes for removal that apply to judges of the High Court and other federal courts under section 72 of the Constitution. No holder of public office can enjoy greater protection. Other members can only be removed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the president on limited grounds set out in the ART Bill—essentially serious misconduct or an unacceptable level of indebtedness. The removal provisions of the ART Bill are designed to protect members' independence.The member for Newcastle has suggested that a member's performance agreement could require the member to decide for the government in a certain percentage of cases. This is not the case. Subclause 24(3) of the ART Bill provides that a performance agreement cannot deal with the substance of decisions made by the member. Members of the MRT and the RRT currently enter into performance agreements. Performance agreements will ensure performance standards are met. They will not compromise the independence of members. The member for Newcastle is a member of this House and I will respond to criticisms made by him in Hansard.Members of the opposition also criticised the mechanism for appointing ART members. ART members will be appointed in the same way as members of the existing tribunals. This method had the full support of Labor when in government. Currently, the Governor-General in Council appoints members on the recommendation of the minister responsible for a particular tribunal. ART appointments will be made like this. However, because the ART has six ministers instead of the present four, it will have responsibility for recommending appointments. Once appointed, members will be independent of ministerial influence, as they are at present. The member for Barton also criticised the ART Bill for not specifying qualifications or experience required of members and for not requiring the ART to have judges as members. The ART will not be required to include judges or lawyers. Currently, such a requirement is only imposed on the AAT. The president of the AAT must be a judge and deputy presidents must be lawyers. However, other members of the AAT and members of the SSAT, RRT and MRT are not required to be lawyers. Yet all the existing tribunals include lawyers, and so will the ART. Although the president is not required by the ART Bill to have qualifications in law, given the nature of the president's responsibilities, the person appointed is expected to have high level legal and management skills. The selection process for the presidency and executive members already in train and the selection criteria being applied indicate the government's determination to appoint members with the right expertise.The member for Barton also asserted that ART members with no specific qualifications will be able to issue telecommunications interception warrants. Currently, only AAT members who have been enrolled as legal practitioners for at least five years can be nominated to issue warrants. In fact, the amendments to the Telecommunications Interception Act 1979 made by schedule 3 to the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000 ensure that the existing situation will continue. There are other examples where ART members will need particular qualifications in order to review particular decisions.The member for Barton also criticised the ART bill for limiting the proportion of senior members in the ART to 10 per cent and compared this with the AAT where senior members make up approximately 30 per cent of the members. The role of senior members in the AAT is different from the role that senior members will have in the ART. Senior members in the AAT hear the majority of matters in the high volume jurisdictions—social security, veterans appeals, compensation and tax—and their function differs from that of senior members in, say, the MRT who provide guidance and leadership to all members in their registry, allocate cases and monitor and implement measures to enhance the performance of members and staff. Senior members in the ART will have a similar role to senior members in the MRT. Therefore, the proportion of senior members in the ART should be compared with the proportion of senior members in tribunals other than the AAT. The existing tribunals all have senior members. Currently, fewer than eight per cent of all members across all four existing tribunals are senior members. The bill permits the ART to have up to 10 per cent.The opposition has suggested that the fact that the Veterans' Review Board is to be retained means that the ART is not good enough for veterans. This is not correct; veterans will be important users of the ART. As I mentioned earlier, the opposition has also criticised the funding model for the ART. The ART will be funded in the same way as the Veterans' Review Board and the Social Security Appeals Tribunal are funded. These funding arrangements have not jeopardised the independence of those tribunals and they will not jeopardise the independence of the ART.Members of the opposition have criticised the restrictions on access to second-tier review. When it recommended amalgamating tribunals, the Administrative Review Council recommended restrictions on access to second-tier review. The ART legislation gives effect to the restrictions recommended by the council, except that second-tier review on the ground of manifest error is available only where the applicant and the decision maker agree there has been error. The government considers that if second-tier review were available whenever an applicant asserted that the ART had made a mistake, this would give every dissatisfied applicant a second bite. Applicants for first-tier review by the ART will enjoy access to merits review that is fair and impartial, independent of the decision making agency and conducted by experienced members and according to procedures that are tailored to their particular needs. A multimember panel can be constituted if the matter raises an issue of general significance or if additional members having particular expertise are needed. An automatic right to second-tier review would add significantly, and unnecessarily, to the costs of merits review and it does not presently exist, except for veterans and social security recipients. It is in the interests of everyone involved in the process of review that matters be dealt with and concluded as quickly as possible and with certainty. The member for Barton has asserted that a successful party will never agree there has been a manifest error. However, the Commonwealth is bound by the obligation to act as a model litigant. If the ART, in a first-tier review, makes an obvious mistake, the Commonwealth will be obliged to agree with an applicant who asserts that a mistake has been made. This obligation reflects a longstanding expectation of the court and the public that the Commonwealth and its agencies will act with the highest professional standards. The obligation, recently promulgated in legal services directions issued under the Judiciary Act 1903, requires the Commonwealth and its agencies to act honestly and fairly in handling claims and litigation brought by or against the Commonwealth or an agency. The directions apply in relation to litigation before tribunals. In saying that, I would not want to be taken as assuming that merits review and litigation are identical, but in this particular case the same obligations apply.The fact that the ART Bill does not give a right to legal representation in hearings has been criticised. The tribunal will, however, have the power to permit a participant to be legally or otherwise represented. The only exception to this will be where the practice and procedure directions or a Commonwealth law prohibit representation. There are no restrictions on legal or other assistance in preparing for reviews. Any restriction would apply only to participants appearing before the tribunal. Proposed government amendment No. 8 to the ART Bill amends clause 105 to ensure that the practice and procedure directions may permit representation and, where a person chooses another person to represent him or her, the practice and procedure directions can regulate the way in which the person chosen represents the person. The amended clause will also provide that the tribunal's agreement to allow representation must not be inconsistent with practice and procedure directions where the directions deal with the issue.One of the objects of the ART Bill is to enable the tribunal to review decisions in a non-adversarial manner and in such a way that applicants will not need legal representation in order to present their cases properly. For example, decision makers will not necessarily be participants in a review, and where they are participants they must assist the tribunal. The ART must also take measures to ensure that participants understand the nature and implications of any assertions made and, if requested, explain to participants aspects of its procedures or the implications of a decision and the ART's reasons for a decision.The chief executive officer must also ensure that people who ask for assistance in making applications to the tribunal and participating in a review are given reasonable assistance to do so. The tribunal's discretion to allow representation is designed to ensure participants are represented where the circumstances warrant it, rather than because the tribunal operates in such a way that representation is necessary. One of the factors relevant to exercising the discretion will be any power imbalance between the parties. If legal representation became the norm across the ART, that would create difficulties for people who cannot afford it and they may be less likely to utilise the tribunal. The intention of the ART legislation is to enable people to conduct their own review where this is appropriate, and to ensure that they can get assistance or legal representation where they cannot do so.The member for Stirling described the efforts made by the AAT to facilitate access by social security recipients to review by the tribunal. I have just mentioned some of the provisions of the ART legislation that will facilitate access. In addition to legislative measures, the ART will be in at least as good a position as the AAT to provide assistance to social security recipients and facilitate their access to review. No doubt the ART, like the AAT, will do all that it can to improve access to merits review. The ART Bill also enables applicants to obtain other assistance in appearing before the ART. The ART can permit a person to have the assistance of an interpreter or someone else chosen by the person to help the person understand what is happening. The tribunal can do this on application, or on its own initiative. The member for Stirling asserted that the ART legislation will lead to a reduction in procedural fairness. This cannot happen. Not only are the procedures set out in the legislation fair to all participants in a review, but clause 90 of the ART Bill requires the tribunal to afford procedural fairness when reviewing decisions.To encourage informality and efficient use of resources, there will be a preference for reviews in the ART to be heard by a single member. The president will have a discretion to direct that two or three members constitute the tribunal where the review raises a principle or issue of general significance, or where additional specialist expertise is required. The member for Stirling noted that the SSAT uses multimember panels and criticised the ART legislation for making this change. In August 1997, Dame Margaret Guilfoyle provided a report to the Minister for Social Security, as she then was, following an extensive review of the social security review and appeal system. In that report, Dame Margaret noted a strong level of support for multimember panels by welfare and community groups and the SSAT itself. Nonetheless, on full consideration of this issue, Dame Margaret recommended that the statutory prescription of panel composition for the SSAT, then generally a minimum of three members, should be removed and replaced with a discretion to constitute multimember panels in appropriate cases. Because of the success of the SSAT and the conduct of inquisitorial hearings, there is a natural reluctance to accept that a different format would be equally successful. However, for many matters of a less complex nature there is no evidence that adequately supported single-member panels will not succeed to the same degree as multimember panels.The bill provides that the responsible minister for a division, as well as the executive member for a division, will be able to issue directions that will apply within the division for which they are responsible. The president will also be able to issue practice and procedure directions across the tribunal. This provision has been criticised, especially in relation to the directions made by ministers. However, it is important to remember that a direction can apply to a class of matters but cannot be specific to a particular review. Directions can only deal with specified matters. For example, directions will deal with how to make applications to the ART.The ART legislation provides for a fundamental reform of the system of federal merits review. It demonstrates the government's commitment to improving the quality of the merits review. The ART legislation will create a single merits review tribunal that will deliver many benefits. It will improve access to justice; streamline the administrative structures of tribunals; enable procedures to be adopted that will increase accessibility and affordability and reduce the need for legal representation; facilitate increased use of alternative processes for resolving issues; facilitate the sharing of best practices across the ART; and ensure more consistent approaches to review. The new tribunal will result in some savings but, contrary to what has been asserted by the opposition, this is not the only reason that the government has taken this initiative. The government is committed to providing merits review that is fair, independent, effective and accessible.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.23789Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.04:12:0023789Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I move:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 5), omit “12 months”, substitute “6 months”. (2) Clause 46, page 35 (lines 13 to 16), omit subclause (3). (3) Clause 50, page 36 (line 14), omit “, staff or a consultant”, substitute “or staff”. (4) Clause 50, page 36 (after line 14), after subclause (1), insert:Avoidance of doubt (1A) To avoid doubt, the powers and functions of the President mentioned in subsection (1) do not include powers and functions of the President in his or her capacity as a member of the Tribunal constituted under Division 2 of Part 5 (about constitution for review of decisions) or section 163 (about constitution etc. for related Tribunal functions). (5) Clause 50, page 37 (line 10), after “Division”, insert “, other than a member who was a member of the Tribunal at any stage during the conduct of the review of the first-tier decision mentioned in that paragraph”. (6) Clause 84, page 62 (after line 27), at the end of the clause, add:Replacement of decision-maker as participant (4) The Agency Head of an Agency, or the person who manages another organisation or body, in which decision-makers are performing duties may give the Tribunal a written notice stating that a specified person or persons, who perform duties in the Agency, organisation or body, are to replace the decision-makers as participants: (a) for all purposes; or (b) for one or more specified purposes;relating to the review by the Tribunal of: (c) all decisions; or (d) a specified class of decisions.Consequence (5) If the Agency Head or the person gives such a notice, this Act has effect for the purposes mentioned in paragraph (4)(a) or (b) relating to the review of the decisions mentioned in paragraph (4)(c) or (d) as if references in this Division to the decision-makers were instead references to the specified person or persons.Limit on subsection (5) (6) Subsection (5) ceases to apply in relation to the decision-makers if the notice is revoked or the specified person or persons cease to perform duties in the Agency, organisation or body. (7) Clause 85, page 63 (line 24), omit “decision-maker's decisions”, substitute “decision-makers' decisions”. (8) Clause 105, page 78 (lines 12 to 18), omit the clause, substitute:105 Representation (1) Subject to subsection 102(4), if a person is required or permitted to appear before the Tribunal, he or she may choose another person to represent him or her before the Tribunal, provided: (a) the practice and procedure directions so allow; or (b) the Tribunal agrees and the practice and procedure directions do not prohibit him or her from so choosing the other person. (2) To avoid doubt: (a) the practice and procedure directions may require the Tribunal to take specified matters into account in deciding whether to give its agreement as mentioned in paragraph (1)(b); and (b) if, in accordance with subsection (1), a person chooses another person to represent him or her before the Tribunal, the practice and procedure directions may regulate the way in which the person chosen represents the person before the Tribunal. (9) Clause 110, page 82 (after line 17), at the end of the clause, add:Tribunal may encourage participation in certain other processes (5) The Tribunal may encourage the participants in the review of a decision to take part in facilitative, advisory or other processes, that are not covered by practice and procedure directions for the purposes of this section, if the Tribunal considers it desirable to do so for the purpose of resolving issues relevant to the review or for any other purpose relating to the review. (10) Clause 142, page 108 (line 14), omit “provide”, substitute “or any other enactment provides”. (11) Clause 142, page 108 (line 23), omit “provide”, substitute “or any other enactment provides”. (12) Clause 142, page 108 (line 28), after “regulations”, insert “or the other enactment”. (13) Clause 173, page 140 (after line 15), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) the certificate does not specify a reason mentioned in paragraph 60(1)(a) or (b), 101(2)(a) or (b) or 101(3)(a), as the case may be; and (14) Clause 193, page 153 (lines 7 to 9), omit subclause (2).04:12:0023791McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition are opposing the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill 2000, but we acknowledge that the amendments improve the government's proposition. They are largely technical in nature, although some of them do address concerns which were expressed during the consideration of the bill by the Senate Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Bills. That committee is an important one because it monitors and assesses bills and provides advice to the Senate as to their compliance with some fundamental human rights principles. In that context, the committee recommended that the wide range of powers in the bill which were bestowed upon the president to delegate his or her powers and functions should be narrowed and that, in particular, the president should not be able to delegate his or her powers to consultants. We say that that recommendation of the Scrutiny of Bills Committee is important, and the government has acknowledged that in accepting that recommendation and preparing appropriate amendments.The amendments also, as we understand it, provide minor clarifications in respect of tribunal practice and procedure directions. There are also procedural amendments relating to the circumstances in which the tribunal can permit the inspection of documents. There are amendments which deal with pension entitlements of some existing tribunal members. We say that, in the creation of a new tribunal, those transitional arrangements for the entitlements of existing members are appropriate—again, in the context that we are opposing the bill as a whole. However, our concern is that the amendments do not address the underlying structural flaws of the bill.While it is not appropriate at this point that I respond to the Attorney-General's response to the second reading debate, I should indicate that our fundamental concern is that the government's approach in this legislation is to pick the worst aspects of some specialist tribunals—in particular, the circumstances in which the selection of tribunal members is determined or vetted by the minister, whose departmental decisions will be scrutinised by the particular division of the tribunal. That is inappropriate because it interferes with the perception of independence. The funding issues are also of great significance, together with the ability to provide procedural directions. The government amendments disappointingly do not address those fundamental structural flaws and that being the case, regrettably, the opposition remain in opposition to the bill as a whole.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.23791Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Bills23791R116623791Consideration resumed from 12 October, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.23791Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.04:18:0023791Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—It is interesting that the Governor-General never tells us how much money he is prepared to appropriate for the purposes of the bill. I move: (1) Clause 5, page 3 (lines 13 to 17), omit the clause, substitute:5 Schedule(s) Subject to section 2: (a) each Act that is specified in a Schedule to this Act; and (b) the Corporations Law set out in section 82 of the Corporations Act 1989;is amended or repealed as set out in the applicable items in the Schedule concerned, and any other item in a Schedule to this Act has effect according to its terms. (2) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 13), after item 72, insert:Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 198972A Subsection 244(2) (3) Schedule 1, page 10, after item 72A, insert:72B Paragraph 244A(2)(b) (4) Schedule 1, page 16 (after line 3), after item 152, insert:Corporations Act 1989152A Section 38 (paragraph (c) of the definition of authority) (5) Schedule 1, page 16, after item 152A, insert:Corporations Law152B Section 9 (definition of Tribunal) (6) Schedule 1, page 16, after item 152B, insert:152C Subsection 164(3)152D Subsection 164(4)152E Subsection 164(7) (note) (7) Schedule 1, page 16, after item 152E, insert:152F Subsection 657C(2) (note) (8) Schedule 2, page 49 (after line 4), after item 38, insert:Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 198938A Subsection 244(1) (definition of decision)Note: The heading to section 244 is altered by omitting “Administrative Appeals Tribunal” and substituting “Administrative Review Tribunal”. (9) Schedule 2, page 52 (after line 15), after item 88, insert:Corporations Act 198988A Subsection 4(1) (paragraph (a) of the definition of Commonwealth administrative laws) (10) Schedule 2, page 52, after item 88A, insert:Corporations Law88B Subsection 656A(1) (11) Schedule 2, page 52, after item 88B, insert:88C Subsection 657EA(1) (12) Schedule 2, page 52, after item 88C, insert:88D Section 1317A (definition of decision) (13) Schedule 2, page 52, after item 88D, insert:88E Subsection 1317B(2) (14) Schedule 3, page 82 (after line 18), after item 82, insert:Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 198982A Subsection 244A(5)Omit “special circumstances for the purposes of subsection 29(6) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975”, substitute “reasonable circumstances for the purposes of paragraph 142(2)(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2000”.82B At the end of section 244AAdd: (6) A decision to which this section applies is not a notifiable decision for the purpose of section 56 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2000. (15) Schedule 3, page 90 (after line 6), after item 135, insert:Corporations Law135A Part 9.4A of Chapter 9 (heading)Repeal the heading, substitute:Part 9.4A—Review by Administrative Review Tribunal of certain decisions (16) Schedule 3, page 90, after item 135A, insert:135B Subsection 1297(1)Omit “sections 41 and 44A of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975”, substitute “sections 121 and 171 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2000”. (17) Schedule 3, page 90, after item 135B, insert:135C Subsection 1317D(5)Omit “special circumstances for the purposes of subsection 29(6) of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975”, substitute “reasonable circumstances for the purposes of paragraph 142(2)(a) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2000”. 135D At the end of section 1317DAdd: (6) A decision to which this section applies is not a notifiable decision for the purpose of section 56 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2000. (18) Schedule 9, page 185 (after line 16), after clause 7, insert:7A Subsection 50(3) (table item 5)Repeal the item.7B Subsection 50(4)Repeal the subsection. (19) Schedule 9, clause 31, page 188 (line 25), omit “and (3)”, substitute “to (6)”. (20) Schedule 9, page 188 (after line 26), after clause 31, insert:31A Section 85Repeal the section, substitute:85 When Commission is not a participant (1) The Commission is not a participant in the review of the decision for so long as there is in force a written notice that was given to the Tribunal by the Commission and states that the Commission does not wish to be, or to continue to be, a participant in the review. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the Commission is the applicant. (21) Schedule 9, page 188, after clause 31A, insert:31B Subsection 87(1)Omit “decision-maker”, substitute “Commission”. (22) Schedule 9, page 188, after clause 31B, insert:31C Section 94Repeal the section, substitute:94 Commission to assist Tribunal If the Commission is a participant in the review of a decision, the Commission must use its best endeavours in assisting the Tribunal to make its decision on the review. (23) Schedule 9, page 192 (after line 28), after clause 57, insert:57A Subsection 128(1)Omit “the decision-maker or an Attorney-General”, substitute “an Attorney-General or the Commission if it is not the applicant”. (24) Schedule 9, page 192, after clause 57A, insert:57B Subsection 129(1)Omit “the decision-maker or an Attorney-General”, substitute “an Attorney-General or the Commission if it is not the applicant”. (25) Schedule 9, page 197 (after line 6), after clause 66, insert:66A Subsection 136(2)Omit “decision-maker” (wherever occurring), substitute “Commission”. (26) Schedule 9, page 197 (after line 16), after clause 68, insert:68A Paragraph 153(2)(a)Omit “decision-maker”, substitute “Commission if it is not the applicant”. (27) Schedule 9, clause 83, page 199 (line 4), omit “(3)”, substitute “(6)”. (28) Schedule 9, page 199 (after line 10), after clause 83, insert:83A Subsections 84(4) to (6)Repeal the subsections. (29) Schedule 9, clause 85, page 201 (line 16), omit “of a”, substitute “of”. (30) Schedule 9, clause 85, page 202 (lines 2 and 3), omit “175(2AAA) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 or”, substitute “175(2AA) of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986 for”. (31) Schedule 11, page 216 (after line 8), after clause 43, insert:43A Subsections 84(4) to (6)Repeal the subsections. (32) Schedule 13, page 238 (after line 2), after clause 44, insert:44A Subsections 84(4) to (6)Repeal the subsections. (33) Schedule 14, item 112, page 274 (lines 5 and 6), omit paragraph (c). (34) Schedule 14, item 195, page 305 (line 10), omit “, staff or a consultant”, substitute “or staff”. (35) Schedule 14, item 195, page 305 (line 14), omit “, staff or a consultant”, substitute “or staff”. (36) Schedule 14, item 195, page 305 (after line 16), at the end of section 378A, insert:Avoidance of doubt (4) To avoid doubt, the powers of the President mentioned in subsection (1) or the powers of the IRD executive member mentioned in subsection (2) do not include powers of the President or the IRD executive member in his or her capacity as a member of the Tribunal constituted under Division 4. (37) Schedule 15, Part 2, page 329 (after line 2), at the end of the Part, add:4A Superannuation surcharge assessments after pensions beginInitial assessments(1) If: (a) a pension is payable under the Judges' Pensions Act 1968 in respect of a person who was a Deputy President of the AAT immediately before AAT abolition time (or in respect of a spouse or child of such a person); and (b) the annual rate of the pension is worked out under section 6B of that Act; and (c) after the first instalment of the pension has been paid, an assessment of superannuation contributions surcharge, in respect of the pension entitlement, is made under the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997; and (d) the assessment states that an amount of surcharge is payable;then: (e) the Secretary of the Department, in his or her capacity as trustee of the Scheme for the purposes of that Act, is liable to pay the amount; and (f) no other person is liable to pay the amount.Amended assessments(2) If: (a) a pension is payable under the Judges' Pensions Act 1968 in respect of a person who was a Deputy President of the AAT immediately before AAT abolition time (or in respect of a spouse or child of such a person); and (b) the annual rate of the pension is worked out under section 6B of that Act; and (c) after the first instalment of the pension has been paid, an assessment of superannuation contributions surcharge, in respect of the pension entitlement, is amended under the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997; and (d) the amendment results in an additional amount of surcharge being payable;then: (e) the Secretary of the Department, in his or her capacity as trustee of the Scheme for the purposes of that Act, is liable to pay the additional amount; and (f) no other person is liable to pay the additional amount.Effect of item(3) This item has effect despite section 10 of the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997.4B Rate of pension where surcharge was paid in part(1) If: (a) a pension is payable under the Judges' Pensions Act 1968 in respect of a person who was a Deputy President of the AAT immediately before AAT abolition time (or in respect of a spouse or child of such a person); and (b) apart from this item, the annual rate of the pension would be worked out under paragraph 6B(2)(b) of that Act; and (c) before AAT abolition time, the person made one or more payments under subsection 16(7) of the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997;the annual rate of the pension is increased by an amount: (d) approved in writing by the Attorney-General; and (e) certified by the Australian Government Actuary to be fair and reasonable. (2) In deciding whether to certify as mentioned in paragraph (1)(e), the Australian Government Actuary must have regard to the difference between: (a) the amount by which the relevant surcharge debt account is in debit at AAT abolition time; and (b) the amount by which it would have been in debit at that time had the payments mentioned in paragraph (1)(c) not been made.Modified rule for Deputy Presidents who are on leave at AAT abolition time(3) If subitem 3(3) of this Schedule applies to the person mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) of this item, this item applies in relation to the person as if the references to “AAT abolition time” in paragraph (1)(c) and subitem (2) of this item were instead references to the time when the person stops performing duties in the office mentioned in subitem 3(3).04:18:0023795McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2000 is an interesting bill. I understand from the Attorney-General's comments when the bill was introduced into the House that it is probably the longest bill in the history of this parliament. So it is substantial in terms of—7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams—It amends the greatest number of acts.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—I am sorry, the Attorney-General has clarified that it amends the greatest number of acts. In that context, it is understandable that, given the length and detail of the bill, there will be some errors and omissions detected during the course of consideration of them. We recognise that those errors and omissions should be corrected but in the context we are opposing, as an opposition, the structure of the Administrative Review Tribunal proposed by the government.The area of substance—that is, of substance as opposed to a technical issue that has been rectified—that has been changed which we do have concerns with is in relation to the new migration division. The bill previously allowed multimember tribunals to be established in respect of that division and, unfortunately and regrettably, these amendments will now remove that possibility. In his response to the second reading debate, the Attorney-General in respect of the Social Security Appeals Tribunal area referred to the fact that multimember tribunals became discretionary. But removing the possibility for those multimember tribunals, particularly in the migration area, we say could be very much categorised as being penny-wise and pound-foolish. Indeed, research has suggested that the number of appeals—and I use that in the loose sense—either for review before the Migration Review Tribunal or by way of application for judicial review arises from a perception of the applicant for review that they have not received a fair hearing. The reality is that this is a particularly emotional area and, indeed, when you are looking at the migration area, a one-off opportunity to secure a position in Australia. People are particularly intense and much rides on the decision. There is research that suggests that if an applicant has appeared before a multimember tribunal they are more likely to believe that their decision has been considered impartially rather than having been affected, or, if you like, retarded by the bias of an individual tribunal member. So we say that ultimately it is short-sighted to impose a blanket restriction on the existence of multimember tribunals in the migration area. As a matter of discretion, there may be many instances where additional expertise is required. Indeed, I believe it may well be a situation where further appeals can be avoided by applicants being convinced that, if a multimember tribunal has decided against them, their case was destined to fail rather than failing as the result of what they perceived as being a biased tribunal.Having made those points, I can indicate that we will not oppose the amendments proposed by the governments because by and large they are required to tidy up and correct errors and omissions. However, again for the reasons that I have outlined in the second reading debates and previously, we believe that the proposals to establish this tribunal are flawed, and fundamentally flawed, because they are taking the worst aspects of some specialist tribunals rather than taking the best aspects of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal that currently apply and applying those best practices to the tribunal proposed—that is, the Administrative Review Tribunal—as a whole. 04:23:0023796Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—In the comments that the member for Barton has just made, he may be under a misapprehension as to what some of the amendments to which he has indirectly referred are intended to achieve. Unamended new paragraph 354(3)(c) provides that one of the circumstances in which the president or the immigration and refugee division executive member can direct that two or three members are to review a decision rather than a single member is to provide developmental experience for one or more immigration and refugee division members. Amendment No. 33 removes those criteria, leaving the criteria specified in new subsection 354(3) of the Migration Act consistent with those specified in subclause 69(2) of the ART bill. In the immigration and refugee division, as in other divisions of the tribunal, members will be able to gain developmental experience otherwise than as a member of the tribunal as constituted for the purposes of a review. It was not intended in the bill as it is in its unamended form that there be multimember panels constituted for ordinary decision making but multimember panels including members who would be, in effect, in training.As to the comments by the member for Barton in relation to the best practice of the AAT as distinct from other tribunals being amalgamated, can I say that one of the purposes of the legislation, acting on the Better decisions report of the ARC, was to get away from the legalistic approach of the AAT. What we seek to do is to apply a best practice which is not legalistic and formal in form, but which is designed to reflect a merits review in the executive area rather than a judicial review in the legal area. It is easy to make an assumption that best practice is what courts do. But what we are dealing with here is not litigation; we are dealing with merits review. This is something that needs to be properly understood by those who seek to criticise the proposal. We are not concerned with litigation and we are not dealing with a court. We are dealing with a tribunal that is acting on the merits or acting in review of the merits of decisions taken by the executive branch. So, in a sense, the tribunal—as the existing tribunals already do—will be acting as a review body of decisions taken within the executive, and they will themselves be part of the executive. I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.23796Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Bills23796R1172BillsR117523796Debate resumed from 29 November, on motion by Mr Bruce Scott:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Laurie Ferguson moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the Bill a second reading, the House regrets the failure of the Government to introduce arrangements to optimise the successful operation of the Defence Force, including the Government's failure to:(1) articulate a coherent policy on the expected contribution of reservists and Reserve Units to our national Defence effort; (2) reintroduce defence leave for reservists as an allowable award matter;(3) review its disastrous experiment with Common Induction Training in the Army;(4) implement employment and education protection measures before the deployment of reservists to East Timor; (5) reverse the dramatic decline in recruitment levels in recent years;(6) address anomalies in pay and conditions for reservists;(7) properly manage the provision of training opportunities and of necessary equipment;(8) clarify ongoing levels of funding for its announced measures beyond the current financial year; and(9) consult adequately with relevant stakeholder groups”.04:28:0023797Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—When this debate was adjourned I had begun talking about the range of areas where reserves can make a substantial contribution to defence capabilities as regular soldiers. Certainly one of the most useful groups we can have in the reserves is ex-regulars. Every year, thousands of highly trained personnel leave the military who could and would, if service were appropriately structured, make themselves available to serve in key force elements. By making it possible for more former full-time ADF members to participate as reserves, the nation would be making use of a substantial resource that it is now wasting. The Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of the Reserves and Modernisation) Bill 2000 and the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Bill 2000 represent the first glimmer of recognition from this government that it has to do better by existing members of the reserve and that there is a need to develop the role of reserves as an integral part of Australia's Defence Force. Achieving that has two parts: the first is a more appropriate set of institutional arrangements within each of the services to facilitate the use of reserves in key roles; the second is appropriate flexible arrangements within the work force that will permit reservists to provide military service without having to sacrifice their civilian careers. In these bills we have provision for the following: the call-out of reserves for peacekeeping, peace enforcement, humanitarian assistance, civil aid and disaster relief, as well as warlike service and defence preparation; a code of protection for reservist civilians which will vary according to the type of service; the enhancement of the job and employment protection for reservists called out for a tour of full-time duty; some financial compensation of employers of reservists who are called out; the creation of an offence to dismiss, discriminate or refuse to employ people on the basis that they are reservists; replacement of the present division of the services into permanent, emergency and reserve forces, with a unified reserve component in each service administered under a single system; and allowing the services to offer flexible packages to prospective recruits and re-enlistees.What this bill fails to address is the decision by the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to remove military reserve service as one of the allowable conditions to be included in industrial awards. That remains an obstacle for the almost two million Australians working under federal awards to undertake reserve service. Since the debate on this bill was adjourned, the government has handed down its defence white paper. I have spent the last day scouring it for more specifics about how it is going to increase the number of recruits to the reserve, train them and use them within key force elements. I contrast this with the 1991 white paper produced when Senator Ray was the Minister for Defence. At the time that white paper was handed down, we knew very well the specifics of the remuneration incentives that were to be provided to the new reserve force element, the Ready Reserves. I know that because I remember very well working out those matters over my own desk, as senior adviser to Senator Ray's junior defence personnel minister, Gordon Bilney, with the brigadier who was then the equivalent of the current director-general of Army personnel.Given the fall-off in reserve recruiting from 6,000 to 1,600 per annum while this government has been in office, the lack of a clear plan for the reserves after a year's work on the white paper is a worrying sign. We have been given nothing but vague commitments. It does nothing to enhance public confidence or defence capability. According to the minister's press release, those vague commitments are: a public communications strategy to tell the public about the government's reserves enhancement program—that is more likely to be another Howard government misuse of taxpayers' funds on a politically motivated advertising campaign than real public education; augmentation of the national Defence Reserves Support Council; an unspecified boost to resources and equipment allocated to training and equipping reservists to meet operational requirements; and a promise to provide the opportunity for reserves who will be required to maintain high levels of readiness to do significantly more training. The government is promising a range of measures to manage the impact of this increased commitment on reservists, their families, and employers but, apart from the use of the word `innovative', the white paper and attached public documentation are totally silent on how this is going to be achieved. Successful enhancement of the reserves is going to be the key to whether Defence can deliver its 10-year plan within the real increase of $23.5 billion that has been promised. The first thing that has to be remembered is that the government's management of its defence reform program has resulted in an increasing gap between capability and resources—$7.5 billion of that $23.5 billion is to be consumed by the extra cost of maintaining current capabilities. Of the $16 billion to be spent on capability enhancements, $2.3 billion will be consumed by additional personnel and operating costs. It can be seen that almost half the additional funding slated in the white paper is committed to operating and personnel costs. If personnel costs continue to blow out they will quickly consume the resources that have been set aside for new weapons systems. This is a finely balanced situation. The white paper admits that defence per capita personnel costs have grown by 4.9 per cent per annum in real terms over the last decade. That is at a faster rate than the rest of the community, and has partly been accommodated by restructuring and labour shedding. Despite the increase in the real level of funding, these pressures will not abate. However, there is a real risk that the Defence organisation will not recognise that. There is no margin for error. Supplementation contained in the white paper for future increases in personnel costs is only two per cent per annum, compared to the 10-year experience which has been more than double that. The fact that the Howard government's plans for the reserves are not well developed means that Defence is not prepared to make the changes to deal with that gap.04:35:0023798Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—To all those insomniacs who might actually be listening to this debate, let me say I hope we do not send you to sleep. I want to thank my colleague for the erudite and stimulating contribution he has just made to this debate. I am pleased to see that his head did not actually roll off his shoulders because there was a time there I thought it might. I have been in and out of this place for almost 11 years, and I cannot think of another occasion when I have had to be on my feet at 4.45 a.m.. Frankly, if I could just make the observation, I think it is totally unwarranted. I think the fact that the government is not able to manage its business more adequately is a poor reflection on it, and—DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim Fischer—Ask the Senate.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Mate, it is an issue of government business, and if you cannot organise the processes of this place to ensure that we are out of here at a reasonable hour and back here in the morning to discuss things, then really you have to accept that responsibility. Government members interjecting—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The member for the Northern Territory has the call.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—And I am pleased I have got the call, Mr Deputy Speaker. I see my colleagues have come into the chamber to follow me, and I think that is good as well. As the former National Party leader would know, in many parts of his electorate around this time of the morning, the farmers are getting up to prepare to milk the cows. Here we are, at this hour, still debating matters of great import to the nation. I wonder what the community must think about us at this hour of the morning trying to do the right thing and debate matters of great importance such as the Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of the Reserves and Modernisation) Bill 2000. It is a bill of great importance to the Australian community, and obviously of particular importance to our defence forces. The bill amends the defence legislation to widen the circumstances in which reservists can be called out for continuous full-time service. The other bill we are discussing with it, the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Bill 2000, implements a graduated series of protections and benefits that will apply to various forms of service in the reserves, including a prohibition on discrimination in employment, rights to defer and resume studies, and postponing certain financial liabilities. The bill is the government's response to Labor's own Defence (Re-establishment) Amendment Bill 1999, which is supported by the ACTU and by significant sections of the reserve community.You will recall, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the government removed from award provisions service in the reserve as an allowable negotiating matter. That was an indictment on the doctrinaire approach, the ideologically driven approach, of the government in relation to industrial relations, and it has had a negative impact upon the Australian Defence Force. This legislation requires some explanation from the minister responsible for industrial relations because it reflects the arguments which were put forward by the Labor Party and the labour movement at the time. The minister made amendments that ensured that reserve service was disallowed in award negotiations, and we said that it would have a dramatic impact upon the potential for reservists to do service.A number of reports have come out recently. We have got the white paper which has come out only this week, but I want to refer to From phantom to force, a document which is the product of the deliberations of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, which I think is a timely document that will stand the test of time. I know this view is shared by my colleagues on the Defence Subcommittee and I think it is also the view of the joint standing committee itself. The report makes a number of important recommendations and observations on the Defence Force reserves and the failure of the government in relation to general issues to do with recruitment and retention of Defence Force personnel.In introducing the white paper, it was clear—as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out—that full-time Defence Force personnel numbers have fallen from 58,000 in 1996 to 50,000 now. The white paper wants us to boost those numbers up to 54,000, and in doing so the government plan to do significant things with the reserves. Amongst the things they intend doing is the legislation before us tonight, which governs the use of the employment of the reserves. I do not think the white paper—as my colleague, Mr Cox, has said—goes anywhere near addressing the fundamental issues to do with the reserve contribution to the Australian Defence Force.I am reminded of the slot mentality which currently prevails where we have got hollowness in a large number of units in the Australian Defence Force, particularly in the Army, where reservists fill positions because of inadequate retention in the military forces and their inability to recruit. We have seen reservists called upon in situations where they are not trained, for example, in East Timor. The Leader of the Opposition and I visited 3RAR at the Oecussi enclave and we had discussions with the soldiers and the NCOs of 3RAR about issues relating to their work in East Timor.One of the key issues for them at that time—last December, from memory—was that the people who were coming in as replacements were not up to speed in terms of their training. We are aware that the 90-day readiness notice given to the brigades was not reflected within the reserve units and that we had reserve units which were understaffed and without appropriate equipment. When the situation demanded that reserves be ready to fill those positions, they were not available at the trained level needed for the sort of work required of them immediately. In my contribution this morning, I am not going to canvass to any great extent the detail of the white paper, other than to make the point that it adopts the Labor Party's defence strategy—and I congratulate the government for seeing the defence of Australia as the primary objective and for picking up that Labor position. If you read the document, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl—as I am sure you have done assiduously—you will see that it largely reflects the policies of the Labor Party. I am pleased to see that we have got a generally bipartisan position on the issue of defence. I am not so certain, however, that we share the same view about the force structure and, in particular, the role of the reserves. I am somewhat concerned that there is not sufficient detail in the white paper. There is a range of assertions and statements about what the government proposes to do about the reserves, but I believe they are still wedded to the old slot theory and have not come to terms with managing the reserve as part of a single defence force.As the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, it was in a fit of pique and an act of denial of policies put forward and implemented by the Labor government that they abolished the Ready Reserve. In my travels around Australia and discussions with people form the defence forces, those in positions of authority and responsibility have repeatedly said that the abolition of the Ready Reserve was a mistake. We said that at the time, and most commentators opined at the time that it was a mistake. But that did not stop the government from taking the decision. Had they maintained the Ready Reserve, our readiness for East Timor would have been assisted somewhat by having a sizeable number of personnel able to fill the positions required to be filled.But this concern is a lot broader than that. The government is confronted not only with the question of how we deal with the reserves but, as I said earlier, with the issue of recruitment and retention. Of grave concern to me in that regard is the abysmal way in which the government—led by the Minister for Defence and the minister assisting him for defence personnel matters, who is in the advisers box—have dealt with Defence Force conditions. If I have seen a disincentive recently for participating in the Defence Force, it is the absurd way in which they have dealt with the question of remote locality leave travel for defence force personnel living in Northern Australia. I have had this argument with the minister for some time: he has changed his position from saying in the Main Committee that he would fix the problem to saying, when I confronted him in the lift about how he was going to fix it, that he had a problem with Defence Personnel Executive. I said, `Hold on, mate. You're the minister. You've got the power, you've got the responsibility,' and I have heard no more from him. We have exchanged correspondence. Then we heard some lame excuses like, `It's part of an overall wage deal,' and, `It's a question of probity.'The fact is that it was a matter of ignorance and a lack of responsibility and lack of oversight by the minister and his department not to ensure that this Defence Force entitlement would not be touched—despite having been advised by the senior military personnel in Northern Australia, as a result of discussions they had held with the ADF personnel generally in Northern Australia, that they should not effect a change to this remote locality leave travel entitlement that diminished its value. Whatever happened in the Department of Defence, the bean counters won the day. It was clear from the decision that was taken that it did not reflect the advice they had been given by the senior defence personnel or the views of defence personnel generally about the issue.What they effectively did was to reduce the value of the remote locality leave travel entitlement from the equivalent of 95 per cent of the full economy return air fare from Darwin to Adelaide to 62 per cent, inclusive of GST. That is a significant devaluation of an entitlement. We are told, of course, by the department and the government that there was no real change to the entitlement because they had done a deal with Qantas so that Qantas gave them these fares at a cheaper rate. What they did not say, and what they refuse to accept, is that, when personnel chose to use those fares on different routes, they did not get the same value. If they chose to use their fares to go on a driving trip—say, drive from Darwin to Melbourne—they still only received the equivalent of 62 per cent of the full economy return air fare. That is a substantial reduction in the financial value of that air fare. Is it any wonder that defence personnel in Northern Australia are angry about this? Is it any wonder that we have got grave difficulties in filling recruitment targets in the defence forces when morale in the defence forces is low and when you can see that this is a direct result of the stupid way in which the government has dealt with defence personnel matters? It is all very well for the government to change, in the way it is proposing tonight, this legislation which affects reserve service. But the bottom line is that, if you have got disaffected troops as a result of poor management, it will not matter what you do, you will not be able to fill the positions. If the government thinks that, somehow or other, just by fiat, it is going to be able to increase the number of full-time defence personnel from 50,000 to 54,000 without making a dramatic change to the way in which they look after defence personnel conditions, I think they are stupid and wrong. It is obvious to blind Freddy that, if you want people to retain their faith in the service, you will make sure that they are happy in their work. If they are not happy in their work because of the way they are being treated in terms of their conditions, do not blame them when they leave. Over the last month or so—in fact, over a longer period—I have been getting, almost daily, phone calls, faxes and emails to my office from defence personnel in Northern Australia who have been expressing their concern at particular personnel matters, whether they are to do with maternity leave, housing, postings, fringe benefits tax reporting, or this issue of remote locality leave travel, which is the major issue. Yet, despite what I say to the minister in expressing to him the desire of the community to fix this problem, the government has not fixed it. The government can use all the mealy-mouthed language that it likes; what is very clear about the way in which it has addressed this issue is that it has not satisfied the concerns of defence personnel.The Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence is sitting in the advisers box, taking no notice, but I would like him to listen to this, because it is an issue which goes from the highest ranks of the Defence Force in Northern Australia to the lowest ranks. All ranks in the Defence Force in Northern Australia see this as an issue, yet the minister puts his head in the sand and ignores the protestations, obfuscates, and comes out with asinine responses as to why this is not an issue. Let me tell you, Minister: it is an issue. Until you fix it, you are going to see morale continue to decline, certainly in Northern Australia, in terms of defence personnel. I have some knowledge of this, because there are thousands of defence personnel in Darwin, Katherine and in the Northern Territory generally. While the piece of legislation that we are discussing is important, I say again that it is necessary in part because of the ideologically driven approach of the government in relation to industrial relations matters. They need to comprehend that, whatever they think the impact of this legislation will be, they will not improve retention and recruitment rates until they do something realistic about defence personnel conditions.04:55:0023801Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—My contribution to this debate on the Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of the Reserves and Modernisation) Bill 2000 and the Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Bill 2000 will be short. I would like to begin by paying tribute to Australia's reserve forces. They are a credit to Australia; they are a highly dedicated and skilled force that has formed the backbone of Australia's Defence Force for many years. I think it is only fitting that, when we are debating legislation such as this, we should acknowledge their contribution to our country. They contribute to Australia's wellbeing not only in times of conflict but also in times of peace, and their contribution has been tremendous. All Australians recognise and appreciate the effort and dedication of our reserve forces. I would particularly like to recognise the dedication of Colonel Jim Hodgson—a constituent who lives in the Shortland electorate and who has been very active within the reserve forces. He has been one of the leaders in the establishment of the Reserve Force Day that has become an annual event here in Australia each July. I believe that as a parliament we really should acknowledge the contribution of our reservists. I do have some concerns about the legislation. It does give effect to measures that were announced on 22 December 1999 and also measures that were announced on 24 August this year. It really is of great concern that it has taken the government this long to introduce the legislation, to bring to fruition the changes that they have been promising. I think this really is an attempt to deflect some of the criticism about the run-down state of our reserves. The government have a very sorry record on the way they have supported the reserve forces in this country. Their lack of support and their lack of commitment to the reserve forces have been disastrous and have led to poor recruitment performance. Whilst the government have been very tardy in working to improve conditions of our reserve forces and making a real commitment to the men and women of our reserves, they were nowhere nearly as tardy when they introduced the GST, which has impacted enormously on all Australians.One of my electorate officers, Kathy Tudor, was an active reservist, and she constantly tells me about the work and the needs of reservists. I feel that, whilst this legislation does go some way towards addressing some of the problems, there are still many problems that exist. It really represents the first stage of a process of modernising the structure of the reserves by providing that the ADF will henceforth consist of a permanent force with a reserve force for each of the three services—that is, Navy, Army and Air Force—and that is welcomed.The bill also empowers Defence to implement an employers support payment to compensate employers who incur disruption and additional expense because of the absence of employees on extended reserve service. I feel the fact that employers have not had any compensation for their employees when they have been absent has been a great deterrent when it comes to encouraging people to join the reserve forces. Call-outs have always been in situations of war, defence emergencies and lesser circumstances where it is desirable to do so for the defence of Australia. The bill proposes that some or all of the reserves now may be called out in a wider range of circumstances that would include, but not be limited to, war, defence emergencies, defence preparation, peacekeeping, peace enforcement, civil aid and humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. These are all very welcome.The bill does provide reservists with some legislative protections, which once again are welcome but have been a very long time coming. I might say at this point that it is really outrageous that this law will not be passed this year, particularly when you consider the enhanced role that the government has outlined for the reserve forces in its white paper. However, I must say, it is very vague, and I really do question the commitment of the government to our reserve forces. The bill does provide some legislative protection in relation to discrimination in employment. It includes provisions in relation to the refusal to hire, to dismiss or to reduce terms and conditions of employment, or to prevent employees from serving. That will be outlawed for all forms of defence service, including training. I would like to draw the government's attention to the opposition amendments. I must say that they do deal with this issue and they recommend a lot more protection for reservists, particularly when it comes to making an allowable condition within awards.The time limit for employment protection will apply to reservists who are absent from their civilian employment. Essentially, they are provided with a statutory right to resume employment without a break in their contract of employment and without disadvantage in their terms and conditions of employment. That is welcomed, as is student reservists being able to enjoy similar entitlements to defer and resume studies without disadvantage except in certain cases of voluntary full-time defence service. Financial liability protection will apply only to continuous full-time service that results in call-out orders. These are key issues that have been needed for a long time to provide assistance to reservists who are experiencing difficulties in the civilian work force. This is a step in the right direction but, as I say, it has been a long time coming and it is outrageous that this bill will not take effect before the end of the year. I believe this will be the last time that I speak this year. I would like to thank all the staff here in parliament for their guidance and assistance, including the clerks, the attendants, Hansard, the library, Comcar drivers and Jetset. I would like to thank all my colleagues—especially the shadow minister, the member for Hall, the member for Paterson, and the member for Rankin, who are here tonight—and all those people who have helped me on a daily basis. I would also like to thank the Leader of the Opposition. Like the member for Lalor, I would like to give special thanks to my staff: Paul O'Grady, Kathy Tudor and Chad Griffith. Without their dedication and help I would not be able to be an effective member of this parliament.Finally, I would like to wish everyone all the best for Christmas and the New Year. I send special good wishes to all those people of Shortland, if they are silly enough to be up at this time of the morning, although it is now a time when a lot of people will be getting up and getting ready for work. With those few comments, Mr Speaker, I wish you all the best for Christmas and the New Year, and thank you for your assistance during the year.05:05:0023803Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I rise to support the Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of the Reserves and Modernisation) Bill 2000. We also support the thrust of this legislation. I would be one of the few people in this House that is an ex-national serviceman and I also served in the then CMF. I know the advantages of having such a force composed of people who are working through the week, and yet involved in the defence forces one night a week and at weekends for a bivouac or for a camp once a year. I know the skills that are imparted from being in the reserve and the opportunities that people who involve themselves in the reserve get that they would not normally get in their day-to-day life. Those skills are many. With the sell off of drill halls around the countryside, many people in rural Australia are denied access to the reserve because the distance they have to travel is too great. If the opportunity is not there, you will not take it. The thought of hopping in your car to drive 100 or several hundred kilometres to get to the nearest unit of the reserve creates a hurdle, particularly these days with petrol prices being what they are. I know that there is a subsidy for travel, but people will not do it. It is an area of disadvantage for young men and women of rural Australia. I say to the minister that it is something that should be addressed to give those people the opportunity to participate. I indicated that the skills are many. Not only military training is given. I am sure members opposite know that too. The honourable member for Farrer, in particular, is very much aware of that. It is not a case of just taking a rifle and running round in the bush. It is an opportunity to involve yourself in things like automechanics, radio and signalling, computer skills, map reading, which involves a whole variety of mathematical skills, and personal hygiene. You have to keep your own space clean and be responsible for washing your own clothes, ironing your own gear and all that sort of thing. Those are things that young people today often do not do at home. They can learn them by being part of the reserve.One of the strongest things is that it encourages people who involve themselves to be part of a team. Many, for the first time in their lives, have the opportunity to be part of a team in the reserve, where they share responsibility, share skills and solve problems as a team. It is an exercise in character building that many young people do not get, particularly young people who are unemployed. They do not get the opportunity to experience achievement. That is the value I see in the reserve, and that is being restricted to those in the bigger towns and cities where the units are located. The member for Shortland has gone, but I want to say that I looked up a map to see where units are located around the Newcastle area. As you know, my electorate is just north of Newcastle. There will not be a single unit located in the new electorate of Paterson, which has the same number of people as any other electorate. There is a RAAF base there and there are people in the RAAF reserve, but that is a little bit different. The RAAF has a system whereby people in the reserve go to the base and serve alongside existing regular members of the Air Force. But there is no Army drill hall, so people cannot be involved in the Army. Of course, there is no naval outpost either.Young people in the electorate of Paterson will not have the opportunity to be involved in the reserve if they want to. It is difficult for them. I ask the minister to address that problem. This could be done in a number of ways. It could be done by ensuring that units of the reserve are perhaps offered a greater transport subsidy or are actually offered transport itself. Many young people do not have cars, do not have vehicles and do not live near regular transport. That could be done. The payment of a greater subsidy could, of course, also overcome this. I think it is important that service in the reserve is available to all Australians, and the reason I wanted to participate in this debate was to indicate that currently it certainly is not.05:14:0023804Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank members on both sides of the House for their constructive contribution to this debate. It is a terribly important issue, as shown by the comments that have come from both sides of the House, but I cannot forgo this opportunity to comment on the opposition's proposed amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of the Reserves and Modernisation) Bill 2000. The legislation is fundamentally important to our nation and to the ability of our Defence Force to provide appropriate defence capabilities. It simplifies existing call-out procedures, which is important, and provides an efficient and flexible system which will permit the Defence Force to operate in all circumstances as an integrated total force.The opposition's claim that the government does not have a coherent policy on the expected contribution of reservists and reserve units to our national defence effort is totally without substance. The government's defence white paper, released this week, articulates a very clear national defence policy and strategy, in which our reservists will play an integral role. You only have to glance at any of the editorials or commentaries from defence writers all around Australia to see how they saw the defence white paper. As I know from having spoken to many people since the announcement by the Prime Minister, it has been extremely well received through all levels of the community.As has been stated repeatedly in this House and in the public forum, the extant role of the Australian Defence Force reserves is one principally for the mobilisation and expansion of the Australian Defence Force in circumstances related to the defence of Australia. However, until now, governments have been constrained in using reserves as part of the total ADF force in support of our national interests. These bills will permit the full integration of the reserve components into the total force structure, enabling the government to access the full potential of the Australian Defence Force. The reserve will be able to take on roles and tasks that are essential to ensure the Australian Defence Force's ability to generate appropriate capabilities, to deliver these capabilities where and when required and to sustain them over time. As to the opposition's request to reintroduce defence leave for reservists as an allowable award matter, appropriate comprehensive protection for the management of reservists is provided under defence legislation. There is simply no need for reservists to be covered by separate industrial legislation.Contrary to Labor's claim that the Army's common induction training has been a disastrous failure, which I have often heard the member for Reid say, it has been a great success. Full-time soldier standards have been maintained, while part-time recruit standards have been improved markedly. Common induction training provides a firm and common base for initial employment within units and a consistent entry standard, which is important, for further specialised training for all soldiers. The best example of the success of the common induction training concept and of its practical value is that the Army was able to quickly bring a significant number of common induction training trained part-time soldiers into full-time service for operations in East Timor. Quite simply, without the common base provided by common induction training this option would just not have been available. On the question of recruiting, I again turn to our new defence white paper. The government accepts that a strong Australian economy has created a very competitive recruitment market. But the government and Defence are tackling this challenge to meet the Australian Defence Force's future personnel needs—and it is only this government that is going to be able to meet this challenge. The government is committed to introducing measures to recruit and retain high quality personnel, including reservists, to ensure that the strategic development of the Australian Defence Force that is proposed in the white paper is possible.In terms of the opposition's concerns about anomalies in reserve pay, they should be aware that reserve pay is based, industrially, on qualifications, skills and conditions required for employment and is directly linked to the permanent force pay and allowance rates set by the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal. There are no known pay condition anomalies for reservists. Further, contrary to the opposition's claims, the government has not mismanaged the provisions of training and other support to reservists. Indeed, by enabling this legislation and thereby the introduction of categories of service directly related to capability and readiness, we will be better able to provide appropriate training and equipment at the right time and at the right frequency to ensure appropriate capability outcomes.In relation to the opposition's concerns about funding for these initiatives, the opposition should be aware that the government announced a one-off supplementation to Defence of $20 million as part of the current budget, and I hope that allays their concerns in relation to the funding issue. As reserves further contribute to the capability of the Australian Defence Force in the future, there will be a requirement to provide adequate funding to ensure the provision of that capability. This funding consideration will be a central part of the planning considerations by Defence.I take exception to the opposition's claim that the government failed to consult adequately with relevant stakeholder groups in developing these initiatives. I specifically directed Defence to engage in a very broad based consultation program. To give the House some idea of the extent of these consultations, I will list some of the organisations consulted, and I thank these organisations for their cooperation through that consultation process. They include the national and state levels of the Defence Reserves Support Committee; the national and state levels of the Returned and Services League; the national CEO of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Mr Mark Paterson; the Queensland Chamber of Commerce and Industry; the Business Council of Australia; and the Australian Industry Group. I stress that this is not an exhaustive list, but it indicates the level of consultation that took place in the development of the legislation and its acceptance by employers and industry groups all around Australia. At the grassroots level, consultation was undertaken in numerous locations in Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria. In each location, representatives from government, large, medium and small businesses, self-employed reservists, unemployed reservists, and students were involved. In addition, presentations on these proposals were provided to key stakeholders and interest groups when they requested them. Indeed, I am advised that the member for Reid, the opposition spokesman for defence personnel, attended the presentation of the national conference of the Defence Reserves Association convened in Sydney in July this year. I, too, attended this presentation, but I arrived after the shadow minister had left the conference. I provided the closing remarks, so I addressed that consultative group, which is a very important organisation, as well. I stress that the contribution of our reserves is vital, and this legislation would be of fundamental benefit to reservists and also, importantly, their families, their employers and the Australian Defence Force. I inform those gathered that this government was committed to achieving a genuine enhancement to the reserves. Therefore, I reject the opposition's proposed amendment to the motion for the second reading. Criticism levelled at the government by the opposition on defence matters over the course of the debate has been without foundation. The government's commitment to the defence of Australia and the future of the Australian Defence Force is comprehensively realised in the Defence white paper. The paper establishes a historic and long overdue benchmark for the development of the Australian Defence Force, of which the reserves are an integral part.However, during the extensive consultation process I have previously outlined I recognised that issues were raised about elements of the bill, specifically, the range of circumstances under which reserves may be called out. As a result of these concerns, the government will move its own amendment to the Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of the Reserves and Modernisation) Bill 2000 to more clearly define the circumstances under which reserves can be called out. The proposed amendment will clarify the circumstances when reserves may be called out and will make it clear that it is only in the circumstances mentioned that reserves can be called out. I believe that we will have bipartisan support for this legislation which will ensure that reserves are part of a modern, readily deployable Australian Defence Force. I therefore thank the opposition for its contribution and support for the government's historic initiatives.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.23806Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.05:25:0023806Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, and I hand a signed copy to the Clerk. I move:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 16 to 21), omit subsection (2), substitute:Circumstances required for call out (2) However, the Governor-General may only make an order in circumstances (whether within or outside Australia) involving any one or more of the following: (a) war or warlike operations; (b) defence emergency; (c) defence preparation; (d) peacekeeping or peace enforcement; (e) assistance to Commonwealth, State, Territory or foreign government authorities and agencies in matters involving Australia's national security or affecting Australian defence interests; (f) support to community activities of national or international significance; (g) civil aid, humanitarian assistance, medical or civil emergency or disaster relief.05:27:0023806Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Before dealing with the question of call-outs, could I briefly note that the contribution of the minister was essentially to do with the question of common induction training—that it is supposedly a tremendous success, but that everything else is going to be solved in the future by the Defence white paper. That is obviously a very implicit admission that all is not well on the question of recruitment and other parts of his general performance. I rise to indicate that the opposition does not oppose the amendment proposed by the government to clause 1 of schedule 1 of the Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of the Reserves and Modernisation) Bill 2000. The clause expands the circumstances in which reservists can be called out for compulsory full-time service. In speaking to the amendment, I would like to refer briefly to the history of the call-out provision. Initially, the reserve could only be called out in time of war, and then only for service within Australia. In 1964, this was extended to call-out in time of a defence emergency, and for service outside Australia. In 1987, the then Labor government, responding to the Dibb report, legislated to provide for a full-time limited call-out of reserves in situations short of a defence emergency where it was considered `desirable to do so for the defence of Australia'. I note that the reserves have never been called out at any time since 1945. To the extent that any reservists have served overseas, such as during the current East Timor deployment, they have done so purely on a voluntary, individual basis, filling gaps in regular army units. This situation has limited the ability of reserve units to contribute to the total range of functions that the modern Defence Force performs. It has also meant that reservists who went to East Timor were not adequately protected in terms of their civilian employment, studies and so on. On 22 December last year, a year ago, the Minister for Defence, Mr Moore, announced that cabinet had agreed to legislate to enable the call out of reserve forces `for continuous, full-time service, in roles that include combat, peace enforcement and keeping, humanitarian, civil aid and disaster relief'.The opposition was happy to support that position, but the reality of the amendment that we are actually considering is that the call-out provisions in the bill, produced on 9 November, go well beyond what the minister announced last December to the Australian people. Whereas the minister's announcement was quite precise about the additional circumstances in which call-out could occur, the bill as presented proposed that call-out could occur in circumstances that included, but were not limited to, war, defence emergency, defence preparation, peacekeeping, peace enforcement, civil aid, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. Clearly, this original formulation presented difficulties to the opposition. We have indicated to the government from the outset our willingness to help ensure the timely passage of both bills notwithstanding reservations about some aspects. Yet we consider it undesirable for the parliament to give the executive a blank cheque on call-out by not prescribing all the circumstances in which call-out could occur or by not prescribing more detailed procedural requirements than the government envisaged. If the attitude taken towards legislative permission for call-out were too wide-ranging and too cavalier, the work situation for reserves would be greatly impaired; equally, we would go through the kind of debate we had in the Australian community on a previous defence bill some months ago when large sections of the Australian community had grave concerns about abuse.I am pleased that the government was willing to reconsider the draft call-out provisions in view of Labor's concerns by adding some additional circumstances. Importantly, however, the amendment now defines all the circumstances in which call-out can occur. They are no longer just examples. I stress that this is the government's amendment. We believe it represents a serious effort to accommodate concerns about the extent of the call-out power, which has significant potential implications for employers and reservists and their families. On that basis we will not oppose the change. We trust that the extended provision will be used cautiously so as to not cause unnecessary disruption or involve the reserve in avoidable controversy.Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.23807Bill (on motion by Mr Bruce Scott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills23808R117523808Consideration resumed from 9 November 2000, on motion by Mr Bruce Scott:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.23808Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Bruce Scott) read a third time.Questions to the Speaker2380805:34:0023808SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—For the information of honourable members I present a statement which addresses a number of questions directed to me in recent weeks. Given the lateness, or perhaps one should say earliness, of the hour, and the amount of business already undertaken at this sitting, I do not propose to deliver the statement in full. The terms of the statement will be incorporated in Hansard.Matters relating to Question TimeOn 8 November the Prime Minister asked me to consider the matter of imputations against a Minister being made in the course of asking a question. The Manager of Opposition Business asked me to also consider imputations included in answers. I propose to respond to these issues and some unrelated questions put to me in recent weeks in the course of this answer.ImputationsQuestionsThere are a number of standing orders and practices that relate to imputations.Standing order 144 specifically provides that questions should not contain imputations. House practice is that questions should not attribute motives. Standing order 153 provides that questions shall not be asked which reflect on or are critical of the character or conduct of those persons whose conduct may only be challenged on a substantive motion. Standing order 76 states that all imputations of improper motives and all personal reflections on Members shall be considered highly disorderly.This has been a matter that has received consideration by the House over a lengthy period. The Standing Committee on Procedure reported in November 1986 on Standing orders and practices which govern the conduct of question time. The report indicated that the committee had received no comment on or proposals regarding the prohibition of questions reflecting on or critical of those persons whose conduct may only be challenged on a substantive motion. The committee recommended the continuation of the prohibition on imputations and the amendment of the standing orders so that questions should not contain discreditable references to the House or any of its members or any offensive or unparliamentary expressions. No action occurred in relation to this recommendation.I have had examined instances where questions were the subject of interruption on the grounds that they contained an imputation. Many categories of imputation emerged, including:· Abusing policies or the political process for personal or political gain· Misuse of taxpayers' money for personal or political gain· Ministerial incompetence or negligence· Inappropriate private interests· Dissembling, or misleading in a context that suggests a deliberate action· Being a party to a cover-up.A few examples over almost ten years indicate the variety of circumstances which have been considered:· On 4 November 1992 the then Leader of the House took a point of order that the selective release of documentation was an imputation and the then Speaker subsequently asked that words imputing a cover up be deleted. · On 6 March 1991 the then Leader of the House took a point of order that the use of the environment as a political football was an imputation. This was upheld. · On 16 November 1993 objection was taken to an alleged imputation that staff were directed to furniture dealers who had a pecuniary benefit or relation with the Prime Minister. The Member withdrew the implication but the question was repeated and answered. · On 8 March 1995 the Prime Minister took objection to questioning of a minister's competence in the matter of his ministerial responsibility. The questioner was offered the opportunity to rephrase the question. · More recently in March 1998 the then Speaker ordered the withdrawal of a phrase of 'web of deceit' as an imputation. In the period of my Speakership I have acted on a number of occasions where I felt there was a distinct imputation directed at a Member. The instances where I have intervened include: · a suggestion that the Prime Minister had become involved in the appointing of a Chair of a parliamentary committee for political advantage (8 November 2000)· an allegation of fraudulent behaviour (21 October 2000),· imputations and inferences of an individual's overall ministerial incompetence (18 October 1999) and negligence (8 March 2000) and being two-faced (5 June 2000). By the same token, I have allowed to stand a suggestion that a minister made a false claim on a radio station, as it did not attribute any more improper motive than I had heard in many questions (31 May 2000). I have also stated that few questions would survive if rules relating to argument, inference or imputation were strictly applied (26 November 1998). On the day on which the Prime Minister and the Manager of Opposition Business addressed their questions to me, a question was asked whether a government funding system was a way for a Minister to make a personal financial contribution to a school. On that occasion, I felt that the question was a borderline case, and said that it was undesirably framed. It could equally have been ruled out of order. However, as I will explain subsequently, this would have denied the Minister the opportunity to respond to the undesirably-framed question. The allegation would have been made, but would not have been responded to.ImputationsAnswers etc.As the Manager of Opposition Business indicated, imputations do not only occur in the asking of questions, although there are specific standing orders relating to questions. Imputations have been called upon to be withdrawn in answers to questions, in interjections and in general debate. Where an attack of a personal nature has been made I have sought withdrawal - see for example 10 March 1999 (separate allegations of fraudulent behaviour and lying), 17 February 2000 ('hypocrites') 7 March 2000 (insobriety), 31 May 2000 ('you little grub') and 31 August 2000 ('boofer'). I have required withdrawals from Ministers for inappropriate interjections, for example on 28 August and 8 November 2000. I have also required Ministers to withdraw imputations against other Members during the course of an answer. For example on 23 March 1999 I required a Minister to withdraw an allegation that an Opposition Member was taking performance-enhancing drugs and on 6 June 2000 of making a deliberate misrepresentation to the Parliament. I have required the withdrawal of a reference to a Member by use of an ironic diminutive first name (11 May 2000). An implication of not honouring one's word (1 September 1999), doing the right thing for a change (31 March 1999) and peddling lies (16 August 2000) were required to be withdrawn. I frequently encourage Ministers to exercise restraint.However, as I indicated to the House on 8 November many questions asked in the House convey an element of imputation. Many answers contain a similar element. An over zealous approach in the application of House practice and standing orders would result in an extremely truncated question time. Question Time, both in the asking and answering of questions, is in the Australian context a lively period of political thrust and response. My general attitude is not to intervene where the imputation is directed to a difference in philosophy or viewpoint. Consequently, there are occasional references to a Member being more sympathetic to industrial labour organisations or business interests. I do not believe these references require intervention unless a Member appeals to me accordingly, and I am convinced by the context. I am also mindful that to rule a question out of order on the grounds of imputation permits an allegation to be made, but not the response to the allegation. My general attitude is to allow questions to be asked unless the attribution of personal motive is such that it cannot be ignored, even if no point of order is raised in relation to it.Other practicesI have also taken the opportunity to reflect on some other practices in Question Time. One such practice is that a questioner must vouch for the accuracy of any report which is referred to in a question, not simply the accuracy of the reference to it. Many questions are asked in the House in which the questioner could vouch for the appearance of a report, but would not wish to subscribe to its substance. In other than special circumstances, I would not seek to impose a strict application of past practice. Members will be also aware that I have continued the practice of Speaker Sinclair of extending the opportunity to seek leave to present a paper following the completion of an answer. This is also contrary to past practice which indicated that a Member having received the call (usually on a point of order) could not seek leave to present a document. I propose to continue the practice I have adopted. PreamblesMembers also raise with me from time to time the practice of Members prefacing a question with a somewhat lengthy preamble. A study of a number of question time has also provided the opportunity to look at previous instances of lengthy introduction to questions. An examination of the records from 1990 to 1996 reveal examples of prefaces by then Opposition members of 123 words, 54 words, 81 words, 84 words, 89 words, 99 words and 143 words. While I am prepared to tolerate short introductions some occasions, as a general rule the use of prefaces is to be avoided. I will continue to apply the rule strictly that a Member who receives the call to ask a question is at risk of losing the call if a comment is made relating to an answer just completed or to some other matter extraneous to the question to be asked.Rhetorical questions There appears to be a growing practice in the House for questions to be asked which suggest their own answer. It does not appear to me to be the main purpose of Question Time for a series of facts to be advanced in the form of a question or questions. I will keep a close watch on this development. For the moment, I remind Members that if a series of quasi-rhetorical questions is advanced, culminating in a short specific question, it is not in order subsequently to raise a point of order directed at relevance on the short concluding question only. If a Member's question is permitted to proceed to an answer, the scope of relevance is widened to the whole content of the question. I will not entertain points of order on the grounds of relevance directed only to a specific concluding question. Specific mattersOn 6 December the Member for Kingston asked me about events that had occurred in connection with a request he had made of the Treasurer on 6 November to table the full transcript of a radio interview given by the Member for Kingston. At the time, I indicated I would examine the matter further and follow it up as the standing orders require. I have had the matter examined, and the Hansard tape and transcript are inconclusive. I do not intend to take any further action in relation to the matter. Should any Member seek to require the production of any document, there are procedures of the House available to Members.On 7 December, the Member for Griffith asked me about a question on notice forwarded on his behalf electronically on 6 December. I am advised that the text of a question despatched by e-mail from Mr Rudd's office on 6 December was time-stamped at 7.33pm. The normal cut-off time for the receipt of the text of questions is 4pm. This is necessary so that the Notice Paper, which is of course vital to the sitting of the House, can be prepared and printed for the next day's sitting. The Table Office tries to be accommodating in the preparation of the last Notice Paper of the year, and did so on the evening of 6 December, finalising the questions section of the Notice Paper at about 6pm. Given the other volume of Notice Paper work, it was not possible to extend the deadline further and include the late question.Yirrkala Bark PetitionsFinally, I advise the House that on 7 December, the member for the Northern Territory asked whether I had had an opportunity to review arrangements regarding the Yirrkala bark petitions, following his question to me of 12 October 2000. As the House may recall, the Yirrkala bark petitions are part of the formal records of the House, and requests to reproduce these images have been dealt with in accordance with standing orders and established House practice. The petitions are also of great significance to the Yirrkala community, and utmost care has always been taken to deal with them in an appropriate manner.In May, in response to a question from the Member for the Northern Territory, I restated the long standing practice for dealing with requests to reproduce the images. Given the special importance of the petitions to the Yirrkala community, I further indicated that the community henceforth would be informed, on a regular basis, of such requests. I also referred the issue of copyright to the Attorney-General.Legal advice received from the Attorney-General in October suggests that copyright may subsist in the text and images of the petitions. For this reason, and given the unique nature of the petitions, I have now directed that, in addition to going through the normal House channels, those seeking to use the images will be advised that they may also wish to contact the Yirrkala community before proceeding. I have sought further legal advice on the implications of the October legal opinion, for other papers and documents involved in the day to day work of the house. I had hoped to be able to give a comprehensive response to the Member for the Northern Territory, but that legal advice is not yet available. I expect to be able to advise the House of the results of that request early next year.Bills23811R89023811Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate insists upon its amendment No. 1 disagreed to by the House and desires the reconsideration of the bill by the House in respect of the amendment.Ordered that the message be taken into consideration forthwith.05:35:0023811Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—I move: That the House insists on disagreeing to Senate amendment No. 1 insisted on by the Senate, and the Government amendment be made in place of Senate amendment No. 1.Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 9), after item 15, insert:15A Section 195-1 (at the end of subparagraph) (a)(i) of the definition of first aid or life saving courses)Add “including personal aquatic survival skills but not including swimming lessons”.The government indicated earlier this morning that it would not support the Democrat and Labor sponsored amendment to the bill concerning an expansion of the GST-free treatment of first-aid and lifesaving which would have had a scope so wide that it would have included swimming lessons. This would have gone beyond the policy intent of the government and beyond the agreement between the government and the Democrats whereby lifesaving and similar courses became GST free. It would have resulted in some swimming lessons being GST free and others being taxable. The government also opposed the amendment because, under the terms of the intergovernmental agreement on the reform of Commonwealth-state financial relations, which is a schedule to the A New Tax System Commonwealth-State Financial Arrangements Act 1999, the Commonwealth has to seek the agreement of the states and territories before making any changes to the GST base. This is an important bill, however, which contains many measures which are beneficial to taxpayers. The government has therefore agreed to amend the Democrat proposal so that it fits more closely the policy intent of the GST-free treatment of lifesaving and similar courses. The new amendment is designed to allow survival skills taught by the Royal Lifesaving Society and the Surf Lifesaving Society, but not including their specific swimming lessons, to be GST free. As this new amendment is a clarification of the existing policy intent the Commonwealth does not consider state agreement necessary.05:38:0023811Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—We note at approximately 5.40 a.m. that the government and the Democrats appear to have arrived at an agreement concerning the amendment in dispute in relation to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 8) 2000 which clearly puts the Labor Party in a position where we have a limited capacity to insist on our own view in relation to this. But, to put our view on the record nevertheless, we would have preferred to see the government support the original amendment. We would have preferred to see the Democrats stick with the proposition which indeed they themselves moved, and so it is our position that the government's first motion should not be supported, and that is that the original proposition, the original amendment made by the Senate which would include personal aquatic survival skills ought to be the one that is proceeded with because we think it better reflects the importance of providing access to aquatic safety classes.Having said that, it is not our intention to vote against the amendment which has just been circulated. We have not had the opportunity to consider it, much less engage in consultation with anybody at this hour. We put the government on notice that, if it turns out that excluding swimming lessons—in the way that this amendment will—leads to problems because the GST applies to these swimming lessons, it is clearly an issue we will seek to revisit at a later time once we have had the opportunity to see what impact this amendment has in practice. We are pleased that the government has gone some way on this matter. Although it has been a very long night, if this leads to some benefit in terms of aquatic safety, it will have been time well spent. As we come into summer it is important that aquatic safety is not prejudiced by the implementation of GST. But we certainly reserve the right to monitor this amendment as it is implemented and express our reservations about the fact that the government and the Democrats are now proposing to exclude swimming lessons from the revised amendments. As I indicated, we are not supporting the government's first proposition, but we are not going to oppose the amendment which they have just circulated.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills23812S276Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the amendments made by the House.Bills23812The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Gene Technology (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2000Gene Technology (Licence Charges) Bill 2000Bills23812R106923812Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments— (1) Clause 4, page 2 (after line 13), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) provides that where there are threats of serious or irreversible environmental damage, a lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation; and(2) Clause 10, page 5 (lines 25 and 26), omit the definition of Consultative Group, substitute:Consultative Committee means the Gene Technology Community Consultative Committee established by section 106.(3) Clause 10, page 7 (lines 18 to 22), omit the definition of Gene Technology Agreement, substitute:Gene Technology Agreement means the Gene Technology Agreement made for the purposes of this Act between the Commonwealth and at least 4 States, as in force from time to time.(4) Clause 17, page 14 (line 27), omit “Consultative Group”, substitute “Consultative Committee”.(5) Clause 21, page 16 (after line 27), after paragraph (a), insert: (aa) recognising areas, if any, designated under State law for the purpose of preserving the identity of one or both of the following: (i) GM crops; (ii) non-GM crops; for marketing purposes;(6) Clause 22, page 17 (line 19), omit “Consultative Group”, substitute “Consultative Committee”.(7) Clause 24, page 18 (line 16), omit “Consultative Group”, substitute “Consultative Committee”.(8) Clause 32, page 23 (lines 20 and 21), omit “a fine of not more than whichever of the following amounts applies”, substitute “whichever of the following applies”.(9) Clause 32, page 23 (line 22), before “2,000”, insert “imprisonment for 5 years or”.(10) Clause 32, page 23 (line 23), before “500”, insert “imprisonment for 2 years or”.(11) Clause 34, page 25 (lines 10 and 11), omit “a fine of not more than whichever of the following amounts applies”, substitute “whichever of the following applies”. (12) Clause 34, page 25 (line 12), before “2,000”, insert “imprisonment for 5 years or”.(13) Clause 34, page 25 (line 13), before “500”, insert “imprisonment for 2 years or”.(14) Clause 34, page 25 (after line 14), at the end of the clause, add: (4) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is guilty of a separate offence in respect of each day (including the day of a conviction for the offence or any later day) on which the person is guilty of the offence.(15) Clause 62, page 43 (after line 9), at the end of the clause, add: (3) Licence conditions may also include conditions requiring the licence holder to be adequately insured against any loss, damage, or injury that may be caused to human health, property or the environment by the licensed dealing.(16) Clause 78, page 53 (lines 14 to 16), omit subclause (1), substitute: (1) The Regulator may, by writing, determine that a dealing with a GMO is to be included on the GMO Register if the Regulator is satisfied that: (a) the dealing is, or has been, authorised by a GMO licence; or (b) the GMO concerned: (i) is a GM product; and (ii) is a genetically modified organism only because of regulations made under paragraph (c) of the definition of genetically modified organism.(17) Part 8, page 64 (line 2) to page 75 (line 5), omit “Consultative Group” (wherever occurring), substitute “Consultative Committee”.(18) Clause 100, page 66 (after line 18), after subclause (7), insert: (7A) The Minister must ensure that the Committee includes the following members: (a) a person who is a member of the Consultative Committee; (b) a person who is a member of the Ethics Committee.The Minister is not required to be satisfied that these persons have skills or experience in an area mentioned in subsection (5).(19) Clause 107, page 69 (after line 10), before paragraph (a), insert: (aa) matters of general concern identified by the Regulator in relation to applications made under this Act;(20) Page 71 (after line 26), at the end of Division 3, add:110A Subcommittees (1) The Consultative Committee may, with the Regulator's consent, establish subcommittees to assist in the performance of its functions. (2) The regulations may prescribe matters relating to the constitution and operation of subcommittees.(21) Clause 118, page 77 (after line 11), at the end of the clause, add: (5) The Governor-General must not appoint a person as the Regulator if, at any time during the period of 2 years immediately before the proposed period of appointment, the person was employed by a body corporate whose primary commercial activity relates directly to the development and implementation of gene technologies. (6) The Governor-General must not appoint a person as the Regulator if the person has a pecuniary interest in a body corporate whose primary commercial activity relates directly to the development and implementation of gene technologies.(22) Page 85 (after line 10), after clause 136, insert:136A Quarterly reports (1) As soon as practicable after the end of each quarter, the Regulator must prepare and give to the Minister a report on the operations of the Regulator during that quarter. (2) The report must include information about the following: (a) GMO licences issued during the quarter; (b) any breaches of conditions of a GMO licence that have come to the Regulator's attention during the quarter; (c) auditing and monitoring of dealings with GMOs under this Act by the Regulator or an inspector during the quarter.Note: Auditing and monitoring may include spot checks. (3) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be laid before each House of the Parliament within 15 sitting days of the day on which the report was given to the Minister. (4) In this section:quarter means a period of 3 months beginning on 1 January, 1 April, 1 July or 1 October of any year. (23) Clause 178, page 116 (line 12), at the end of the clause, add: ; (e) review of the operation of the Act.(24) Page 119 (after line 26), at the end of Division 2, add:183A Extended standing for judicial review (1) This section extends (and does not limit) the meaning of the term person aggrieved in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 for the purposes of the application of that Act in relation to: (a) a decision made under this Act or the regulations; or (b) a failure to make a decision under this Act or the regulations; or (c) conduct engaged in for the purpose of making a decision under this Act or the regulations. (2) A State is taken to be a person aggrieved by the decision, failure or conduct. (3) A term (except person aggrieved) used in this section and in the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 has the same meaning in this section as it has in that Act.(25) Clause 185, page 120 (after line 28), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The Regulator must refuse to declare that information is confidential commercial information if the information relates to one or more locations at which field trials involving GMOs are occurring, or are proposed to occur, unless the Regulator is satisfied that significant damage to the health and safety of people, the environment or property would be likely to occur if the locations were disclosed.Note: This means that, in general, information about sites where dealings with GMOs are occurring will be required to be disclosed under sections 54 and 138, unless the Regulator is satisfied that disclosure would involve significant risks to health and safety.(26) Clause 185, page 120 (after line 30), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) If: (a) the Regulator declares that particular information is confidential commercial information; and (b) the information relates to one or more locations at which field trials involving GMOs are occurring, or are proposed to occur;the Regulator must make publicly available a statement of reasons for the making of the declaration, including, but not limited to: (c) the reasons why the Regulator was satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1); and (d) the reasons why the Regulator was not satisfied under subsection (2) that the public interest in disclosure of the information outweighed the prejudice that the disclosure would cause; and (e) the reasons why the Regulator was satisfied under subsection (2A) that significant damage to the health and safety of people, the environment or property would be likely to occur if the locations were disclosed.(27) Page 127 (after line 23), after clause 192, insert:192A Interference with dealings with GMOs (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person engages in conduct; and (b) the conduct: (i) results in damage to, destruction of, or interference with, premises at which dealings with GMOs are being undertaken; or (ii) involves damaging, destroying, or interfering with, a thing at, or removing a thing from, such premises; and (c) the owner or occupier of the premises, or the owner of the thing (as the case requires), has not consented to the conduct; and (d) in engaging in the conduct, the person intends to prevent or hinder authorised GMO dealings that are being undertaken at the premises or facility; and (e) the person knows, or is reckless as to, the matters mentioned in paragraphs (b) and (c).Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 120 penalty units.Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2) In this section:authorised GMO dealings, in relation to premises or a facility, means dealings with GMOs being undertaken at the premises or facility: (a) that are authorised to be undertaken at the premises or facility by a GMO licence; or (b) that are notifiable low risk dealings; or (c) that are exempt dealings; or (d) that are deregulated GMO dealings.(28) Page 127 (after line 23), after clause 192, insert:192B Cloning of human beings is prohibited (1) A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person engages in conduct; and (b) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, the conduct will result in the cloning of a whole human being.Maximum penalty: 2,000 penalty units or imprisonment for 10 years.Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility. (2) In this section:cloning of awhole human being means the use of technology for the purpose of producing, from one original, a duplicate or descendant that is, or duplicates or descendants that are, genetically identical to the original.(29) Page 127 (after line 23), after clause 192, insert:192C Certain experiments involving animal eggs prohibited A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person engages in conduct; and (b) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, the conduct involves carrying out experiments or research that involves putting human cells, or a combination of human cells and animal cells, into animal eggs.Maximum penalty: 2,000 penalty units or imprisonment for 10 years.Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(30) Page 127 (after line 23), after clause 192, insert:192D Certain experiments involving putting human and animal cells into a human uterus prohibited A person is guilty of an offence if: (a) the person engages in conduct; and (b) the person knows that, or is reckless as to whether, the conduct involves carrying out experiments or research that involves putting a combination of human cells and animal cells into a human uterus.Maximum penalty: 2,000 penalty units or imprisonment for 10 years.Note: Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code sets out the general principles of criminal responsibility.(31) Page 127 (after line 31), at the end of the bill, add:194 Review of operation of Act (1) The Ministerial Council must cause an independent review of the operation of this Act, including the structure of the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator, to be undertaken as soon as possible after the fourth anniversary of the commencement of this Act. (2) A person who undertakes such a review must give the Ministerial Council a written report of the review. (3) The Minister, on behalf of the Ministerial Council, must cause a copy of the report of the review to be tabled in each House of the Parliament within 12 months after the fourth anniversary of the commencement of this Act. (4) In this section:independent review means a review undertaken by persons who: (a) in the opinion of a majority of the Ministerial Council possess appropriate qualifications to undertake the review; and (b) include one or more persons who are not employed by the Commonwealth or a Commonwealth authority.05:43:0023816Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to.The Gene Technology Bill 2000 has been a very lengthy piece of legislation. It has involved extensive negotiation between state and territory governments, and it has involved extensive negotiation with the opposition. Two principal areas of amendment are the incorporation of the precautionary principle in the bill and cost recovery. The bill we have ended up with is a better piece of legislation and is a highly significant piece of legislation for this House to consider. It is quite an achievement to get six states and two territories on board for one national piece of legislation. I should put on the record my thanks to the member for Bruce—occasionally in this place you can work together to create a good outcome.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—You've just wrecked his career.8E4Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE—I probably have wrecked his career. Nonetheless, we have put an enormous amount of effort in together to try and come up with something good, and I think his involvement in this should be acknowledged.05:44:0023816Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I will be relatively brief, given the time of morning. I will make a couple of brief points on the Gene Technology Bill 2000 and the debate that has occurred around it. I concur with the Minister for Health and Aged Care that this is very important legislation. It sets up the regulatory regime around gene technology in the future for this country. It has been a long time in gestation and I suppose here, at this early hour of the morning, we see the birth. I would like to focus on the recommendations that came out of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report because of some comments that have been made publicly on that by a range of different community groups.There were 33 recommendations in the Senate report. Of those seven did not require action under this legislation; 26 did. Of those recommendations, in terms of the amendments moved by the Labor Party and supported by the government, some 10 recommendations have been accepted in full; eight have been substantially addressed; four addressed in part; and four amendments have not been accepted, although in our view two of those no longer require action. We are in a situation where two amendments in relation to a statutory authority proposal and also third party appeal rights were rejected by the government. I am very sorry that that occurred, because I do not think it was necessary. If these amendments had been passed they would have improved the bill. The government in earlier times said that this legislative system was world's best practice, and I think that the amendments that have come through from the process in the Senate make it world better practice. That is certainly something that we can look to the future as being a basis for a regime which, hopefully, we will find works well.What we tried to do is improve transparency and accountability in this regime, because I remain concerned about developments that could occur in this field. I think the most important thing we can do is ensure that as much information as possible is available publicly to ensure that community groups and those interested in this particular area are able to see what the regulator is doing and be aware of developments as they occur within the system. I would also like to put on the record that the issue for the future will be the question of monitoring. I would like to put industry and community groups on notice that there is a lot of responsibility involved with the development of this technology. There are some great opportunities for this country but there are also some issues that have to be addressed in the future. Beyond that there also is a range of ethical issues which came up in some of the debate in the Senate on this legislation. I think the minister would certainly agree that those issues will need to be addressed. We certainly stand here today prepared to work together and look towards what can be done with what are some very difficult issues.I would like to take this opportunity to thank several people for the work that they were able to do on this bill, including Anita Hirschhorn from my staff. Mike Forshaw and Rose Crowley from the Senate certainly did some good work and have helped develop a much better proposal. There are a range of other issues I would like to get into but, frankly, I am too tired. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.House adjourned at 5.48 a.m. (Friday) until Tuesday, 6 February 2001, at 2.00 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this sitting.—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members238192381909:40:0023819Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I rise today to talk about the success of the Walk for Reconciliation through the streets of Melbourne on Sunday. I proudly joined colleagues from this and other places, members of my staff, friends, schoolchildren, older persons and younger persons, to walk for this important cause. My daughter, Madeleine, came along to her first protest rally. Although she did not realise why she was being pushed in a pram alongside 300,000 people, it is my hope that as she gets older she will be proud and pleased to have been a small part of this significant event.There was a vox pop listing in the Age on Sunday of the people who were there, but it did not list all the federal members of parliament who attended. For the record, Burke, Crean, Danby, Gillard, Griffin, Jenkins, Macklin, McMullan, Roxon, Tanner, Thomson, Zahra, Ray, Carr, O'Keefe and Sercombe were all present from the federal Australian Labor Party. Although it was noted that Mr Costello was there, the ALP's longstanding commitment to this issue of reconciliation did not shine through.It struck me, while walking near the shrine, that whilst we honour those who have fallen in past conflicts, there is no memorial honouring the many thousands of indigenous people who have died from either illness or violence associated with white settlement. I think it is disappointing that, for an issue that touches the psyche of the nation and strikes a chord in the hearts of ordinary people, we have a Prime Minister who is incapable of handling this issue with the compassion and understanding that it so desperately deserves. It is a shame that during the Olympics the only negative publicity that the world press could find was this country's record on its treatment of indigenous people. If it was so easy for a rock band at the closing ceremony to say sorry, why can't our Prime Minister do so as well?On Sunday, it was the ordinary people who said sorry. It was the mums, dads, grandparents, children and teenagers who stood up for something they believed in so passionately. It was recognition of the fact that we have, as a society and nation, committed past injustices to our indigenous population and that we now find such action utterly inexcusable and wrong. There is no greater test of the maturity of a nation than how it deals with its past wrongs. We have seen apologies from the Canadian government to their indigenous people and, of course, most famously, the recent apology issued by Pope John Paul II. But there is still no apology from the Australian government. The Prime Minister's reluctance to say sorry appears to be driven by his fears that an apology will encourage legal claims and his earnest belief that he is supported by the opinion polls. He may even be right. I doubt it, though, having seen the hundreds of thousands who were present on Sunday. Australians have a right to expect their government to act in the national interest and to do what is right, even if it is not always popular. All indigenous Australians are asking for is an acknowledgment of past wrongs, a commitment to fixing the hideous social problems that bedevil Aboriginal people and a genuine attempt to advance the cause of reconciliation. I attended the launch of the report by the Council for Reconciliation. Flicking through it, I see the draft Reconciliation Bill 2001. It is truly my hope that we see this bill presented in the House during this term of parliament. (Time expired)2382009:43:0023820Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—Two weeks ago, the children of grades 3, 4, 5 and 6 at Sassafras Primary School in my electorate invited a number of state officials and me to visit their school, which is in the middle of the Dandenong Ranges, on the very edge of Sherbrooke Forest, in order to see an environmental project that they had undertaken. Essentially, they decided that they needed to try to help their forest, so they walked through the forest and down Sassafras Creek and tried to figure out what the worst problem was. It turned out that they had a water problem because VicRoads had built a drain when they put in kerb and channel on the Mount Dandenong Tourist Road. The drain had redirected water down the hill, headed down to Sassafras Creek, through this magnificent rainforest area, which has tree ferns and beautiful mountain ash.The first thing they did, looking at the line where the run-off goes, was to put in litter traps and try to catch the litter. They did find a lot of litter—plastic, rubber, milk cartons, tin cans, and so forth. They put chicken wire on metal stakes through this run-off area. They quickly discovered that the force of the water coming down the hill in a big storm was tearing apart their minor infrastructure. The erosion was so bad that the gully caused by the run-off was up to 2.5 metres deep, undercutting the trees, with trees falling over and dying, and magnificent tree ferns, some over 100 years old, falling over onto the forest floor. So I was invited along, together with the following: the shire environmental manager; a local councillor; representatives from VicRoads, Melbourne Water and Parks Victoria; an environmentalist; a regional science consultant; and a reporter from the Trader, Merrin Williams. The children built models of the creek bed, the run-off and the litter traps, drew maps and contour maps, and outlined the problem to us. They asked us, as adults, to ask them questions and to answer questions for them to help them with the problem which they had found, because it was beyond their ability to address all on their own. At the end of the very enjoyable 2½ hours and an arduous climb down the hill and back up the hill, I voted. I decided it had to be kids versus adults. Mr Deputy Speaker, you will be pleased to know that it was kids 10, adults zero. Congratulations to grades 3, 4, 5 and 6 from Sassafras Primary School. (Time expired)2382009:46:0023820Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I have received a letter from St Raphael's Centre for German Speaking Catholics in my electorate regarding the restoration of St Patrick's Cathedral, Parramatta, which was destroyed by fire in February 1996. I would like to read part of that letter. It states:During our discussions we were informed that the Federal Government would not be contributing any funds towards this project. While the Federal Government has granted tax deductibility status to donations made to the St Patrick's Cathedral Rebuilding Fund it is difficult to comprehend why such a project would not draw any financial support or be eligible for a grant from the government.The Cathedral is part of our national heritage. It is a landmark not only for Parramatta but also Sydney. The architecture of the original building destroyed by fire and now being restored has historical importance, and the importance of having a Cathedral in Parramatta has a significant impact on the status of the City and all its people (not only Catholics). Every major city in Australia and the world is proud of its Cathedral(s).The government is prepared to grant funds to many areas yet such a worthy project fails to attract one cent. The letter concludes:On behalf of our community members we urge you to reconsider your position on granting funds towards the project.While I would be delighted to be in a position to agree to funding being made available for the restoration of St Patrick's Cathedral, Parramatta, that is the role of the present government. Nevertheless, I would indicate my strong support for my constituents' proposal.A piece of early history will demonstrate the historical importance of the cathedral. In 1827, the then New South Wales government gave the present site to the church, and it became the first church dedicated to St Patrick in the country. However, this generous gift from His Majesty's government seems to have been challenged by others in the colony. When Sir Maurice O'Connell returned to Sydney in 1838, he found St Patrick's church to be on land he said belonged to his father-in-law.He claimed the church land, and the matter was subject to a court case which ran between 1839 and 1841. The court decided in the church authority's favour. It is recorded that the church authority had the Attorney-General of the time, John Herbert Plunket—a descendant of St Oliver Plunket—on their side, so there may have been some divine intervention involved. In view of this, it may be a good idea for the government to reconsider its position on this matter.2382109:49:0023821Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—A couple of days ago in the Shepherdson inquiry, Lee Bermingham was asked by Russell Hanson QC, assisting the commission, whether it was possible to be in the ALP without hearing about the culture of rorting. The response was:I think it would be possible if you were an ordinary branch member, but if you were involved in factions and the machinations of factional activity, I think most people would have to know about it ...Peter Beattie, of course, has had a close affiliation with the ALP for a long time. It is very hard to imagine that he could have worked his way to the top without being aware of this rorting and fraud. Could it be that electoral fraud is now so prevalent within the Australian Labor Party that its members are now immune to its depravity? Could it be that some members of the ALP are so entrenched in the culture of rorting, rigging and stacking that they are no longer aware of the meaning of democracy? This could be due to what Tony Walker, of the Australian Financial Review, referred to as a culture where `rorting, vote-rigging and branch stacking' are `endemic' and the Queensland branch has `elevated such practices to a high art form'. It is an art form borne of a culture where it has been suggested that electoral rorting is not only accepted but, at times, encouraged. War stories recounted at Young Labor camps of Labor members enrolling 12 people at their own addresses for the purposes of voting fraudulently are not uncommon and were apparently told with a degree of bravado. There is something critically wrong with a party that cannot gain enough votes honestly to hold power so instead resorts to unlawful means to gain this power.There was something indisputable in Ian Henderson's logic when he recently wrote this in the Australian:The [Labor] Party will be vulnerable to the politically fatal charge that, if it cannot govern itself, it is unfit to govern either the state or the nation.How much more evidence of this incompetence does the Queensland government require? Premier Beattie, in a selfish and desperate attempt to hold on to power, has left the state in political limbo. He has closed down the parliament. Queensland is now ruled by a caretaker government, with an ignorant leader aided by someone whom the Premier himself referred to as a `hard-nosed son of a bitch'. Labor has successfully made a complete mockery of Australia's electoral system, and the only way for integrity to be returned, particularly in Queensland, is for Premier Beattie to step aside and to allow the people of Queensland to vote in a fair and proper election. One reasonable question is: if the ALP has only been able to crawl into power by rorting the system, how will it fare if forced to play by the rules? It is important for people who seek to enrol to verify that they exist, and I personally believe it is essential for them to show identification before being given a ballot paper. The people of Australia do demand integrity in the electoral system. They are disgusted by the Australian Labor Party and will throw Labor out at the next state election and will defeat it federally. (Time expired)2382209:52:0023822Corcoran, Ann, MPMs CORCORAN009CWIsaacsALP00—I speak today of a sense of anxiety, of insecurity and of frustration that I feel building up day by day in my electorate. It centres on the care of elderly people in our community, specifically those resident in nursing homes. Over the year we have heard a lot about the distressed experience by the residents of Riverside as they were forced to leave their home and find other accommodation. But I want to talk about two other groups of people today. The first group is the people living in the retirement village and serviced apartments associated with Riverside. The second group is the staff who care for our nursing home residents. Riverside Nursing Home is associated with a retirement village nearby and Illawong serviced apartments, situated right next door. The people who bought into the retirement village and into Illawong did so partly to enjoy the facilities of those two places but partly because they were also buying security. Residency at these two places gave these people priority for a bed in Riverside if they should ever need one. These folk, having made provision for their future needs, then got on with enjoying their retirement. Now they have lost that security. Suddenly there is a chasm—there is no nursing home nearby and, for some, their life partner who was resident in Riverside is now miles away and inaccessible. The staff in our nursing homes are professionals who are feeling frustrated because they cannot deliver the level of care they know is needed. They have told me they cannot give the personal or human attention needed. For example, they cannot take time to wash someone's hair or to stop to have a chat with a lonely resident. They are put into a position of `shovelling in the food' without being able to pause to wipe away the occasional spill and give that degree of dignity to residents.All of this is caused by inadequate staffing levels. We as a community must concentrate on, and not allow our focus to slip from, ensuring that the care of elderly people in nursing homes receives the highest priority attention. Quality of care is the pivotal point around which change must be planned, and quality of care is the basis upon which the Labor Party's policy is built, with the proposed national benchmark of care at its core. One part of providing such care is addressing the workplace issues. Inadequate staffing levels and lack of training inevitably affect the quality of care.It was these staffing issues which drove aged care nurse Glenda Addicott to initiate a petition. It calls on the federal government to urgently review staffing levels in nursing homes and hostels. Because Ms Addicott is leaving the sector, she felt she was able to take a stand and draw attention to these issues. Glenda Addicott has tapped into a strong community nerve in the care of our elderly. In a short space of time nearly 18,000 people, mostly in Melbourne, notified their concern by adding their signatures to the petition. I wish to serve notice that I will be tabling this petition early in the next sitting of parliament. Bringing this petition to the notice of the House will focus attention on the state of affairs in the aged care sector. I also ask: why should our elderly have to wait for a change of government before they can enjoy the standard of care they deserve? 2382309:55:0023823Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I want to take this opportunity today to pay tribute to a remarkable and unique man, Larry Storey, who sadly passed away last Sunday. Larry was without doubt a much respected and much loved local legend. With Larry's passing, a very special part of our history is no longer with us, but generations to come will be greatly indebted to Larry for the local history that he preserved with an extensive collection of photographs and his ready willingness to relay his many experiences. Most importantly, we will always be grateful to Larry for the personal contribution he made to making our region the special place that it is today. There is simply not enough time to go into detail and list all of Larry's tremendous work. It is a testimony to his commitment that, even at 92, he was still actively involved in the community and, only two weeks before he died, he was out collecting for the Blue Nurses—something which he had done for many, many years.Larry was born at Logan Village in 1908, and as a youngster he negotiated the rivers on horseback to assist his father with the local mail run. He served for almost 20 years as a local councillor, from 1946 to 1964. During his lifetime of community service, Larry also served for 20 years as President of the Beenleigh Senior Citizens Club, he was a member of the Beenleigh Day Care for 18 years and chairman of celebrations for the Waterford State School on its 80th, 90th and 100th birthdays. Larry was also Chairman of the Logan Village hall committee when the US Army commandeered it as an administration building for the 32,000 US troops training at nearby Canungra during World War II. In 1997, I was pleased to join with local residents to help ensure that the new bridge at Waterford was named the Larry Storey Bridge in his honour. Larry had actually worked on the construction of the old bridge that was replaced by the new one. His place in our local history cannot be overstated. Larry has been an inspiration to many local residents, and certainly to me personally. Larry always maintained a keen interest in politics, and I spent many hours discussing issues and ideas with him. I valued his support and interest very highly, and I will sadly miss our discussions. I was delighted to again introduce Larry to the Prime Minister when he visited my electorate just a few weeks ago. Larry was the sort of gentleman who epitomised the ideals of community service, dedication, and the love of Australian values. I know the Prime Minister also holds that very dear.As I said, there is not time to do justice to such a wonderful man who lived an eventful 92 years—years which were marked by his outstanding service and involvement in our local community. He received many awards for his service, including the British Empire Medal, and I am proud to say he was a recipient of my own Forde community contribution award in 1998. I want to take this opportunity to say a final thank you to Larry and to pass on my thoughts and best wishes to his family, many of whom I know very well. I am sure that they all know how well loved and respected he was. He will always live on through the work he has done and through the many lives he has touched. I would like to think that we all strive to honour Larry's memory by following the wonderful example of community service that he so graciously set. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded. The committee will now consider government business.Bills2382423824Debate resumed from 29 November 2000, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:0023824Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 2000, a bill which of itself is not a complex piece of legislation. The bill serves three very simple functions in relation to what was previously known as the Commercial Development Corporation of ATSIC. Firstly, the bill before us will have the effect of changing the name of the Commercial Development Corporation, the CDC, to Indigenous Business Australia, IBA. Secondly, it will allow a full-time chairperson of the IBA, if it is so required. Thirdly, it will allow ATSIC to outsource some of its commercial functions—for example, its program implementation, including decision making in relation to funding, if that is desired. The outsourcing can be achieved by delegation to IBA, by appointing an appropriately qualified and suitable person or body to act as ATSIC's agent, or by contracting out to external providers. This is designed to allow greater ease in some of the commercial aspects of ATSIC's programs, including more effective partnerships between the public and private sectors.Since ATSIC was first formed, the Commercial Development Corporation has played a very important role. But it is now perceived and understood not only by ATSIC but by those people who are involved with the Commercial Development Corporation that, to demonstrate that IBA is a distinct operation with commercially oriented functions and for it to be seen as somewhat separate from the day-to-day activities of ATSIC, it is time for a separate identity to be established and for some distance to be given between the old CDC and the new IBA.In my electorate of the Northern Territory, there are many examples of how the CDC has strategically used its influence to develop economic opportunities for indigenous Australians of the Territory. Perhaps two of the most significant of these are the Kings Canyon Resort, south-west of Alice Springs, and the Crocodile Hotel at Jabiru. The Crocodile Hotel, in particular, has had a tortuous experience of being in some commercial difficulty over the last few years. The CDC took a strategic view that it should be involved in that operation. I am advised that, as a result of its participation and its obtaining of substantial equity within it, the operation has become far more commercially viable and, indeed, profitable. That should not surprise us given the location of it and the amount of tourist visitation to the Kakadu region. But what is important is to understand the context in which the CDC can develop these strategic investments and the importance of them in developing not only the economic infrastructure but also the social infrastructure of communities. I am mindful that in recent days there has been much discussion about the so-called welfare mentality which seems to operate within many indigenous communities. Unfortunately, whilst welfare dependency is something which no Australian wants to see, much of this debate has been about blaming the victim, with no understanding of the circumstances in which people live. It is very clear that, unless you have infrastructure and social support mechanisms in place, then it is very likely that you are unable to assert the sort of independence that those who would argue about the impact of welfare on Aboriginal communities would want to see. It is therefore important, in that context, to see how the CDC strategically can play a role as a catalyst for people being given opportunities that mean they can move off welfare into sustainable long-term employment and business opportunities. It is in that light that the operations at Kings Canyon and at Kakadu give me some hope. One of the issues here is that, for indigenous Australians to be able to participate in the wider economy, an understanding is required of where they sit currently within the social and economic system that we are part of—indeed, that we run.If we want people—as we all do—to be in a position where they can exploit the opportunities that are created by investments such as those of the CDC, then clearly they need to have some basic skills. Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, as I am sure you are aware, if you want someone to be involved with the tourism industry, for example working in a hotel, being engaged behind a counter, perhaps looking after a till or driving a bus, managing an operation requires some skills. One skill obviously required is at least some achievement in numeracy and literacy and, quite likely, a post-school qualification of some kind. Unfortunately, the situation in the Northern Territory is such that, for most Aboriginal people who live outside of the major metropolitan areas, achieving the skill sets that are required to participate in the wider community is very difficult. Therefore, whilst the CDC's investments are important and should be seen to be important, the fact is that for many Aboriginal Territorians at least—and I know this also exists in other parts of Australia—it is very difficult to see how they can actually enjoy the benefits of the employment and business opportunities that are created for them without the required basic skills.If we are to put people in a position where they can take the opportunities that are created by these sorts of investments and the opportunities that are created simply by the location of some Aboriginal communities—that is, close to mining operations, for example, or close to tourism destinations of importance such as Uluru or many other places in the Northern Territory—they need to have access to basic education. The difficulty we have is that in the Northern Territory this is not the case. I am not going to repeat the figures that I have spelt out in the chamber on previous occasions about the achievement levels of indigenous students in the Northern Territory, but they are appalling. Less than 10 per cent of Aboriginal students who start high school complete high school in the Northern Territory—that is, in remote communities. That places them in an invidious position when it comes to moving away from welfare dependency as people will want them to do. I question the term `welfare dependency' in any event but I will use it for a while just for the sake of the discussion.What we are finding is that for people to start a small business, to be able to manage their own affairs or to be able to acquire the skill sets that they need to participate in the wider work force, they need a basic education. The fact is that this basic education is not available to a very large proportion of people in the Northern Territory. I was told, as recently as yesterday, that when a number of communities approached the Northern Territory government for the establishment of high school facilities within their region—and we are talking here of a potential student population of up to 300 where there is currently no high school facility—the Northern Territory government's representatives effectively said, `It is unlikely we will be able to support you. You need to try for an independent school.' That is a total abrogation of the government's responsibility to those people. It means that the Northern Territory government, for its own purposes, has taken a decision that it will not provide the services that are required by these people so they can participate more fully in the community, acquire the sorts of skill sets that they need to participate actively and equitably within the work force and achieve the sorts of outcomes that we all want to see in terms of obtaining opportunities in the business arena. For a very large number of people the opportunities which we would want them to have are not available effectively because of the failure of governments, both at a national and state and territory level, to provide the sort of fundamental and basic infrastructure required to enable them to get into a position where they can acquire the sorts of skills that I referred to earlier. What we have seen since 1977 is the establishment of the Community Development Employment Program within Aboriginal communities. I think we need to put this in its context because a lot of people are now arguing that somehow or other CDEP is a sign of welfare dependency. Of course, CDEP is not a sign of welfare dependency at all.What CDEP means is that, since 1977, very large numbers—literally tens of thousands—of indigenous Australians have voluntarily given up their entitlement to any sort of benefit that comes from being unemployed in exchange for doing work. They have accepted the concept of mutual obligation since 1977. I find it a bit rich, frankly, that people who attack CDEP do so on the basis that they say this is some sign of welfare dependency. What it is a sign of is a desire by Aboriginal Australians to undertake valued work within their communities to get the sorts of outcomes that we all want for our children. We need to understand the nature of labour markets in these communities, and I am afraid governments traditionally have not. And we need to understand that, for people to acquire the skills they need to manage just the CDEP or to do various jobs under that program or the variety of jobs that you and I would see as appropriate within a normal local government context, they too require an investment in infrastructure for educational and social purposes.I am not going to comment here on the failure of the government to address these particular issues in the context of employment programs; it is something I had said before. What I do want to say is that we have to comprehend the nature and history of CDEP and understand that there is still a very strong desire by Aboriginal communities, certainly in my own electorate, to become part of CDEP because they want to get off `sit down' money. I think it is crass and insulting for those people who oppose CDEP to talk about welfare dependency when the people in my own electorate are voicing very strongly their desire to have CDEP so they can start to manage their own communities.This bill is about the Commercial Development Corporation, and I see the members of the government saying, `What is this all about?' What this is about is these people being able to get the opportunity to achieve the sorts of results that the strategic investments of the Commercial Development Corporation—to be called IBA—can achieve in terms of employment and business outcomes. If you want non-indigenous Australians to manage and run businesses in Aboriginal communities, you can fund some merchant bank to set them up and they will run them, no question. But if you want Aboriginal communities to be able to manage and run their own affairs and take the sorts of opportunities that should be available as a result of these strategic investments that IBA can make, then what you need to do is understand that there is a fundamental and basic responsibility on all governments, at national, state and territory levels, to provide the fundamental infrastructure, and not—I repeat not—to demean the efforts of communities who have sought to operate within the CDEP framework so they can build their own skill bases. We need to understand that what has happened traditionally is that a lot of people have seen CDEP as some sort of net into which people will jump so that they can achieve some sort of income support from the Commonwealth. They do not have to do that because they are entitled to the other benefits they voluntarily give up to become part of a CDEP. And if they voluntarily give up a benefit to be part of the CDEP, I think it is incumbent upon us—that is, the wider community—to be sure they have got the resources to make the CDEP work. What we have seen is that many communities have had difficulty in managing CDEPs. Why is that? There is a range of reasons, but, again, we go back to the fundamental issue of lack of skills and lack of managerial experience, because we are talking about accountability requirements, of which we are all too aware, in relation to the way in which government funds are being expended.Hearing some commentators speak, we may form the view that somehow or another, because ATSIC's budget is in excess of $2 billion, CDEP is some magnanimous gift to the indigenous community of Australia. It is not. It is, effectively, a transfer from one department to another. Instead of being income support for being unemployed, it is transferred to CDEP and becomes income support for being employed, for working on a part-time basis. Yet, effectively, we see indigenous communities being denigrated because the CDEP does not work properly, or for a range of other reasons.It is important to understand that the IBA, previously the CDC, can play an important role as a catalyst. It is very important that we start to think about moving to a position where we loosen the strictures upon IBA in relation to its ability to raise its own finance, for example. But we need also to comprehend that we must ensure that people, particularly in the remote communities that are part of my electorate, have the basic infrastructure in place—infrastructure that you and I, Mr Deputy Speaker, take for granted in our own communities. In Alice Springs, for example, I do not have to worry about where my kids go to high school, because there is a high school. I do not have to worry about other infrastructure or sporting facilities, because they are there.I have not met one Aboriginal Territorian who does not want their child to go to school. I have not met one Aboriginal Territorian who does not want their child to get a job. I have not met anyone who has not said, `If I could, I wouldn't mind getting into some sort of business.' Yet what we are seeing is that, because of a lack of effort by government—particularly in this case by the Northern Territory government—and because of their failure to provide this basic infrastructure, these people do not have the skills that you and I regard as necessary for them to participate in those sorts of activities. We have to be fair and reasonable. Instead of vilifying people, we should recognise our own shortcomings. We should understand that people should not be vilified because of the historical circumstances and the locational disadvantage that they suffer from.People should not be insulted for being on CDEP. What we should be doing is providing them with assistance to ensure they get the basic skill sets that we say are important so they can participate more actively in the wider economy. That requires the sorts of investments that you and I, Mr Deputy Speaker, know are important. Then the IBA's charter in the context of those communities can become far more active and will achieve, in my view, far better results. There is no question, however, that the CDC has been a very effective investor of resources. In my view, it has achieved very good results. As I pointed out earlier, the two best examples I can think of in my electorate are the Crocodile Motel, at Kakadu, and the Kings Canyon Resort. 10:18:0023828Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—The Howard government has a proud record when it comes to reforming and improving the Aboriginal affairs portfolio. I pay tribute to the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, Senator Herron, who I believe is one of the most caring and decent people in this parliament, a person who moves widely among Aboriginal communities across Australia and is decently respected in those communities.The government has acknowledged the extreme disadvantage suffered by many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and we have set as one of our top priorities improvements in such things as health, housing, education, employment and economic development. That is what the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 2000 is about. In my electorate I have an Aboriginal community, Palm Island, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records—quite unfairly—as the most dangerous place on earth. It is certainly a very disadvantaged community; a community with high levels of domestic violence, drug abuse and so on.The government is also committed to creating equality of opportunity in the key areas that I have mentioned. We are actively supporting the reconciliation process. Under this bill a new body known as Indigenous Business Australia—IBA—will be established. This new body expands the functions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation. It encompasses the commitment to increasing opportunities for indigenous Australians to participate in commercial development.One of the major problems that the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs has worked tirelessly to solve is that of breaking the cycle of welfare dependency. I note that the member for the Northern Territory indicated his views on welfare dependency; there are certainly other views. By participating in business opportunities, indigenous Australians are able to break that cycle and are provided with opportunities for employment and the creation of wealth and capital to generate further economic development opportunities.In relation to welfare dependency, it is probably timely to introduce into the debate this morning an article that appeared in the Australian last week. It was a precis of an article titled `Beyond Dependency', written by Noel Pearson. Noel Pearson has not always been known as a fierce supporter of the government, but the article poses the question: `All is not well or fair; why is the Labor Party silent on welfare?' I quote from the first two paragraphs:There are mainly two groups talking about welfare reform in this country: the federal Coalition Government and Aborigines, who are suffering most from the social problems that passive welfare dependence has caused.Apart from isolated commentaries and backbencher Mark Latham, the federal Labor Party has largely left welfare reform policy to be articulated by the Coalition.He went on to say:The safety net as a permanent solution for able-bodied people is not just undesirable, it is destructive. The experience of Aboriginal Australians disengaged from the real economy tells us this plainly.I guess there is another view regarding what the member for the Northern Territory was putting to us this morning. I think it is one that we certainly should be well aware of. Also, I would like to make a comment in relation to the CDEP, which the member for the Northern Territory alluded to. In my patch, it is pretty difficult sometimes to say what you think regarding issues like this. On Palm Island, there is a strong CDEP, but I guess the frustration for everybody, including the Aboriginal members of that CDEP, is not that there might be criticism of Aboriginals going into it; it is that the program never seems to achieve anything. I know that there are very many good Aboriginal people who want to do some decent work. They want to be seen to be valued, and to be able to contribute to their community. But, for some reason or other, which nobody seems to be able to get to the bottom of, the CDEP works every week, but at the end of the week you cannot actually see any result from it, and that is sad. Palm Island, as the islanders will tell you, is not a pretty place. It is pretty in the sense that, from an aesthetic point of view, it is probably one of the most beautiful islands on the Barrier Reef, but if you visit the Aboriginal community, the community members themselves will say, `We live in a disgraceful way; we can't seem to keep the place tidy and cleaned up and live responsibly.' That is sad. At the end of the day, as I often hear Senator Herron say, the only way that this is ever going to change is if there is community leadership and there is a will to follow that leadership within the Aboriginal community. I certainly hope that that will happen on Palm Island so that the Palm Islanders can get out of the current situation that they themselves admit they are in—certainly that is my fervent hope. Further in this speech I will allude to perhaps a way of doing that. I feel frustrated when I go to Palm Island because I cannot help the islanders further in their quest to feel better than they feel at the moment and feel more as decent and valued Australians.The coalition are delivering on another one of our election commitments with this bill. A commitment to establish the IBA was given in the September 1998 coalition election statement `Beyond welfare' and reaffirmed in the 1999 budget statement `A better future for indigenous Australians'. We are committed to this and we are ensuring that the outcomes from the Indigenous Business Support Program are optimised. Hence, we are commissioning an independent review of indigenous business programs to recommend a mechanism for the most appropriate and effective delivery of such programs.I have indicated to you that Palm Island has been plagued with difficulties, including dependency not only on welfare but also on drugs and alcohol. I have worked closely with Senator Herron to look at the problems facing the islanders. They need the choices that this bill provides. They need more opportunities for employment and the ability to create wealth, which will further economic development, improve self-esteem and make them more independent.In that regard, I pay tribute to one of the community leaders, Lex Watton. Lex has worked tirelessly because he has a vision that the solution to many of the Palm Island problems is business opportunities. He sees that, for example, the islanders could run the barge service from the mainland to the island. They perhaps could run the air service from the mainland to the island. He sees that there are some very significant opportunities in tourism—in guided tours, accommodation, indigenous culture experiences and those sorts of things. Palm Island is probably one of the most beautiful islands on the Barrier Reef. There would be quite a demand for that kind of business opportunity. There is also retailing. The only general store on Palm Island is run by the state government. It is such a shame that the state government should be there at all, when I believe the islanders could be running the local supermarket. There is no reason why they should not be able to do it. This bill, with the will of the state government, would give them the opportunity to do just that. I call on the state government of Queensland to untie the hands of the islanders and give them the opportunity to run their own local general store, and run it using the support of the IBA. Unfortunately, I am limited for time in this particular debate, so I would indicate to the Main Committee that I am certainly very supportive, on behalf of the islanders on Palm Island, of the establishment of the IBA and the opportunities that it will bring to Palm Island in North Queensland.10:28:0023830McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—I want to start by saying that the opposition will be supporting the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 2000. I guess if we were not, we would not be here in the Main Committee. I also want to thank my colleague the member for Northern Territory for stepping in and speaking initially on this bill when I, like the minister for reconciliation, found it a bit hard to get away from the very important reconciliation breakfast that was being conducted in the Great Hall. It went somewhat over time—probably the least surprising event in the parliament today. It was a very moving and effective event. I was pleased and proud to have been a part of it. I do appreciate the chance to say a few things about this bill and about the debate that has so far taken place around it, especially the views expressed by my colleagues the member for the Northern Territory and the member for Herbert on the bill.Let me first deal with the bill itself, because from listening to the member for Herbert you might have thought that what we have here is a great reform establishing a wonderful new organisation to assist indigenous people establish and participate in commercial operations. What we are actually speaking to is a bill that changes the name of an existing organisation that does that. The CDC has had a long history. It has not been uniformly successful; nevertheless, it has assisted a very large number of individuals and communities to establish business operations which have changed the lives of the people in those communities.Let us not exaggerate what is happening here. The Commercial Development Corporation found there was some confusion because, being called in its full name the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation, it was often confused with ATSIC. When it came to see people to discuss business issues, there was not an appreciation of its commercial focus. It tended to find the channels of communication, therefore, somewhat more difficult than might otherwise have been the case. So it sought and has been granted a change of name to Indigenous Business Australia. I do not oppose that—it is as good a name as any other and as good a name as its predecessor—but we ought not pretend that in some way we have here a great new fillip to assistance to indigenous corporations. What we have is a change of name for an existing organisation, which has been in operation since the establishment of ATSIC and which actually took over in a substantial way from the ADC, which operated prior to the establishment of ATSIC.The bill says also that there can be a full-time chairperson of the IBA if required. That is a decision that the IBA is entitled to make, and I will be surprised if it does not think that is what is required. It is not the most important thing for the future of the organisation, but it is a flexibility that is appropriate. Thirdly, the bill proposes to allow ATSIC to outsource some of its commercial functions, such as program implementation and decision making in relation to funding, if it is desired.We support this measure, so long as it is implemented as an option, not a requirement: so long as it strengthens ATSIC by giving it more capacity to independently decide how it wishes to conduct its affairs, rather than weakening it by forcing it to outsource things which it does not wish to do. That has been the government's pattern with regard to outsourcing in other areas, but the bill does not suggest that it is what is proposed. We are, at this stage, accepting that that is not what is proposed and we support the increased flexibility in the mode of service delivery. Much of the debate that has taken place around this bill—quite appropriately because, even though it goes beyond the letter of the bill, it is consistent with the matters the bill deals with—has been about the relationship between economic initiatives on behalf of indigenous people and the operation of the welfare system. An extract from a very interesting article by Noel Pearson was referred to by the member for Herbert. I know Noel Pearson quite well, and I think some of his analysis of the problems facing indigenous communities is very constructive. I do not agree with some of the solutions he is proposing, but that is not a problem. This is a democracy: he does not have to agree with me, the Minister for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, the government or other indigenous Australians in order to have the right to put forward his point of view.Nevertheless, to think that you have made a profound point—I do not criticise Noel for this, and the context in which he made his remarks made more sense than the way they were quoted by the member for Herbert—if you say, `The safety net as a permanent solution is not a good idea' is as crass a proposition as I have ever heard. I do not know anybody in the world who thinks the safety net as a permanent solution to anybody's circumstances is a good idea. I have never met any recipient of welfare, taxpayer or independent student of the circumstance who thought that was a good idea. Of course it is better if people are actively involved in some productive activity in return for the income which they receive, for two reasons: it is better for them as a matter of self-esteem, pride and feeling of contribution, and they tend to get more money out of it. So it is not a permanent solution, but to think that you have made a profound point when you say that is to promote the blatantly obvious and the plain trite to pseudo-profundity.If we are going to manage the transition from individuals and communities where welfare is the predominant source of income to communities which generate income from their own efforts and contributions, we need to address, as well as welfare reform issues, which may be part of it, issues of rights and resources, to give people recognition of their contribution and encourage them to contribute, and the resources that enable them to contribute. In case there is a misunderstanding—this is an issue for another day—I want to make it crystal clear that I do not accept for one moment that the debate about welfare reform is the exclusive property of the coalition and Noel Pearson. Noel has made a contribution to public debate around these issues by his analysis of these matters, and I welcome that. I think the coalition has sought to batten on to some part of that analysis to justify things that they would like to do anyway—undermining the fact that income support is a right in a First World country. The fact that some people in Australia are living in Third World conditions does not undermine their right to that support; it enhances their right. But it imposes an obligation on us to do more than provide that support. That goes to issues of rights and resources, and it goes beyond the proper ambit of this bill, so I will not pursue that any further.I want to say something about CDEP, which does cross over, significantly, to the issues we are debating here today. But it seems to have become the focus of some of the debate, perhaps more than the terms of the bill warrant. I appreciate that there is a crossover between what CDEP does in communities and the extension of people into commercial and positive activity. In some communities, you can see the interaction between commercial developments and the CDEP which are changing the nature of those communities, not just for the indigenous people who live there but for everybody who lives there—and for the better. I was sad to hear the member for Herbert say that, on Palm Island, at the end of the day, you cannot see anything that has been achieved as a result of the activities of people under CDEP. I have not yet visited Palm Island. I am scheduled to visit there with others in February or March next year. Unless it is unique, then what the member said, which I am sure he honestly believes, is just not true. For example, in some of the communities that I have visited and have had reports from, CDEP runs the local council, collects the garbage and helps with aged care. We do not see that as a CDEP function in my constituency or in that of the member for Calwell because the state and local governments do that, and we take for granted that that is what they will do. But the state and local governments do not provide those basic facilities in these communities as they should. People should not have to provide those basic facilities through CDEP. It should enable them to do new and extra things, because one of the basic rights of Australians is to have equal access to the provision of government services. But it is, painfully, crystal clear that in some significant parts of Australia neither state nor local government is properly providing what I would call those municipal services. However, I am not simply referring to those things provided by local government; I am referring to state government functions as well. I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am not going to be convinced by the fact that the clock says that I have got 18 minutes and 50 seconds to go, so don't worry.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, Mr (Mr Causley)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Causley)—I haven't been convinced.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—I am sure somebody else will have a proper assessment of how long it is. But the problem there is a failure of government. The member for the Northern Territory very adequately outlined the most crying shortcoming, which is by the government of the Northern Territory, the biggest culprit in failing to deliver proper services to indigenous people. There is no government in Australia that has a higher proportion of indigenous people in its community and therefore, you would have thought, has a greater obligation to deliver that service. But there is none other that does it worse. We cannot look effectively at the issue of economic independence to which Indigenous Business Australia and, before it, the CDC and the ADC have been committed without addressing the issue of ownership and access to land. It is land that brings indigenous people to the negotiating table; it is land that gives the effective opportunity to participate in many of the projects that are taking place around Australia. I welcome the consequences of both the land rights act and the Native Title Act and the Mabo decision that have put indigenous people in the circumstance where they have access to land and the capacity to enjoy not just the economic benefits but, in some circumstances, the economic benefits of that access to and ownership of land through the activity of the IDC. The Commercial Development Corporation has added to that over the years, and I am confident that Indigenous Business Australia can too.The CDC has had, and IBA will have, a significant role to play. It is not the biggest player in the array of organisations active in the area of advancing the interests of indigenous Australians and would not pretend to be. It never has been, and changing its name will not change that fact. But it has been a positive force. It is being managed well under the chairmanship of Joseph Elu, and I congratulate him for that. I would like to see its activities integrated—not by it, because that is not its function, but by the government—with a focus on the balance of rights, economic independence and issues to do with the excessive involvement of indigenous people in the criminal justice system and what effect that has on access to credit and other things which are equally significant factors in whether or not one can successfully establish a business enterprise. Without addressing these issues of economic indigence and the right to basic services like employment, education, health, housing and municipal services, the CDC will too often wind up helping the relatively strong rather than the relatively weak, because it is only the relatively strong who will be in a position to put forward the sorts of propositions that will be commercially attractive to a body like the CDC. It has to balance the commercial and the indigenous imperative.The CDC has been shifting its focus—and I see no reason in the discussions I have had with the leadership to suggest it is going to change with the transition in name to IBA—towards dealing with the major corporations about how they may work with indigenous communities to assist in the evolution of business opportunities. That strategy seems to be achieving positive results. But I would like to see a continuing focus in the array of government support through ATSIC and IBA and otherwise on the opportunities for individual communities to start smaller businesses, accepting that there will always be a high failure rate.There is a high failure rate in small businesses in their first 12 months whether they are indigenous or otherwise. If we go into a program to give more assistance to encourage the development of small business, we have to go into it with our eyes open, recognising that a large number will fail and that whoever does it will sooner or later wind up on the front page of some tabloid newspaper being accused of wasting the taxpayers' money because a proportion of small businesses have failed—as if that is not inevitably the case in all areas of small business. But it is a risk we have to take. We have to have the flexibility to recognise that there are different solutions confronting the different geographies and histories of indigenous communities around this country and that one size will not fit all, either for the IBA or otherwise.I will conclude by reinforcing the nature of the challenge which we face and to which the IBA will be a contributor. When you look at the indicators of relative disadvantage—particularly economic disadvantage and unemployment—the age distribution of the indigenous population says that we are going to have a massive problem creating enough jobs simply to maintain the totally unsatisfactory employment circumstances of indigenous Australians at the moment without having a significant impact on reducing the unacceptably high unemployment rate. A very high proportion of this population is going to be moving into the employability age each year over the next 10 years or so. It is a big challenge. The newly named Indigenous Business Australia has a contribution to make to that. If it feels that changing its name in this way and making slight modifications to its powers will give it the capacity to more effectively contribute to the solution of those problems, we are happy to facilitate the passage of legislation that will enable it to do that.10:45:0023833Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise today to support this name change to IBA and other items included in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 2000. I am moved initially to refute some of the comments made by the shadow minister. He has made the point that CDEP and welfare are not being seen as a permanent safety net. I, as a representative of a caring government, take an opposite point of view. I believe that some do see it as a permanent safety net. Quite frankly, I think that interpretation is just: a caring government will ensure that there is a safety net at all times to catch those who would fall through any other process. I emphatically make the point that the safety net will be kept in place by this government for those who absolutely need it. However, I move on because time is limited. I commend the work that has been done previously by the CDC. There have been many achievements around Australia and I wish to highlight one in particular—that is, the joint ownership by the CDC and Port Hedland Regional Aboriginal Corporation of the Homestead office and retail complex in Port Hedland, Western Australia. I wish to highlight it because I am a tenant of that jointly owned complex. I am pleased to report that I get good service from the landlords and that the facilities provided are ideal for my needs. I read in the annual report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation that this complex not only has had full tenancy during this past reporting year but also has produced a satisfactory commercial return to its owners. I believe that is the most important statement about any of these joint ventures that are funded by the CDC, presently to be renamed the IBA. If we cannot genuinely make a reasonable commercial return to these joint ventures they should not be operating.The funding that has been provided in the past to the CDC, some $50 million, was not meant to be a gift or a handout or welfare, it was meant to be seed capital to assist indigenous people to be involved in joint ventures. It was meant to break this cycle of so frequently funding in some mismatched form from various sources of funding, on the basis of family ties, ventures that were doomed to fail before they were even initiated. We have too much evidence of that across this country. When these businesses that are poorly funded, poorly researched—certainly not market researched—eventually fail, mainstream Australia rises up and condemns the failure of the business as yet another example of indigenous mismanagement. What the CDC has done, and what IBA will continue to do, is fund successfully, research effectively, and give some guarantee as to the long-term economic viability. That is to this government's credit, and to the credit of the office bearers, the executive, of the IBA.Colleagues will note that one of the changes that we have proposed in this bill is to give permanency—and make it a full-time position—to the chair of this particular organisation. This will go a great way towards giving this new organisation the credit that it so richly deserves, and I fully support that move. To promote indigenous and mainstream joint ventures in business is not something that can be done on a part-time basis. By giving full-time status to the position of chair we are going to say to the commercial world of Australia that this is a fair dinkum organisation and not some ragtag show. We will do well to support this legislation because it moves forward the idea of reconciliation.I too attended the breakfast for reconciliation this morning, and I was proud to do so. It was quite a moving experience, frankly. Dramatically portrayed during the breakfast was the individualism of our indigenous population on one hand and the mainstream population on the other, and it displayed the coming together of those two groups. I applaud the efforts of the Reconciliation Commission, but I also hope, in my lifetime, to look back on the acts of reconciliation as something that has happened, rather than as something that might happen in the future. I believe that the collection of some 150,000 statements, aspirations, regarding reconciliation that have been presented today is a great move in that direction. I welcome the fact that we have had now some one million people walk together for reconciliation across bridges in Australia. When one has approximately one-fifth of one's population passionately embroiled in a movement, I believe there can be no holding back that movement, and I commend that. I look forward to a future where reconciliation is something that occurred in the past, rather than something that may occur in the future. I wish that movement every success. I am aware of the tight time frame of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs in addressing this bill and so I will contain my comments. It is sufficient to say that the future does lie in joint-venturing successful indigenous employment. The renaming of this organisation as Indigenous Business Australia will give it credibility in the eyes of the commercial world. It will give opportunities to its board to go out and select those commercial operations that are most appropriate, and it will give it great status. That augurs well for its future. I believe, with a successful future, it will create an example for indigenous people around Australia, an example that says, `You too can be successful in business. You too can make profits from those businesses and aspire to being financially independent in the long term.' I applaud that. I commend the bill to the House.10:55:0023835Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—In debating the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 2000,we have discussed a number of aspects of Aboriginal and indigenous affairs. Indeed, the main and important matter is the report of the Aboriginal Reconciliation Council, which was presented at this morning's breakfast. The breakfast was attended by most members of parliament. I concur with other members about this being a very moving occasion and one in which there is a great expression of hope about the future of Australia and the reconciliation process. I hope that those expressions will translate into actual concrete actions on the part of governments, both state and federal, and on the part of all Australians of good will in trying to achieve the very important goal of reconciliation.There are two clauses in the recommendations of the council, which I think are very important and relevant to the legislation before us, and I would like to read them to the Committee. Recommendation 1 says:The Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agree to implement and monitor a national framework whereby all governments and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) work to overcome Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's disadvantage through setting program performance benchmarks that are measurable (including time lines), are agreed in partnership with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities, and are publicly reported.Recommendation 4 says:Recognising that the formal reconciliation process over the last decade has achieved much and has helped bring Australians together, all levels of government, non-government, business, peak bodies, communities and individuals commit themselves to continuing the process and sustaining it by:· affirming the Australian Declaration Towards Reconciliation and actioning the Roadmap for Reconciliation;· providing resources for reconciliation activities and involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in their work;· undertaking educational and public awareness activities to help improve understanding and relations between Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and the wider community; and· supporting Reconciliation Australia ...Although all the recommendations are about positive outcomes, these two in particular relate to achieving outcomes that are positive in terms of the standards of living and the welfare of our indigenous people. They also relate to the question of understanding the culture and tradition of our indigenous people. We need to do more on both of those fronts. Indigenous Business Australia is the new name of the organisation which previously was called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commercial Development Corporation. It has been strengthened to some degree, although it does not appear—from the legislation at least—that there will be any additional money for this body, and I would like the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to comment on that. But at least there will be a streamlining, a full-time chairman and an attempt to further engage Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in entrepreneurial and business activities. The important thing about this is that it will have an intimate relationship with ATSIC in its operations. It is important that this be so because ATSIC also is a body which plays an important role in Australia in representing the interests of Aboriginal people and which has a role to play in continuing to put pressure on governments, both federal and state, to achieve outcomes in relation to our indigenous people.This spirit of hope and reconciliation which we see is a positive thing, but there is also a negative side. The negative side is the fact that our achievements in terms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander welfare have not been good enough. With respect to the problems of our indigenous people, some of the indicators are worse than in some Third World countries. In the areas of health, education, welfare and housing we are not achieving results which are good enough when compared even with international parameters, never mind the national parameters. I believe that it is important that we actually come to grips with this issue—that is to say that we face up to it and that we do not run away from it.We have had some achievements in Aboriginal health but we have a long way to go. Mortality rates of Aboriginal children are still far too high. Many Aboriginal people die far too early; they do not have anything like the lifespan that the rest of the Australian community has. This ought to be a matter of great concern to us. But equally of concern is that employment of Aboriginal people is insufficient. The honourable member for Canberra made the point that we are going to be in a situation very soon where, with increasing numbers of young Aboriginal people growing up, the employment situation may actually get worse rather than better unless we find a way to ensure that indigenous young people are given training opportunities for employment.In relation to the body Indigenous Business Australia and, more generally, those organisations that are going to be responsible for the employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, perhaps we should do a bit of lateral thinking. We should ask ourselves whether we have been trying to impose too much of a Western model on Aboriginal people and Aboriginal culture in relation to trying to fix up these problems of health, education, employment, et cetera. I believe that we have significant evidence. In fact, we have been trying to develop a Western type model. One of the historical mistakes that occurred was during the period of the Whitlam government. In the middle of Kakadu National Park, they wanted to provide some housing for Aboriginal people. They built modern, Western, suburban type homes with mod cons for the Aboriginal people in a region where people were very much into traditional Aboriginal culture. Naturally, there was no place for the traditional activities of Aboriginal people in that region, such as places for corroborees and places for meetings outside under the stars. It was just that we wanted to impose a suburban lifestyle in the middle of Kakadu National Park by building these types of homes. Naturally enough, that experiment failed.It is an interesting example because what we need to do when thinking about Aboriginal employment and education—and I said this when I spoke on the indigenous education bill—is to think about the promotion of Aboriginal culture. One of the reasons we have so many problems in our indigenous communities is that so much of the culture has been destroyed. We need to do many things to help restore those cultural traditions. That is why I hope that Indigenous Business Australia, when it approaches the major companies, is not just going to say, `We want to get into some business enterprises with you that will involve the employment of Aboriginal people'—end of story. That is not going to be very successful, nor is it going to be good enough. What we really need is for this organisation and other organisations to have cognisance of the importance and value of Aboriginal culture and the way in which it can be used within the business sector. Many of the things about Aboriginal culture can be promoted in Australia through the public sector, but they do not have to be exclusively promoted through the public sector. Aspects of Aboriginal culture can be promoted in a profitable way through the private sector. I would urge this newly named organisation to look at the ways in which we can draw on aspects of Aboriginal culture in developing creative ideas in business as well as in employment and in education. Already we have seen a huge international demand for Aboriginal art, and this demand has actually benefited Australia in terms of foreign exchange. I know that in Europe there is a significant demand for Aboriginal art works. There is no reason why this organisation cannot facilitate in this area. And we do not have to have this just in primary products of art, like the actual canvasses; we can have reproductions, we can have all sorts of ways of selling Aboriginal culture, not only to Australia but to the world. In this regard, Indigenous Business Australia can perform an important function, one which I believe will benefit the Aboriginal people and which will allow them to have businesses and employment as well as additional educational opportunities.I only give that as one example because, if we are going to be serious about this, we have to go back to education and even to research. I used the term Aboriginal culture before, but, as we are aware, there is a whole variety of Aboriginal and indigenous cultures. And, as I mentioned earlier, there are aspects of Aboriginal cultures which are disappearing, there are aspects which have disappeared and other aspects which are now the province of only a small number of people. There are stories, histories and cultural practices that are going out. We need to sustain those. We need to find those people who may be the last representatives of those cultural traditions and record those, help develop those, and not only expand our general pool but make that into enterprises which are selling products, not only here in Australia but internationally. So we can have an entrepreneurial dimension of our indigenous culture, but we need to focus on those cultural aspects in the ways that I have mentioned.A couple of honourable members from the government side have said that they are pretty concerned about the fact that some of the projects of the previous Commercial Development Corporation collapsed, but what they did not go into were the reasons for the collapse. The honourable member for Fraser has said that we should not try to judge and compare Aboriginal enterprises too harshly with others—and I agree with that. But there may be an important feature here; that is, the failure to bring into these enterprises the Aboriginal perspective—both the cultural perspective and the value dimension which they have. I know that business and entrepreneurship are obviously concerned with profit, but they need not be concerned solely with profit. They can have a social justice dimension and can be concerned with employing people who are disadvantaged, including indigenous people. There is an opportunity at the moment for an expansion of Aboriginal entrepreneurship, and this is because of new opportunities which are arising as a result of the Mabo decision and native title determinations.What has happened is that we now have a situation where—notwithstanding all of the obstacles being put in the way of trying to actually overcome the determination of the High Court—there are significant possibilities for our indigenous people to have much more access to their traditional lands. If this does occur, and I hope it will, there will be opportunities for the use of those lands in a number of important ways so that an entrepreneurial dimension can be given, so that the land can be used in productive ways and can give an income, not just to a few people involved in that land claim but to the whole of the population of that particular Aboriginal grouping. If this is done correctly, and if Indigenous Business Australia plays a role, it could be the case that in 20 years time, for example, the indigenous people will have their land not only for their own symbolic purposes—their heritage, their philosophy and their metaphysics—but also in a practical sense to provide a base within, let us face it, an increasingly entrepreneurial world for them to have a regular income for their people for the generations into the future. So they do have a responsibility, when they have access to this land, to do something with it to provide a base for them and for their people. I believe that they will meet this responsibility with the kind of leadership which the indigenous people have at the moment. Let me talk about the comments of Mr Pearson, because they have been mentioned here today. He was right to say that it is important for Aboriginal people to move away from a culture of welfare dependency. But in order for this to occur, it is necessary that we do allow the native title claims to go through, that Aboriginal people do get access to their lands, that they do begin to re-establish some of the culture and traditions which they have lost. Once that is done, they are able to use those lands as a permanent home or permanent basis of their Aboriginal culture and tradition. So I welcome this bill, I welcome Indigenous Business Australia and I urge them to adopt some of the strategies which I have spoken about. (Time expired)11:15:0023838Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for Reconciliation10—in reply—I thank the honourable members who have contributed to this debate on the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 2000, particularly the members for Fraser, Herbert, the Northern Territory, Kalgoorlie and Calwell. I cannot resist saying, especially to my friend the member for Calwell, that I do not know that I have ever been able to correct him in a politically correct way, but I was once chipped myself by an indigenous person for referring to `our indigenous people'. They do not like to be owned. Forgive me for that; I hope you will forgive me for my politically correct statement. I do appreciate very much the contributions that have been made today because this bill reflects the government's commitment to increasing opportunities for indigenous Australians to enable them to participate fully in the economic life of Australia and, in this instance, through the development of viable commercial enterprises. The bill fulfils a commitment to establish Indigenous Business Australia. The commitment was given in the September 1998 coalition election statement `Beyond Welfare'. The bill is consistent with our objective of assisting indigenous people to achieve economic independence and represents a practical measure to improve the position of indigenous people. The government is committed to ensuring that outcomes from indigenous business support programs are optimised. Viable business enterprises have been another important flow-on, such as increased business participation and employment and training opportunities for indigenous people. As I said, the government is committed to ensuring that outcomes from the indigenous business support programs are optimised. As members have said this morning, this will complement other significant employment initiatives such as the CDEP and also the government's indigenous employment program. We have commissioned an independent review of indigenous business programs that will recommend mechanisms for the most appropriate and effective delivery of such programs. The review will also assist the government to determine whether there are further measures that should be taken to generate economic development opportunities. As members have emphasised this morning, this proposal for Indigenous Business Australia is based upon the success of the CDC. That will, of course, continue, having regard to the way in which the CDC has operated. ATSIC will have the option to outsource its commercial functions to the new Indigenous Business Australia organisation. It will have other choices available to it if it wishes, but this will expand the options available to ATSIC for the delivery of these programs and strengthen its role and the ability to support indigenous business through its business development program. It will also encourage a more commercial orientation in the delivery of assistance. In addition, and more importantly, the changes will encourage private sector financial bodies to become involved in providing commercially based loans to indigenous businesses.I note the comment that has been made, most recently by the member for Calwell, that the bill provides no additional money to the IBA. That is correct because, as with the CDC, its forerunner, the intention is that it should remain self-funding. Indeed, this has always been seen as one of the strengths of the model. The IBA will have to compete with other organisations to gain a share of ATSIC's business development programs. The bill represents a significant step forward in improving indigenous participation in viable businesses. It is part of the government's ongoing commitment to assist indigenous Australians to achieve economic independence and, of course, it is a key foundation of the government's approach to practical reconciliation.I want to conclude by noting the number of members today who have spoken about the importance of the handing over of the report from the Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation. That report will be tabled in the parliament later today. I am sure all members will want to read it thoroughly and digest the report and its recommendations. As the Prime Minister said at the launch, obviously there is a great deal with which we all agree. There may be areas where there will be views that we can address what matters in different ways and in a robust democracy one ought not to be surprised that such differences might emerge.I think the importance of today is in terms of the reconciliation that has been achieved over 10 years and the enormous amount of work that has been put into it by the council, and its leadership role, particularly that of Dr Evelyn Scott, its chair. I want to take this opportunity to say on the Hansard recordit is probably the only opportunity I will have todayhow far I believe the process of reconciliation has come in that 10 years. It was always envisaged that it would be a people's movement. I note there are some comments about a speech to be made in another place by a former human rights commissioner suggesting that the role in relation to these matters is a role of government. Indeed, he laments what he sees as what is perhaps an insufficient role by this government in relation to the process of reconciliation. The only point I would make is that I think it is exceedingly arrogant of politicians to believe that they own the process. What has happened over this period of time is that the Australian people have been saying, `We want to have a society in which all Australians have equality of opportunity, in which all Australians are able to participate fully.' They want to acknowledge the errors and the omissions of the past. They recognise the aspects of our history and the blots that they evidence, but people want to move forward. Thinking of the walk across the bridge in Sydney in May and the walks that we saw last Sunday in Melbourne and Perth, for indigenous people to see fellow Australians with them side by side has been the most inclusive example for most of them they could have ever wanted. As I said earlier, the fact that it has been a people's movement indicates that, while not all has been done, we have come a long way together. This is about unifying Australia. It is the desire and the aspiration of indigenous Australians; it is the desire and aspiration today of almost all Australians. I am pleased to be speaking on this bill on what I believe has been a good day for Australia.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Ministerial Statements2384023840Debate resumed from 6 December, on motion by Ms Worth:That the House take note of the paper.11:20:0023840Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—I welcome this opportunity, as Labor's defence spokesman, to speak on the Defence white paper, Defence 2000—Our Future Defence Force, tabled by the Prime Minister yesterday. The Leader of the Opposition has already presented an excellent response to this document. However, with the benefit of 24 hours to reflect on it, I wish to make a number of other comments which I hope people will find helpful.It is very easy to be dazzled by the big dollar figures and images of helicopters, destroyers, AEWCs and cyber soldiers that have been presented in the media following the white paper's tabling. However, examination of its implications requires objective assessment and rigorous analysis. The first point that I think is important, however, is to clearly state that you do not play politics with national security, and Labor will not. We will, however, offer criticisms and suggestions to ensure our views are hopefully considered by the government and public at large to ensure that Defence does do its job, can do its job and gets bigger bangs for its bucks.Defence policy cannot be viewed or implemented in isolation; it needs to be part of a sophisticated and mature foreign policy. The defence white paper may have got it right, but the government still has a lot of work to do on the foreign policy front. The white paper was promised by the Liberal Party as part of their election policy in 1996. The government then decided it would do it, but it is really about 18 months too late. The defence organisation has not had clear political direction for nearly four years now in defence and the delay in the white paper has caused serious problems in both the ADF and the department. Over the last two years, Australia's strategic environment has deteriorated significantly. However, that is not a reason to panic. In fact, it reinforces the need for cool and rational heads when it comes to our defence planning and tight government strategic guidance to maintain and re-establish long-term goals.Incoherence in strategic policy seriously risks the integrity of Australia's overall defence posture. That is why we are happy that the government's defence white paper has endorsed Labor's long held military strategic policy. In fact, it has taken the government four years to realise that it is Labor's policy that is correct. We have had everything from Liberal defence ministers fantasising publicly about high intensity mechanised operations on the Korean peninsula to the Prime Minister wanting to be the US Deputy Dawg on the block. But as Paul Kelly in today's Australian points out: At last, the real Howard doctrine is unmasked—a modest lift in defence spending, an embrace of Labor's defence self-reliance stance and a troop deployment strategy limited to the neighbourhood and not North Asia.The recent community consultation on defence highlighted the fact that Australians still believe that the primary role and capability of the ADF should be to defend Australian sovereignty by denying control of the air-sea gap to any enemy. This is also Labor's position. Labor's defence policy is underpinned by a strategy of maximising self-reliance, sustaining and further developing a strong contemporary alliance with the United States and ensuring meaningful and proactive diplomatic engagement in the region.Labor's current defence policy direction is strength, sustainability and self-reliance in defence policy. Using the strategic policy of defence of Australia ensures the maximisation of defence capability for defence dollars spent and ensures cohesion in the defence organisation and the capabilities it offers. A balanced force structure guided by tight strategic policy gives government the greatest flexibility and military response options. This means that the ADF force structure is designed to combat threats to Australian sovereignty by denying an enemy control of the air-sea gap to our north. This force structure is filled with layered in-depth defence capabilities which is what delivers flexibility in those military options. The practical effect of policy is that it ensures that Australia gets the biggest bangs for its bucks and means that we have military capabilities that facilitate involvement in joint allied operations and can meet our international peacekeeping obligations.If all that sounds familiar, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is because that is what Labor has always believed in and its policy has reflected, and indeed the white paper similarly reflects, those views at the moment. That is why there is such a degree of bipartisanship as a result of the release of that document yesterday. We have no objection to useful engagement in the region or even, in appropriate circumstances, to participation in coalition operations. We do not want fortress Australia or any similar fantasy, but we do require that the ADF be given clear guidance as to what its priorities are and, moreover, we require that key force structure decisions be made in accordance with those priorities.It is also important that the Australian Defence Force responds to the challenges and capitalises on the opportunities arising from the revolution in military affairs. The ADF needs to find the right balance between maintaining a technological edge in the region while still keeping a critical mass necessary for its forces to be effective. The importance of the technological edge cannot be understated. Australia will never be able to match the size of most of the defence forces in our region, but we can maintain our combat superiority through that technological advantage and its proper application in defence doctrine.Let me make some comments about funding. Defence spending is just as much about quality as it is about quantity. It is widely acknowledged that there are serious problems in Defence that need fixing. While the government released its revised budget figures only two weeks ago, it chose to hide that Defence money away. So I have been waiting to see the details and the costs of the program.The amount of money outlined in the white paper appears reasonable, but the real question is: will the government fix those problems now that the funds have been made available? And, of course, there are always going to be questions about long-term commitments over a 10-year time horizon. I think it is important to note that, even with this increase in funding, an increase that was needed because much of our defence platforms had to be replaced anyway because of block obsolescence, defence spending will still remain at about 1.9 per cent of GDP for the next decade. For every year that Labor was in government, defence spending was higher than that. It is a shame that the government has again failed to include in this document the private sector in any appropriate financial partnerships. There appears to be no mention of any innovative ways of financing defence projects, which is perhaps more a reflection of internal ministerial squabbles and interdepartmental wrangling than of ignorance. Again, I make this comment because I think it is important in the spirit of bipartisanship to recognise that there are people on both sides of politics who believe in private-public partnering or PFI—whatever you want to call it. The role for private industry to participate in defence much more than they are at the moment, with perhaps building and operating through-life support of programs and so on, needs to be reflected. Unfortunately, the document is silent on that, and the words `PFI' or `PPP' do not even get a mention. I would hope that the minister, who I understand is a believer in this, might be able to take that a little further.As Kim Beazley said yesterday in his response to the Prime Minister's statement on the white paper, the devil is in the detail. I have to say that already we are beginning to see some of those devils. The first is a little sleight of hand by the government regarding the formula they have used to establish real growth. For the first time in 20 years, the government have used the GDP deflator rather than the Defence deflator in that formula. The result? Less money for defence than is required for three per cent real growth.On the personnel funding issue, the government has stated that it will be supplementing the defence budget for only two per cent increases in personnel costs, yet it acknowledges in the document that personnel costs are likely to increase by more than four per cent. The result? A personnel funding crisis in a couple of years time. I am not sure how the government intends to address that, and I would certainly welcome any comments that either Minister Moore or Minister Scott would care to make about that down the track. I think the government should also accept that its Defence Reform Program is not delivering the savings that it is counting on, and that will cause some other funding problems for Defence. I think we have already seen some examples of that.I mentioned personnel. Let me make some comments on that. This government inherited a full-time ADF of 58,000 uniformed men and women. It had proposed, through the Defence Reform Program, to run that down to 42,700. The Defence Force chiefs pleaded with Minister McLachlan to leave it at 50,000. As a result of East Timor, there are about 51,500 uniformed personnel in the ADF. The government, in the white paper, has now committed to 54,000. But let us not kid anybody: this is not a massive increase but in fact is giving a bit of realism to the actual numbers of uniformed personnel that are required in the Australian Defence Force over the coming 10 years.We often hear members in this place talking about service men and women being Defence's greatest asset, but what the men and women of Defence want is a little less talk and a lot more action. The government is responsible for serious morale problems that are causing serious recruitment and retention problems. We have heard much about that, with newspaper stories constantly appearing that indicate that morale is low. That is contributing to retention rates dropping off and separation rates increasing. We are seeing that it is very difficult to attract quality men and women into the Australian Defence Force, and there are all sorts of reasons for this—issues such as grossing up FBT allowances on ADF members' group certificates, remote locality allowances not being treated properly and concerns about brutality claims. All of these issues are contributing to a negative image which the government recognises that it has to address. I am sure the government is reflecting on these strategies, because I have had conversations with the minister about this. The government needs to tell us a little bit more about how it intends to turn this around so that we can recruit more people into the defence forces. It is in everyone's interests that we do so. I would like to participate in any possible moves that the government has to try to lift those retention rates and recruiting rates.Equally important is a national defence industrial capacity that supports self-reliance and provides domestic economic benefits from the tens of billions of dollars that will be spent on defence equipment over the next 15 years. The capability plan is a very good start and I welcome it. I think it is great that you have a horizon where you are not going to get bumps and troughs in a capability and acquisition program. I welcome that being put in place. But it seems to pay little regard to the skill sets that industry needs to maintain to be able to take advantage of new work in several years time.The AEWC project is also an issue that needs further examination. The government says that it has allocated funding for all seven aircraft, but will purchase only four to start with. The result, obviously, is going to be higher unit costs, significantly less economic benefit for Australia and fewer aircraft than the RAAF identified were required to fill the strategic requirement. I think this is quite mindless; this is silly. Over 14 months ago the government could have acquired the seven airborne early warning and control aircraft from the United States, with two being constructed in Seattle by Boeing and the other five manufactured in Australia, for the price they are now going to pay for four. And not only that—because we are only going to buy four now and another three on the never-never somewhere down the track, I think all of those are going to be made in Seattle by Boeing, with no work in Australia for the Australian defence industry. That is regrettable, to say the least. The people in Brisbane and the people in Williamtown in Newcastle who thought work was going to come in their direction are going to be sadly shaking their heads and asking the government for an explanation of this. Sure, four is better than nothing, but that is not the best option. Indigenous industry needs support. I am unabashedly and unashamedly someone who will stand up for indigenous industry in this country. There are capabilities right around this great nation that we should be tapping into.I am pleased there is a chapter on defence industry in the white paper—there sure as hell was not much in it when the discussion paper was put out—and I think that is appropriate. However, broader national security policy and broad national security issues associated with that, such as border and EEZ protection, need to be addressed. Labor has already commenced this with its coastguard policy. The government, I am afraid, has not said much about that and remains very silent. What we want to see the government do is to convince the Australian public that that system, which I believe is flawed at the moment, is working as well as it could. I think not. The essential precondition for workable policy is a proper integration of all aspects of national security. Defence is just one aspect, foreign policy is another, and others include trade policy, immigration control, issues related to information technology and intellectual property. The government needs to be tested on the success or failure in integrating and coordinating all the elements of this in a national security policy. The defence element in the white paper is a good start, but there are so many other issues in terms of a broader national security policy that we need to address. Labor certainly is going to be pursuing that.This document is a good starting point. It is a blueprint for the future. It is something which the Labor Party has indicated it believes is appropriate and in fact, I have to say, is something which we would have probably put in place as well. The test, of course, for both sides of politics, is always going to be: does it stand the test of time over 10 years? I certainly hope it does. 11:39:0023844Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I am very privileged to be somewhat close to the ADF in Australia and I am pleased to speak to this defence white paper—Defence 2000—Our Future Defence Force—today. With Australia's largest defence base in my electorate incorporating elements of both the Army and the Air Force, I do get to understand and know about the issues that exist and that are in the minds of the forces in general. I am also privileged to serve on the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works, which has a very significant association with the Australian Defence Force. I see many of the major projects that the ADF bring to the committee for its approval. At this stage I also indicate that the Joint Standing Committee on Public Works is run very capably by its secretary, Mr Trevor Rowe, who is a fine officer of the parliament.The defence white paper is a tremendous boost for Australia, the defence forces and our local economy in Townsville and Thuringowa. Mr Deputy Speaker, I will not ask you to spell `Thuringowa', but perhaps I will do so later on, in relation to a conversation we had yesterday. The defence white paper released yesterday is a document of significant national importance. I am pleased that the Australian Labor Party also recognises it as such. It is a blueprint for the future defence needs of Australia. It has been widely welcomed. The Defence Force itself has indicated that the government has accepted what has been asked of it. It has funded what has been asked of it, so the forces are happy.I would say that the community is happy, from what I am picking up, particularly in my patch. The community wanted to see a very clear direction for the defence of Australia. They wanted to see what the defence forces might do, how they might be resourced, what their assets might be, and these things have certainly been provided. The paper that we are noting today is a comprehensive plan for the security of all Australians. It maps out significant improvements in the capabilities of the Australian Defence Force that will provide significant benefits to communities across Australia, but particularly in Townsville and North Queensland as a whole.The capability enhancements outlined in the white paper will be supported by the biggest funding boost for defence in 20 years. Defence funding will increase an average of three per cent per annum. I note Dr Martin's concerns in relation to the deflator that has been used, but that will be three per cent per annum in real terms over the coming decade—$500 million next year, $500 million on, $500 million the following year and then three per cent each year after that. I believe that a significant amount of that investment is expected to be spent in Australia. I was pleased to see that the three new Navy ships will be built in Australia, and that is very important for the shipbuilding industry.The specific measures outlined in the white paper that will be of particular benefit to Townsville include the acquisition of additional watercraft for the Army—through 10 FSB on Ross River. It will improve the mobility of troops based at Townsville. Of course, the troops that are based there are Australia's ready deployment force, currently the 1st Battalion and the 2nd Battalion, with the 1st Battalion currently in East Timor and the 2nd Battalion on line as the ready deployment force.A very interesting recommendation in the white paper has been for a world-class army combat training and evaluation centre to be established in Townsville. That will be a fairly large facility in terms of area. It will have all of the whiz-bang gadgetry—lasers, computers and so on—to put soldiers into the field to see how they perform in certain situations. They will then be able to replay their performance to see what they have done right, what they might have done wrong and how they could have done things better. This is the march of technology into the Defence Force. That facility will likely be located at the Townsville field training area at High Range and it will be an important adjunct to the facilities at Lavarack Barracks. What we will see—and our community in Townsville should understand this—is battalions moving through the city. They will come, do their training and they will move away again, and that will bring benefits to the city as well. Stage 3 at Lavarack Barracks will proceed. That is all of the working areas of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Battalion, 3 Combat Engineering Regiment and 4 Field Regiment. There will be brigade headquarters and also 103 Signal Squadron. All of the working areas will be completely upgraded at a cost of $210 million. I understand that the project is likely to come to the Public Works Committee in the middle of next year for approval, which is going to ensure ongoing work for the building industry in Townsville. There will be a further $35 million for stage 2 redevelopment of RAAF at East Townsville that is long overdue. The facilities there are in World War II buildings. I think that underlines the necessity to get some modernisation into the RAAF base.I was interested to see the recommendation in the paper that the Defence Force intends to maintain fully six infantry battalions with various roles. That ensures that the battalions in Townsville will be at full strength and appropriately equipped. I agree with the member for Cunningham that we do have to pay particular attention to the acquisition and retention of members of the Defence Force. I think that is something that the Defence Force will now work on very strongly as the future directions in the white paper are known and well understood.The good news continues—my colleague the member for McEwen would like some of this for Puckapunyal—in that we are also going to get a squadron of the armed reconnaissance helicopters at Lavarack Barracks.JT4Bailey, Fran, MPFran Bailey—They can visit.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—Yes, they can. That is part of the Air 87 project. It is interesting that these helicopters were in Air 87, the previous defence white paper, but were never delivered. This time the government is determined that these new helicopters will be delivered because they have a very specific role in relation to the operations of the Army. One squadron will be based in Townsville; the other will be based in Darwin. That is entirely appropriate. As the Army moves it sharp end to the north it is important that the assets be located with the rest of the important elements of the ADF who are required to respond.Additional marinised troop lift helicopters will also be acquired. I think that is code for Chinook, but I cannot confirm that. We already have four Chinooks; two are being delivered right now. There will be four Chinooks in Townsville. I guess that will mean additional Chinook helicopters will be there ready to support the ready deployment force in Townsville.For Townsville-Thuringowa this means that the importance of Lavarack in the scheme of things has certainly been enhanced, but there is a civilian side as well, apart from the Defence side. The civilian side is that the amount of money that the ADF spends will have an effect on the economy of my region. The multiplier effect that occurs translates to employment and jobs. We should never underestimate the importance of the ADF in relation to employment and jobs. We heard the member for Cunningham talk about the defence industry. I absolutely agree with the points that he was making. I believe that those in the defence industry will also have smiles on their faces in relation to the directions in the white paper. It comes right down to grassroots level, to the local supermarket, local plumber, electrician, building contractors, consultants and so on. When you get $210 million spent on stage 3 at Lavarack Barracks, with 85 per cent of that going into the local economy, it is just a huge boost. That is why the ADF in our garrison city is considered so tremendously important. To diverge for a second: the ADF will also play a huge role in the Centenary of Federation next year, as well they might. The nation and our city are very proud of them.I do have a disappointment in the white paper, but this is not the end of the day. I was looking for some signal that the Tobruk, the Minoura and the Kanimbla would be home ported in Townsville. Currently they are forward based in Townsville.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—He does want everything.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—The member for Brisbane speaks as a Queenslander. These ships were probably the most extraordinarily expensive mistake that the Navy ever made, far worse than the Collins class submarines, although Collins is what is talked about in the media.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—They are the best conventional submarine in the world, for goodness sake. It is absolute nonsense you are propagating. Get your facts right.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—It happens to be the view of the Minister for Defence, and you allowed these rust buckets to be purchased. When you look at how much it has cost to bring them back up—3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—You supported the acquisition.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—I am not talking about the Collins class, I am talking about the Manoora and the Kanimbla. I am disappointed that we have not achieved home base ability for these ships, because they are the lift platform across the sea for the ready deployment force. They will be ported in Townsville on perhaps 75 days a year. My point is that these people have got to be where the customers are, and the customers are in Townsville, not in Sydney Harbour. The days are long gone when an admiral could sit in his office and look out over the fleet in Sydney Harbour. The sooner we realise that the better, and the sooner we see those ships home ported in Townsville the better it will be. It is just a small disappointment which I am continuing to work on: we will see if we can make that arrangement.This is the first time in over 20 years that the Defence Force has had such a firm, real commitment from the federal government to ensuring that our Defence Force retains its capability as a first-class fighting force. I am very happy to see the role that the white paper has set for the ADF, and the various levels of importance in that role. I congratulate the defence minister and, indeed, the service chiefs and the Chief of the Defence Force on what they have been able to bring to the parliament. It has had widespread community support. I will certainly be backing the white paper. Where I see one or two omissions in relation to things like home porting of navy vessels, however, I will be saying that as well.11:53:0023846Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I am very happy to participate in this debate on the Defence white paper, Defence 2000—Our Future Defence Force. I am pleased to see the parliament, on this rare occasion, turning its mind to defence and the important issue of the defence of our nation. In the 15 minutes we have, it is not possible to do any serious justice to the issues at hand—the important questions of the strategic analysis and the force structure elements that are in it, the question of personnel, so vital to the defence effort, the funding and the Australian industry, to name just a few of the key issues. I wish to briefly touch on a few of those matters. I wish I could go into more detail on them and also to speak on the issues that time will not permit me to deal with at all today. At the outset, I want to set the record straight. A great revision of history has been going on in the last 24 hours. We just heard from the member for Herbert the assertion that this is the first time in 20 years that this planning has been evident. I am never too sure, when I hear members of the Liberal Party and the National Party say that, whether they believe it—that is, they are ignorant—or whether they are being mischievous because they actually know it to be untrue but think that it is a good political spin-doctoring approach to adopt.Anyone who has had anything to do with the defence debate during the last 15 or 20 years would know that the intellectual rigour involved in providing this sort of planning for defence actually commenced under Labor. It commenced with Kim Beazley when he was the Minister for Defence. We pioneered and fostered the development of white papers, not just in our country but throughout the region. Those who care to test the veracity of that might like to look at the white papers written in the 1980s or—something that is more easily accessible—at the white paper written in 1994. Unfortunately, when Labor lost office in 1996, the incoming Howard government had no comprehension of these matters. In the last parliament they set about destroying and dismantling a great deal of the good work that had been done both in foreign affairs in the region and with the defence forces.I am delighted that in this white paper the government appear to have jettisoned the vandalism that occurred in the preceding four years and have adopted the far more mature and balanced approach to defence that is evident in this white paper but which has been so lacking throughout the entire time since this government came to office in 1996. I want to refer to a few of the things they did prior to this awakening on the road to Damascus. When we left office in 1996, there were 58,000 full-time uniformed personnel—that is, Army, Navy and Air Force combined. Today, that figure rests at about 50,000. That is a cut by this government of some 8,000 full-time personnel from our defence forces in the space of just four years.In this white paper they give a commitment to increase that figure by 4,000—which we applaud. That will still leave them with 4,000 full-time troops fewer than they inherited. When we left office, there were 58,000; today there are 50,000. That figure of 50,000 represents the smallest full-time defence force that this nation has had in 37 years. That is a frightening statistic. This government has presided over a cutback in full-time troops to the lowest level in about 37 years. So when they announced measures in the white paper which we support, let them not take credit for things they do not deserve credit for. That is in fact their record.It was not just that they made those cuts; they went about it in a reckless manner. They reduced our defence capability in a whole range of areas. I will give an example from 1997, only one year after they came to office. Because of the Defence Efficiency Review cuts and other changes that the government endorsed—the then minister, Ian McLachlan, pursued the matters with zeal, but it was formal government policy—they slashed and burned across the Defence Force, not just cutting people but cutting capability.Army units in 1997-98, in some cases, were not allocated any rounds at all of certain types of live ammunition. So when they went to train in that year, they could go, `Bang, bang,' or they could fire blanks, but they had zero allocation of some live rounds. I will give the chamber some examples. Ammunition that was affected included 105 millimetre tank rounds, 25 millimetre ASLAV rounds, 155 millimetre tank and even the basic 5.6 millimetre Steyr operational rounds. One soldier at the time was so frustrated that he wrote to the Army News about it—the official Army paper. Defence, and Army, senior brass knew that they had such a problem that they actually printed the letter. This is what the soldier said: Recently the heavy weapons platoon of my unit was allocated its 84mm MDFSW ammunition for the next training year and we were informed that the grand total of live rounds was zero due to budget cuts.The soldier went on to say:Already our unit is a year in arrears for qualifying its 84mm crews from last year's basic course and obviously there are none for this year's basic course.That letter to the editor from a soldier was replied to by Land Headquarters in the Army News. This was the reply:The frustration expressed by the author is understood as are the other potential problems created by ammunition cutbacks. Solutions are being sought at present and there is an expectation that some of the restrictions may be eased soon.That was a response from Land Headquarters. This government recklessly went around slashing and burning in a blind fashion without any scope and without any plan for defence, to the point where soldiers did not even have bullets. I am glad they now understand what a mess they have created in the last three years.Let me put to rest another falsehood in this debate. The government have portrayed themselves as having saved the defence budget from great cuts—the inference being, and in some cases expressly stated, that Labor in its term in office had cut the defence budget and that John Howard and this government have come along and saved the defence budget because they quarantined it. Wrong! Wrong!Here are the facts. When we came to office, our first budget was in 1983-84. In real terms, Labor increased the defence budget by four per cent that year. The following year we increased it in real terms by a further 3.3 per cent—that was on top of the earlier increase. The year after that, 1985-86, we increased it again by 3.1 per cent in real terms over and above the increases we had given in the earlier years, and in 1986-87 we increased it yet again by one per cent in real terms. The following year, 1988-89, we increased it by half of one per cent in real terms. Obviously, it went up much more than that in actual dollar terms. This is in real terms after taking account of inflation. So, for the first six years in a row, we increased the defence budget.We then kept it, as this government has, in real terms with zero growth. That is, no cut, no increase—we maintained its real value. We did that for the following four years. So that is 10 years in all out of our 13 in office where there was no cut—and for most of that time there were substantial increases. The only reductions occurred in the last three years of our time in office and they were of less than one per cent in each year. It was three-quarters of a per cent, followed by half a per cent, followed by half a per cent. The facts are that the Labor government in office increased defence spending dramatically and then maintained those higher levels for the greater part of our term in office.A lot of people talk about percentage of GDP and want to make measures about that; we did in government, and all politicians do. I just want to say that I think the percentage of GDP is a good political scoring point that you can use to justify whatever position takes your fancy. It is not helpful in this debate.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—Nothing to do with whatever suits you at this particular junction.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—Thank you, come in, spinner. The percentage of GDP has gone down since you came into office, so if I wanted to take your simplistic view of it, Chris, I would actually use that measure because it shows your government up as having made a cut. If you had half a brain and wanted to listen to the debate, you would actually understand that the point I am making is that the percentage of GDP is a misinformed yardstick, which is why your defence committee in the last parliament, chaired by then Senator MacGibbon, acknowledged that point. And if you have a look at that report from a committee composed of a majority of government members, you will see that they acknowledge the point I just made, which is that the percentage of GDP is not a useful yardstick. That was the view of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade in the last parliament chaired by a Liberal senator. So those who want to enter this debate should actually learn a little bit about it before they do that. I said at the outset that the government have thankfully seen the error of their ways and have decided to put back in place some of the fundamentals that underpinned defence planning throughout the 1980s and the 1990s but sadly were jettisoned by this government over the last four years. I just want to illustrate that point for those people who do not have any background knowledge or understanding of the debate and turn for a moment to one of the things that was said in the 1994 white paper—and this terminology will ring a bell because we heard basically the same words yesterday from the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence. It said:Our approach to the defence of Australia emphasises understanding our strategic environment and guarding our sea and air approaches. It requires capabilities which can deny our approaches to an adversary as well as capabilities to defeat incursions onto our territory. It therefore goes beyond our shores to include a range of direct interests which are important to our defence.You might think there is some similarity between that and this comment in the white paper released yesterday:... Australia will maintain maritime capabilities—mostly air and naval forces—that can defend Australia by denying our air and sea approaches to any credible hostile forces.That is exactly the position that Labor has adopted since 1983. Unfortunately, it was jettisoned by this government in the former parliament and, until now, their position had been that, rather than seek defence of Australia within a secure region, they would seek defence of Australia from the region. There is a fundamental difference there. Thankfully, they now understand the error of their ways and have adopted the position that Labor set out and that was clearly understood in Australia and in the region.I want to make some comments about defence industry, because it is vitally important. The government made some play yesterday of its intention to try and plan defence acquisitions so that we can sustain indigenous capability—a fine objective, which I thoroughly endorse. What I have difficulty with is the spin doctor effort yesterday by the Liberal Party to claim this as some new initiative that the government just announced yesterday. Again, I will read from the 1994 white paper, which reflects a similar view held in earlier years of the Labor government. It says:The 1992 Price Report on Defence Policy and Industry—which I recommend members of the Liberal Party read; it was written by Roger Price when he was parliamentary secretary and is a very fine document on the subject—emphasised that support from Australian industry was essential for our defence, while making it clear that supporting Australian industry was not a defence objective in its own right. It stressed the importance of a long-term relationship between Defence and industry, focusing on Australian strategic priorities. It went on to say:To encourage greater Australian industry involvement in acquisition and through-life support, the Defence Organisation will consider modifying the timing of its defence projects where this improves the continuity of work-flow, encourages the sustainability of high priority skills, and does not jeopardise the capability of the Australian Defence Force. Where separate capital equipment projects share similar technologies, linkages will be established to achieve economies of scale, the benefits of commonality and a more sustainable flow of work to industry. That is, in more detail, what the government announced yesterday—that is, in 1994 not only did we set out those principles, we actually fleshed them out. A year later, in 1995, the Labor government published its Australian industry involvement, or AII, guidelines, which gave the detail, the flesh on the bones, of exactly how we would go about acquisitions to maximise Australian industry participation and local content. If you look at the record of the Australian Labor government in its years in office, that performance was second to none in peacetime.In the remaining few seconds I have, I want to repeat that the paper released yesterday does have many fine features in it and it does put right some of the very foolish mistakes that the government made over the last four years. I am happy to acknowledge those positive aspects. But I think the public have a right to know the recklessness of this government over the last four years and they should understand that the spin doctor efforts of this government are without any justification.12:08:0023850Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—I am very pleased for a number of reasons to rise in this debate on the defence white paper Defence 2000Our Future Defence Force. The first and foremost is my close association with the Australian Defence Force through Puckapunyal, in my electorate of McEwen, and as a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and of its Defence Subcommittee, so ably chaired by the member for Wannon. I will refer a little later to the report that it tabled, From phantom to force, which in fact highlighted a number of the problems that the white paper has addressed. The defence white paper builds on a tradition of service by our defence forces of both preserving our national security and fulfilling the role of peacekeeper. It provides our defence forces with the means, in both equipment and personnel, to provide Australia with a stronger, more flexible, better trained and better equipped Defence Force for the new century. Yesterday's announcement by the Prime Minister and the Minister for Defence marks a turning point for the security of Australia, and for the security of thousands of men and women who serve in our defence forces. Yesterday's announcement is the product of extensive and intensive consultations with all levels of our defence forces, and, most importantly, with the general public of Australia. I am going to refer a little bit later to concrete examples that came from the community that have been picked up and are being enacted in the white paper. In fact, I think this is the first time that the Australian community has been included in discussions on such a wide scale.We have to ask: what has been the result of all this consultation from within the different levels of the defence forces and the wider Australian community? I can think of no better way to respond to that question than to quote Admiral Chris Barrie, the Chief of Defence Force, who yesterday said, `The government has given us the defence force we asked for.' He went on to say, `This enables us as a nation to be a responsible player in our region.' As I said, I can think of no better way to answer that question. The end product of all the consultation, both from within Defence and from the wider community, has been for the Chief of Defence Force to say, `The government has given us the defence force we asked for, and that provides for our needs.' I am quite sure that the reason that the defence chief responded so positively to yesterday's announcement was that the key issues have been identified. A number of speakers on both sides of this debate have already alluded to those, but I want to refer today to the key issues of personnel recruitment and retention, and the appropriate equipment to enable Australia to be, as Admiral Barrie referred yesterday, a responsible player in our region. All of these issues have been tackled head on in this white paper with the infusion of the biggest funding increase for defence in 20 years, and with spending over the next decade expected to increase by $23.5 billion in real terms. This means that funding will increase by an average of three per cent per year, with an immediate increase of $500 million in 2001-02, and $1,000 million in the following year. It is this level of spending that will enable the ADF to enhance its capabilities with the construction of new ships, the upgrading and modernisation of aircraft, ships and vehicles, and the improvement to a range of communications, command and control and information systems.As I said in opening my contribution to this debate, I am particularly pleased that Puckapunyal in my electorate of McEwen will benefit directly from the upgrading of armoured personnel carriers, and from the fact that soldiers are going to be equipped with body armour, night vision gear, missiles, and the latest in communications. I would in passing also refer to some comments my colleague the member for Herbert made earlier in this debate. This announcement has a direct benefit for large defence establishments like Puckapunyal in my electorate, but indirect benefits also flow through to the communities surrounding defence establishments like Puckapunyal.The benefit for Australian industry is enormous and the government is adamant that maximum input by Australian industry should occur into the upgrading of all these capabilities when tenders are called for the upgrading, the modernisation of aircraft, ships, vehicles and communication systems. Of course, all of the new equipment cannot provide Australia with any capability unless we have the trained personnel to use it.I am pleased to say that the white paper certainly picks up on the thrust of the report, which I referred to earlier, by the Defence Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. The white paper readily acknowledges the deficiencies of full-time ADF numbers and has laid down the framework to increase full-time numbers to 54,000. Minister Bruce Scott has stated that this increase is fundamental to the enhanced force structure. The white paper provides for world-class weapons, equipment and communications systems, and we need the men and women with the matching skills to operate these systems. In order to attract and retain people of such calibre, we need to better recognise the unique nature of service in our defence forces. The government recognises that job satisfaction, remuneration packages, health and safety, as well as career opportunities and family lifestyle, need to be improved if we are to both attract and retain these special people.I want to refer directly to the white paper itself and to the consultation process. If we are to look at this whole question of retention of personnel, we must look at the question of job satisfaction. One of the key findings from the community consultation team was that there is strong public support for the government treating employment in the defence services as a unique vocation or way of life and not simply as just another job. Service in the ADF is now seen as just a job by many people, but the ADF is simply not like any other business. Central to improving that job satisfaction is, in fact, the remuneration, superannuation and compensation. The government readily acknowledges and states very clearly on page 64 of the white paper that there is a need to tailor remuneration packages to meet the specific needs of the different categories of personnel in the Defence Force. These include both young, operationally oriented personnel who seek a short-term career in the ADF and more experienced members who have the skills and knowledge to train and lead the force. The government recognises the need to adopt a long-term care approach that embraces superannuation, compensation and transitioning to veterans' entitlements. Retention issues were another area of very important community consultation, and it was reported by the consultation team that many serving members are frustrated by inadequate training opportunities and conditions of service. This leads to low morale and poor retention rates. There is significant concern about ADF personnel leaving at the point of their career at which they have the knowledge and experience that both the organisation and the country need.So I am very pleased to identify that, yet again, the white paper addresses these issues and options for more effective remuneration arrangements. As stated in the white paper, these can include a restructured ADF pay system that recognises different skills and market values and provides better transparency and greater choice. It also identifies the need for packages, based on skills as well as rank, taking more account of wider labour market forces, the establishment of more specialist trade structures within Defence, putting in place employment conditions that recognise different career and work expectations of ADF personnel right across their careers, and the possibility of providing more flexible superannuation benefits for ADF personnel through specifically designed arrangements. This certainly will go a long way towards addressing the issues of not just retention but making sure that we are recruiting people because they know that there is going to be a secure future.With respect to another issue from the community consultation, many submissions argued that the outsourcing of support functions for the Defence Force has been a major contributor to deskilling and low morale within the defence work force. The white paper clearly states that, in order to counter the impact of these influences on retention, the government will ensure that the impact on families in terms of spouse or partner employment opportunities, education and special needs will be important considerations in posting decisions and when locating all new capabilities and establishments.Further, the government will ensure that, wherever practicable, establishments are co-located to increase the options for back-to-back postings, to build closer relations with industry, particularly in the engineering and technical trades area, and to make it easier for individuals who have left to pursue career opportunities within industry to return to defence either on a full-time or a part-time basis. Now, with the amendments to the legislation affecting the reserves, that is made a far more attractive option so that people who may want to leave full-time service can take part in the reserves. The Defence Force recruiting process is also being redesigned, with a pilot scheme already under way in Victoria.Two other areas that I want to address briefly in the time remaining to me are the role of the reserves and the cadet scheme. We have already introduced amendments to the legislation relating to the role of reserves. I was very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in that debate. Those amendments provide the means for those thousands of men and women who volunteer their time and expertise in the reserves to play a greater role in our overall defence capability. They provide protection for reservists in their civilian jobs and, importantly, address the concerns of employers and reservists by providing a financial support package for them. The callout provisions contained in those amendments are very important for calling out both whole units and individual reservists. A very important initiative in the white paper is the provision of $30 million for the cadet scheme. Currently, 25,000 young people across Australia are cadets and they benefit from the sense of belonging to a unit and the activities of these units. Through being cadets, they have the opportunity to build self-esteem and leadership skills and gain the experience of learning how to work as part of a team and to exercise responsibility not just for their own actions but for others as well. Most importantly, this initiative will enable thousands of other young Australians to benefit from these opportunities.In conclusion, as Australians, we need to ensure that our Defence Force is able to meet the challenges of the future. It needs to be well resourced. It needs people to be highly trained, skilled and fulfilled in whatever area in which they serve. I believe that this white paper addresses all of these issues and, most importantly, provides the financial means to ensure that these overdue needs are met. I support and commend the white paper.12:24:0023853Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Against the background that the white paper Defence 2000—Our Future Defence Force endorses Labor's strategic defence policy, I want to congratulate the Howard government. I welcome the white paper, and I would like to discuss some of the issues that it raises. Over the next 10 years spending in the Defence budget will be $107 billion, an increase of $23 billion. There will be large investment in intelligence communications and command systems, including an increased use of satellites belonging to the United States of America, and there will be aerial spy planes with thermal surveillance systems. The Air Force will have up to 100 new combat aircraft to replace the FA18 and F111 fleets from 2012, as well as four new early warning and control aircraft, five airborne refuelling aircraft and replacements of Caribou tactical transports from 2010.The Army will have between 20 and 24 new armed reconnaissance helicopters and 12 new troop-lift helicopters, new air defence missile systems, a new combat training centre in Townsville and new body armour, weapons, night vision equipment and radios for troops. There will also be new shoulder-fired guided missiles to be used to attack armoured vehicles, bunkers and buildings. The Navy will have a new class of major amphibious ships, replacements for 15 medium and six heavy landing craft, two new Australian built supply ships to replace HMAS Westralia and Success, and a new class of patrol boats to replace 15 Fremantle boats. The Collins class submarines are also to be brought to a high level of capability. Defence personnel will be increased over the next 10 years to 54,000, an increase of 3½ thousand on today's numbers. As well, there will be an upgrade of the reserve force. To its great credit, the government has increased funding to the National Cadet Scheme by $30 million from the year 2002.They are the positive angles. But the white paper fails to deal with the problems of some of our regional neighbours and their economies, religious tensions, unsteady democracies and the conduct of some of the separatist groups. As the shadow minister for defence, the Hon. Steve Martin, has pointed out, there is a glaring omission in the white paper in that there is no commitment to our forging strong relations with our regional neighbours. There is no doubt that there is a feeling of regional instability and insecurity in this country. That became apparent with the reluctance of the United States initially to become involved in the conflict in East Timor. I remember that, when I was growing up in the small country town of Dunedoo in New South Wales, it was impressed on me by my teachers and family that in times of conflict we could rely on the Americans and that they would come and save us. It is quite obvious, since the East Timor conflict, that we cannot rely on America and that self-reliance is the way for Australia to go. I welcome the fact that there is $30 million for the cadet corps. I was very proud to see Lieutenant General Cosgrove sitting on the floor of the House yesterday listening to the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. He was an adjutant of the cadet corps at Waverley College where I went to school in the 1960s, and I remember him well. No doubt that was his first step in a career in the Defence Force and gave him training in leadership, confidence, maturity and morale. Quite plainly, Lieutenant General Cosgrove is a great Australian, and I am very proud that I went to school with him, although he was a few years ahead of me. I was very pleased to have the opportunity to serve in the cadet corps at Waverley College in the 1960s—even to this date I can still recite the names of all the members of the platoon. But I will not bore you with all those details. In concluding, I congratulate the government on this matter. I think it is terribly important that we maintain our Defence Force; the government definitely deserves a tick.Finally, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, you were here last Thursday when I was making a speech in the adjournment debate in this House about Christmas when there was an interruption with a series of divisions and I did not get to finish. All I wanted to do was to convey to you, to all Australians and in fact to all mankind a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.Motion (by Mr Pyne) agreed to:That further proceedings be conducted in the House.Adjournment23854Motion (by Mr Pyne) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.2385412:30:0023854Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I rise in the Main Committee today to place on the record this government's approach to nursing homes which I believe is nothing short of appalling. Since the Minister for Aged Care has taken over the portfolio, the standard of aged care has fallen to the point where the minister is now more concerned with looking after those in the wealthier suburbs while nursing homes in Western Sydney, such as those in my electorate of Prospect, are being totally ignored. The inability of this minister to properly monitor the quality of care provided in aged care facilities is a national disgrace, and it is no more clearly evident than in my electorate of Prospect.The minister, in answering question on notice No. 1860, admitted that in the years her government has been in office her department has performed only one spot check on nursing homes within the Prospect electorate. This is a gross neglect of the federal government's responsibilities and obligations to ensure that our older Australians, particularly those in my electorate, receive the care and the attention they require. My electorate has a high population of elderly citizens, and the community must be reassured that older Australians in nursing homes are receiving proper care.As Prospect has received only one spot check in five years, I wish to compare this figure with the electorates which have received more than the one—areas such as that of my colleague the member for Lowe, who was just speaking. Nursing homes in his electorate have had seven spot checks between October 1998 and September 2000. I then went to the electorates of Deakin, Chisholm, La Trobe, McEwen and Ashton and found that between them they had received over 170 inspections in the period of time when my electorate had received one. We need to have fairness and equality in the aged care system. If spot checks are being carried out, then I say to the minister: carry them out in a fair and equal fashion. I also take this opportunity to put on the record that the nursing homes in my electorate do a wonderful job and they employ dedicated and hardworking staff. There are many nursing homes which employ hardworking and skilled staff in the aged care sector. However, problems can occur and strategies must be put into place to prevent these problems occurring—strategies like regular spot checks.The community must be reassured that all nursing homes develop and implement practices and procedures which withstand scrutiny at all times. In answering that same question on notice, the Minister for Aged Care also ruled out conducting any further spot checks in my area on a regular basis. According to the minister, spot checks will be carried out `generally on a random basis' rather than on a monthly, quarterly, half-yearly or even yearly basis. It is quite obvious by this statement that the Howard government has little, if any, care for the impact of their aged care policies on the families concerned.What about the latest about-turn by the Howard government on the plans to grant now last-minute exemptions to its 1 January 2001 aged care accreditation deadline? The government has confirmed that up to 50 nursing homes could be forced to close because they cannot meet the standards necessary for accreditation. Is the minister or this government now at the very last moment going to change the rules to avoid a crisis in aged care? Accreditation is all well and good but, if it is not followed up by spot checks, the work that has been done to receive that accreditation could gradually fade away; sloppy habits and that old near enough, good enough syndrome could easily return. We do not want that.I can provide case after case of concern raised with me in my office from families who have relatives in nursing home care within my electorate. Let us not neglect our aged people. They have given so much to the community and they have reached a stage now in their lives when they can no longer care for themselves. All they ask from us is trust: trust that people do care for them, trust that we do understand the predicament which has placed them in that particular nursing home and, more importantly, trust that they know they will be looked after.If one spot check in five years by this government is its idea of maintaining aged care standards it is outrageous. I believe the Howard government stands condemned for its inaction on nursing homes, particularly in my electorate. People may say that I am getting up here and making comparison with electorates that have a far greater population than mine. That is not so, because I did my homework. I also investigated the aged population in those particular areas because I thought that maybe my electorate had a very young population, that perhaps only four or five per cent of residents in my electorate would be aged and therefore my electorate would not have the same number of nursing homes as other electorates. That is not so. There were 170 nursing home checks done in those other electorates, and each of those electorates share a similar population in the age bracket to my electorate—in fact, I think I exceed one or two of them—and they also have a similar number of nursing homes within their electorates.So that is why I say we need to have equity and equality. If spot checks are going to be done at random, well and good, but the western suburbs of Sydney are accountable for 1.3 million of the population. My electorate has a population in excess of 200,000, and my aged people deserve the same equality and care from this government as those in all other communities. (Time expired)2385612:35:0023856Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—Today, I would like to talk about balance and focus: balance, because some of our noblest principles are balanced precariously over a chasm of ignorance, at best, or a cliff of misinformation; focus, because that is what some of my hardest working constituents seem to be losing.The political debate rages on the issue of school funding. Meanwhile, actions are being taken that, while directed at one group, are really affecting another innocent group of people—our children. In my electorate of Gilmore, there are 58 schools. Each year for the last four years I have donated to every school an award for the quiet achiever. The student has always been chosen from those nominated by the school body, and I have never sought to interfere. If possible, I present the award at the school's speech night or graduation ceremony. Often, other people present the awards on my behalf because, as much as I would like to, I cannot attend all of them.The reason I try to present as many quiet achiever awards as possible has nothing to do with my political party or leanings. I had no choice but to leave school at 15 to help supplement the family income and I was unable to complete my education. Never did I receive an award until my final year at school when I received a citizenship award. I have never forgotten the thrill of being recognised for doing something well. This is what I try to do with the quiet achiever awards.The winners do not generally win other prizes but, every day, like most of us, they put in a good, solid effort and they do their best. The quiet achiever award winners are being penalised in Gilmore right now and nobody is making a sound. Teachers, staff and some P&C members are refusing to allow the quiet achiever award to be presented this year. They are doing this as a political action to draw attention to their distaste for school funding.As a politician, I expect flak from time to time and will always stand up for what is fair, regardless of the political cost. However, I am not getting the flak. Those paying the true cost are the students who, just like you and me, have turned up every day, put in a good, solid effort and done their best. It is okay not to have me at the school; that is their democratic right. But why make these hardworking students pay? Surely, part of learning is to understand that, in all things, there are two or more sides to every story. I make the point that none of the schools that have decided to make the quiet achievers pay the penalty have actually asked me to discuss the other side of the debate. With just one side of the story, with no real research or any other information, these teachers, staff and, in some cases, P&C members, have made a decision. While they berate me about balance, they act without it. While they rage against this government's supposedly unfair actions, they take unfair actions of their own. What is this teaching our children? What will the quiet achievers learn about balance? Most teachers are great and I have the highest regard for them and their profession. They put in many hours of unpaid assistance for their students and their schools. They bear the brunt of all new regulations and students' rights and they carry enormous responsibilities, with little control over their situations.Most teachers deserve more money, more training and more support, and most teachers practise what they preach. Unfortunately, there are some who think that, by stopping me from presenting awards, they will change my mind about the education funding bill. All I ask is for a fair hearing in order to present the other side to what is being fed to them by their union and the New South Wales state government. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, there are some who have lost their balance and their proper focus. Please do not penalise the students for something that is not of their making. Allow the quiet achiever awards to be made, if not by me, then by the school on my behalf. Ban me if you must, but not the students. 2385712:39:0023857Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—I rise to make some comments this afternoon about the National Library of Australia, which next year celebrates its 100th anniversary, coinciding with our Centenary of Federation. The National Library is a great institution, and I do not say that just because I am happy to take on the task of being on its board as a representative of this parliament. As a major cultural institution, the National Library's role is to maintain and develop a national collection of library material to record the documentary heritage of all Australians. It is a remarkable institution because it is showing the way in taking Australia forward as a knowledge nation. Libraries are about the management of information and knowledge. They are not just a warehouse of information; they are interactive and creative as well.The National Library is part of the knowledge nation because it is committed to nurturing and developing ideas. The challenges that the National Library has identified are in fact the same challenges that we face as a society in the information age. Indeed, the particular goal that the National Library has just set itself for the next three years is that `all Australians, at their place of choice, have direct, seamless access to print and electronic resources of information'. Part of that goal is to respond to the massive explosion in growth of digital information resources. The Library is strengthening its role in digital information technology through initiatives such as the National Collection of Australian Electronic Publications, a collaboration with state libraries and ScreenSound Australia that aims to ensure significant digital publications are made available nationally.The Library is actively involved in the national digital policy debate, it is continually upgrading its digital information software and it is making great progress in bringing these collections online. It is focusing on innovation and service delivery through the use of online technology such as PictureAustralia, a single-entry web point to the digitised heritage image collection of major cultural institutions, including the Australian War Memorial and the state libraries of New South Wales, Victoria and Tasmania. It is also planning a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week reference service for major public libraries around the world.We are also bombarded with an abundance of information and knowledge, and our challenge is to increase access to it in ways that add to our quality of life. As the Labor Leader of the Opposition said at the ALP National Conference, one of Australia's key challenges is to skill ourselves to adapt to rapid technological change and the emergence of the new economy. He also said that, while we may recognise that the application of knowledge to our society has created possibilities that most of us never would have dreamed of, the reality is that it often outstrips our capacity to fully comprehend and harness it.Unless we set out to distribute the benefits, this so-called revolution will be nothing more than the changing of the guard, the replacement of one privileged class by another. That is why Labor believes that, the wider the distribution and the greater the accumulation of knowledge, the wealthier and the stronger Australia will become. It is not an opinion. I believe this wealth of knowledge is a necessity. One of the key challenges that the National Library has set itself is exactly that: to innovate and to adapt to rapid technological change, to break down physical boundaries and to harness the emergence of the new communications technology as a major vehicle to communicate across the world. It is also about reaching Australians, regardless of where they live. The National Library's origins go back to Federation in 1901. It was established as part of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library when the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library served both the federal parliament and the nation. The National Library was housed for many years in the original Parliament House building in Melbourne, before being moved to its new location in Canberra in 1926 with the relocation of parliament. The National Library Act in 1960 formally separated the National Library from the Parliamentary Library, and a new building was opened in 1968.The National Library is now one of Australia's leading research and reference libraries. Its collections include more than seven million books, magazines, journals, newspapers, works in microform, manuscripts, maps, music, pictures, photographs, films, videos and oral history tapes. The Library also houses the largest collection in Australia of rare books and books printed before 1800. In addition to its Australian items, the Library has also developed a large collection of overseas published books, with particular emphasis on Asia.Given that we are celebrating the National Library's 100th anniversary, it is fitting that we should reflect on its role. It is fair to say that, without the National Library and its incredible resources, this place, the federal parliament, would struggle to function properly. Without the National Library, Commonwealth, state and territory departments and authorities would be starved of the vital information they need to survive. When the Centenary of Federation celebrations kick off next year, spare a thought for the National Library of Australia and the unique place it has in our most recent history. It is an important part of our heritage and an important part of our future. It is something that, as Australians, we should all be proud of in the same way that we should be proud of our Commonwealth parliament. (Time expired)2385812:44:0023858Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—I rise to discuss a claim that I do not believe, and that is that the Premier of Queensland knew nothing about the electoral rorting that was going on in Queensland. Everybody in Queensland knew about that. This week we witnessed the Premier of Queensland standing up at a press conference to attack the state opposition for suggesting that he had something to hide. What did the opposition do to deserve that outburst from the self-professed `media junkie'? They distributed a leaflet that merely pointed out that Mr Beattie was state secretary of the ALP when rorting occurred, that he was a member of the Goss government when rorting occurred and that he was the leader of the Labor Party when rorting—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand the Main Committee is supposed to be a non-controversial committee in which the type of approach being adopted by the member for Herbert is not the traditional approach expected and encouraged in this Committee.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the honourable member for Batman. I understand why he raised that point of order. The reality is that debate here is often very controversial. It is non-controversial legislation that is referred to.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—If you believe the Premier you would think that he must have been living in some state of perpetual bliss for the last 20 years. LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Deputy Speaker, whilst acknowledging your earlier response to the issue I raised, yes, there is debate about bills which go to the nature and the operation of the parliament. The historical approach to the operation of the Main Committee, as you and I know, has been for the purpose of facilitating the operation of the parliament with respect to non-controversial bills. It is not used for the purposes of enabling one of us to come in here and slag others personally across the chamber or to make unjustified attacks on people beyond the chamber. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I have heard the point of order made by the member for Batman. I have to say again that controversial statements are frequently made from both sides. I suggest to all that I spend more time in this chamber than anybody else and I can speak with authority on what I have just said about it coming from both sides. The reality is that debate has often been, and will continue to be, controversial. Therefore I uphold what I said before. The member for Herbert has the call.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—The position that the Premier has taken on this matter contrasts so boldly with evidence given to Commissioner Shepherdson—Motion (by Mr Sercombe) proposed:That the member be not further heard.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The question is that the member be not further heard. QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr Sercombe—I ask that a division be called.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—We cannot have a division. There is an unresolved question and therefore that unresolved question will go back to the main chamber where it can be considered. The member for Herbert still has the call. In no way has he been stopped from speaking in this chamber.QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr Sercombe—On a point of order: with the greatest of respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is an unresolved question before the chair as you indicate. Until that matter is resolved, on my reading it would seem to me a matter of logic and conformity with the standing orders that it is quite inappropriate for the member for Herbert to continue. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for his intervention. I understand why he was saying that but, again, I think the normal practice of the chair in this parliament is always—if the need arises—to resolve things in favour of the status quo. The unresolved resolution does not prevent the member for Herbert continuing to speak, which was its intention. Until it is resolved he will have the right to speak. QK6Sercombe, Bob, MPMr Sercombe—Mr Deputy Speaker, with the greatest respect, as you know I am a great admirer of your wisdom in relation to matters to do with the standing orders. I congratulate you on your form on most occasions, but on this matter it just seems to me as a matter of pure logic that your position cannot be supported.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr Lindsay—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker: time is running out.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The honourable member for Maribyrnong has achieved his purpose. The honourable member for Herbert's time has expired. 2385912:45:0023859Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellALP00—In the last two years I have finally managed to take up some overseas study leave. I went on a very important trip to Europe. I would like to make some comments about the issues that I discussed with a number of high-ranking people on that trip. I visited Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Croatia and Romania, and in each of these I had meetings with various ministers, parliamentarians and officials—altogether, a total of more than 40 such meetings. It was a very positive trip in terms of my ability to understand and comprehend many of the issues facing those countries and many of the issues facing Australia in its relations with those countries. I want to thank all of the Australian ambassadors who were very positive and who assisted me to achieve this goal during the trip. I want to say in particular that in Cyprus the High Commissioner, Mr Ingruber, organised a dinner for me and a number of ministers and others attended. We had a very interesting and worthwhile discussion on the continuing Cyprus issue, which I am afraid still continues to engage us and varies from day to day. Every time I have been there I have come away sometimes with pessimism and sometimes with optimism. I was there 2½ years ago and I was feeling quite optimistic, but at the moment I am feeling quite pessimistic about what is happening in Cyprus and the possibility of a resolution of that crisis. Mr Ingruber organised meetings with the UN representative and we had a very good discussion about the possibilities of the United Nations sponsored talks and whether they would achieve positive or negative results. I met with the foreign minister, Mr Kasoulidis, and with leaders of the political parties, including Mr Lyssarides and Mr Christofias, the former president, Mr Vasilou, who is engaged on the issue of relations with the EU, Mr Averoff Neophytou, another minister in the government, and with many others.I will be presenting a report to the Australia-Cyprus Parliamentary Group on my trip and on some of my observations in relation to the continuing crisis. But I wish to emphasise that I am very concerned about recent developments, in which the talks seem to have broken down. I hope that they will continue in January and that a positive result can be found. I believe that the basis of goodwill for such a result can be built between the Greek and Turkish people and that a resolution can be found. I hope that is the case.The other countries that I visited in Eastern Europe have significant issues and problems. Obviously, with the time factor, I will not be able to deal with them all. I have indicated that I will produce a report on the Eastern European situation and that I believe that Australia's relations with Eastern Europe can be significantly increased and improved, especially economic and trade relations, to the benefit of both Eastern European countries and Australia. The minister for trade has indicated, in particular, that he is interested in trying to increase what is a pretty low level of interaction between Australia and those countries of Eastern Europe. It is surprising that this situation exists because we have so many huge communities from those countries in Australia and we could certainly have a link between those countries and Australia, not only cultural but also economic, to benefit Australia and those nations. (Time expired)2386012:54:0023860Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—The Bundaberg East State School is 114 years old and, in terms of that part of Queensland, the Wide Bay-Burnett area, it is one of the oldest schools in the district. Over the years its students have seen all the conflicts from the Boer War right through to East Timor—quite a unique experience. Its honour roll lists 52 brave ex-students who served in the AIF. I was singularly honoured on 10 November, the eve of Remembrance Day, to attend a moving and, indeed, inspiring service at the school. Surrounded by the students—some wearing their fathers' and grandfathers' service medals—parents and people from East Bundaberg, we assembled around a new memorial in the school's new courtyard. The memorial was funded through the Their Service—Our Heritage Commemorative Program for new memorials. In this setting, the Catafalque Party was posted by 12 Platoon Delta Company 9RQR. An extraordinarily moving service followed. The school choir, led by Jill Baxter, sang Mary Donnelly's song of peace and Dona Nobis Pacem. Following that, the dedication service was conducted by Major Lionel Parker from the Bundaberg Salvation Army, who also led the Lord's Prayer. Following that, the students laid their wreaths. There is nothing particularly unusual about laying wreaths, but this was quite moving in the sense that the students had crafted the wreaths themselves. Some were on cardboard and were hand painted, some were made of little clusters of paper flowers and I think one or two even had natural flowers on them. So it was not just that someone had raced out and bought these things—this was the visible and emotional expression of the students themselves.Earlier in the day and just prior to the service, John Wilson, the President of the Bundaberg RSL, I, representing the federal government, and John Panitz from the Bundaberg East State School Parents and Citizens Association addressed the gathering. Dave Wilkinson, the District Director of Education, unveiled the memorial, which was quite striking and beautifully set in surroundings that had been put there by the state government's construction authority Q Build. As we looked around at this very moving ceremony, we saw children who took a particular interest in what had happened to the people who had gone through that school over five generations.I would particularly like on this occasion to compliment the principal of the school, Doug Ambrose, Remembrance Day coordinator and part of the school's faculty, Paul McMillen, and the East State School vice captains, Anna-Maree Bennett and Jonathan Hay, who assisted in the ceremony. The school captains, Trudy Sinnamon and Cale Cramer, recited the Ode of Remembrance, and The Last Post and Reveille were played. The ceremony closed with the national anthem played by the school's band.It is good to know that the Their Service—Our Heritage Commemorative Program can bring such focus to a community. That focus was heightened by the quality of the student's input, by the sincerity of what they did, by the very moving way that they had constructed their own wreaths and by the general excellence that the principal, the coordinator and the faculty of the school brought together on that memorable occasion.2386112:59:0023861Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—On Saturday, 26 November I was very pleased to attend the opening of the new wing at Dale Cottages, which is an aged care facility in my electorate of Canning. Today I want to place on record my congratulations to the board and the president, Mr Frank Green, who, a few days before the opening, was finishing off the reticulation himself to make sure that it was all ready to go on the Saturday. I also congratulate Trudy Hodges, the administrator, the board and the staff, who offer such a wonderful area for our seniors to live in where they can feel cared for and secure. In particular, I pay tribute to Mr Jack Murray whose dream this was.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allowed for debate has expired.Main Committee adjourned at 1.00 p.m.Answers to Questions in Writing23862The following answers to questions were circulated:23862(Question No. 1563)156323862Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Minister representing the Assistant Treasurer, upon notice, on 29 May 2000: (1) How many complaints does the Australian Taxation Office have on its books concerning Superannuation Guarantee non compliance. (2) During (a) 1998-99 and (b) 1999-2000 to date, how many Australian workers did not receive their full Superannuation Guarantee entitlements.23862Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Australian Taxation Office (ATO) currently has 7,814 active notifications from employees on its books regarding Superannuation Guarantee non-compliance. (2) (a) As determined by the ATO's annual Superannuation Guarantee Compliance Survey, 8% of employees had insufficient contributions made on their behalf during 1998-99. It is important to note that of the 8% who had insufficient contributions made, more than half had within 1% of the full amount contributed. (b) The results of the ATO's Superannuation Guarantee Compliance Survey for the 1999-2000 year is currently not available. It is expected that the findings will be released within the next few weeks.23862(Question No. 1633)163323862Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 19 June 2000: (1) Has the Australian Tax Office (ATO) known since August 1996 that Chaucers Reception Centre in Melbourne was not paying superannuation on behalf of its employees; if so, why did it not take action until after JB and TM Catering went bankrupt in March 2000. (2) What prospects do Chaucers former employees have of recovering the superannuation contributions to which they are entitled. (3) How many other firms have not paid their employees their entitlements under the Superannuation Guarantee. (4) Is the ATO enforcing Superannuation Guarantee compliance or has implementation of the goods and services tax precluded it from doing so.23862Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) The ATO has been aware of Superannuation Guarantee (SG) issues with Chaucers Reception Centre since August 1996. The ATO commenced its action on this employer shortly after this date, not after the employer went bankrupt in March 2000. (2) The ATO is unable to speculate on the former employees of Chaucer's prospects of receiving their entitlements under the SG. As this case is now on the public record, the ATO is able to state that a Proof of Debt has been lodged. This is now a matter for the administrator, D'Aloia Handberg, who was appointed on 21 March 2000. Where an employer becomes bankrupt or insolvent, the ATO pursues any outstanding SG in line with the normal legal and procedural requirements relating to bankruptcy and insolvency administration eg. by lodging a Proof of Debt. (3) The ATO's annual Superannuation Guarantee Compliance Research Survey revealed that in 1998/99; 71% of employers investigated were fully compliant with their SG obligations; 28% were partially compliant, and around 1% were fully non-compliant. For those businesses who were partially compliant, the degree and magnitude of non-compliance was low, indicating only minor non-compliance. (4) The ATO has not changed its compliance strategy in enforcement of the SG since the beginning of the implementation of the goods and services tax.23863(Question No. 1859)185923863Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 28 August 2000: (1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Australian Financial Review on 8 August 2000 entitled “ATO keeps them posted”. (2) Will the Australian Taxation Office and Australia Post no longer accept payment of HECS and income tax bills in person; if so, why has the option of paying tax bills at the tax office been removed. (3) Is this removal a breach of the Taxpayers' Charter. (4) Will he refer this matter to the Board of Taxation.23863Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question: (1) and (2) The cashier service at all Australian Taxation Office (ATO) sites was withdrawn on 31 December 1999. The decision to close cashiers was made on the basis that less than 6% of ATO payments were processed through this facility, and of this number, almost all could be paid in person at any one of 4000 Australia Post sites. There are a variety of payment methods currently available to taxpayers. These include: -paying at a post office or licensed agency by cash or cheque (a $3000 cash limit applies and a payment advice must accompany payment); -mailing payments to the address printed on the payment advice. Where a payment advice is not available, payments can be sent to the nearest ATO; -by electronic funds transfer such as direct debit from a nominated bank account or a direct credit via desktop banking; and -using the banking industry's BPay service via the phone or the internet. A taxpayer wishing to make a HECS or income tax payment can now do so by using any of the payment methods listed above. Due to the nature of voluntary payments, voluntary payers are not automatically provided with pre-printed ATO payment forms. However, without an ATO payment form, they are unable to make payments at Australia Post. As such, as part of Tax Reform, the ATO has now implemented a service whereby voluntary payers can order payment advice booklets by phoning 13 24 78. The booklets contain personalised payment forms that can be used whenever the taxpayer wishes to make a voluntary payment, including income tax and HECS payments. (3) The ATO does not believe that the closure of cashiers is a breach of the Taxpayers' Charter. The ATO has provided a wide range of payment options to suit the needs of taxpayers. (4) No.23863(Question No. 1945)194523863Roxon, Nicola, MPMs Roxon83KGellibrandALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 6 September 2000: (1) If a charitable organisation has had its funding cut by virtue of receiving a Commonwealth Jobs Network grant gross up of only 7.2 per cent following the introduction of the GST, can it claim a top up adjustment from the Commonwealth. (2) If not, are they disadvantaged in providing those services compared to non-charitable organisations in the employment services sector. (3) What is the reason for differential approaches between Departments, including the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business (DEWRSB), the Department of Family and Community Services (DFACS) and the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) in the percentages used to gross up grants to charitable organisations providing government funded services following the introduction of the GST.23864Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—As Minister for Finance and Administration, I am pleased to respond on the Treasure's behalf: (1) DEWRSB does not provide grants to Job Network service providers. DEWRSB pays Job Network service providers on the basis of outcomes achieved. The payments made are based on a contract won as a result of a competitive tender process. The most recent tender process awarded contracts for the three-year period commencing 28 February 2000. In the Request for Tender (RFT) documentation, tenderers were asked to submit prices inclusive of the Goods and Services Tax (GST). On the basis of advice from Treasury, information on how to manage the New Tax System issues in the Job Network tender was included in the RFT documentation (2) Charitable organisations providing Job Network Services are not disadvantaged in providing these services compared to non-charitable organisations in the employment services sector. Refer to the response to (1) above. (3) DEWRSB does not provide grants to Job Network service providers. It is the policy of DEWRSB, DFACS and DETYA to gross up grants to charitable organisations that are registered for the GST by 10 per cent, as per the Commonwealth Government's policy announced by the Treasurer on 9 December 1999.23864(Question No. 1989)198923864Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 3 October 2000: (1) Further to the answer to question no. 1761, (Hansard, 3 October 2000, page 20674), are all imported second hand or used buses and coaches required to comply with Australian Design Rules (ADRs); if so, what legislation or regulation specify the requirement. (2) Is there a proposal to change this requirement; if so, (a) which states, organisations or individuals have requested a change and (b) for what purpose. (3) What would be the (a) effect of any such change on the safety of passengers travelling in those imported second hand or used buses and coaches and (b) the cost of an imported second hand or used bus or coach relative to an Australian one. (4) Which agency, department or authority is responsible for auditing imported second hand or used buses and coaches to ensure they comply with ADRs. (5) How many audits has that organisation conducted each year since 1995, and how quickly are audits conducted after date of importation. (6) How many second hand or used buses and coaches were imported in each year since 1995 and from which country were they imported. (7) When audited, how many of these second hand or used buses and coaches were found not to comply with ADRs.23864Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Yes. All second hand or used buses and coaches supplied to the Australian market are required to comply with Australian Design Rules (ADRs) when they begin to be used in transport. The requirement is specified under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Standards Act 1989. This applies equally to buses and coaches built locally or imported. (2) No. (3) Not applicable. No changes are envisaged to the requirement that imported second hand or used buses and coaches comply with the ADRs. (4) The Department of Transport and Regional Services is responsible for auditing all vehicle manufacturers supplying the Australian market to ensure compliance with the ADRs. (5) The Vehicle Safety Standards Branch of the Department conducted an audit on an overseas bus production plant that supplied second hand buses to Australia in 1998. An audit can be conducted soon after the bus manufacturer is granted an approval to fit compliance plates to the vehicles. However, the actual audit date can depend on the location of the production plant and the Department of Transport and Regional Services' overseas audit schedule. (6) This information is not available as the Department of Transport and Regional Services does not keep records of vehicles that are actually imported. From 1995 to 1 October 2000, applications to import 17 second hand or used buses were approved by the Administrator of Vehicle Standards. (7) Each bus or coach is not individually inspected at an audit. The purpose of a conformity of production audit is to enable the Administrator of Vehicle Standards to gain assurance that series produced vehicles comply with the Australian Design Rules by providing an avenue for manufacturers to demonstrate the controls maintained over those design, testing, purchasing and vehicle manufacturing processes which impinge on the Australian Design Rules. Deficiencies in the quality assurance system of bus and coach manufacturers have been found during routine conformity of production audits. These deficiencies have been rectified to the satisfaction of the Administrator of Vehicle Standards.23865(Question No. 1992)199223865Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 3 October 2000: (1) Did he state at a conference on the Gold Coast on 14 July 2000 that the Melbourne to Brisbane railway had the capacity to proceed without government funding. (2) Has the federal government been approached for financial assistance for the project; if so, what was the nature of the approach. (3) Will the government provide financial assistance for the project. (4) On what basis were members of parliament and local government leaders appointed by him to a Task Force Committee to examine the Melbourne to Brisbane railway. (5) Who was appointed to the Task Force Committee.23865Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) On 14 July 2000 I announced that the pre-feasibility study conducted for the Australian Transport and Energy Corridor Limited into the proposal to build an inland railway between Melbourne and Brisbane had concluded that minimalist options demonstrated strong financial viability and could be implemented on a no cost to Government basis. (2) and (3) The federal government contributed $300,000 towards the pre-feasibility study. The federal government is also to contribute $30,000 to a market study of the Toowoomba/Emerald/ Gladstone section. (4) and (5) A Committee comprising the Hon Mal Brough MP (Chair), Mr Tony Lawler MP, Mrs Kay Hull MP and Mr Ian Macfarlane MP provided the federal government with initial advice on the inland railway proposal.23866(Question No. 2025)202523866Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 October 2000: (1) In light of the report made in the Australian Financial Review of 3 October 2000 in respect to the Speedrail project, what is the government's estimate of the cost of the Speedrail project. (2) What route is envisaged for the Speedrail project. (3) Is he able to say whether denying funding to the Speedrail project would undermine the viability of finding a site for the location of a further Sydney airport outside the Sydney Basin and airshed.23866Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Speedrail estimates on its website and in its publicity material that the total project cost will be $4.8billion. (see www.speedrail.com.au). (2) The governments have not made a decision on the future of the project at this time. If the project were to proceed an Environment Impact Assessment would be undertaken before the final route was determined. (3) The Sydney-Canberra Very High Speed Train and Sydney's future airport needs are currently being considered by the Government.23866(Question No. 2027)202723866Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 5 October 2000: (1) Is he able to say whether the `loss of crucial support' for Speedrail as expressed in the Australian Financial Review of 3 October 2000 and the decision to commit a large amount of money to the Western Sydney Orbital Link mitigates against alternatives to Badgery's creek as the site for Sydney's Second Airport. (2) Will he consider a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement on the site selection process that considers sites other than Badgery's Creek. (3) Is he able to say what is the relationship between Macquarie Bank and its subsidiaries and Infrastructure Trust of Australia. (4) Is he able to say what is the relationship between Macquarie Bank and its subsidiaries and (a) the Airport Motorway (b) the M5 Motorway and (c) the M2 Motorway projects, which are all located in Sydney. (5) Who has advised the Government in respect to the estimates of the costs of (a) The Western Sydney Orbital Link and (b) the Speedrail proposal. (6) Is he able to say whether Macquarie Bank has had any part in the cost estimations relied upon by the Government in influencing its transport policy agenda.23866Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) and (2) The Government is currently considering Sydney's future airport needs. Further environmental assessment of sites other than Badgery's Creek is not relevant at this time. (3) and (4) The Macquarie Bank is a major investor in infrastructure in Australia and overseas. Macquarie Bank has been involved in the projects referred to. The exact relationship between Macquarie Bank and the private consortia developing and managing the project would be a commercial matter and those relationships may change over time as the parties involved adapt to their changing commercial environments. (5) (a) Roads and Traffic Authority (b) Westpac Corporate Finance. (6) Macquarie Bank has not advised the Commonwealth on cost estimates for WSO or Sydney-Canberra VHST.23867(Question No. 2036)203623867Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 9 October 2000: (1) Further to his answer to question No. 1196 (Hansard, 3 April 2000, page 14531), is he aware of the Bureau of Transport and Communications Economics estimate that the Alice Springs to Darwin railway has a benefit-cost ratio of 0.56:1; if so, does he regard this as an accurate estimate. (2) For the (a) 1999-2000 and (b) 2000-01 Budgets, does the reporting of the Government's expenditure on the Alice Springs to Darwin railway comply with its accrual accounting guidelines; if so, what are the details. (3) Has the Government recorded (a) the expected outcomes and (b) a benefit-cost ratio for the Alice Springs to Darwin railway in its last two Budget statements; if so, what are the details.23867Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) A number of feasibility studies have been conducted over the years into the viability of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway. The most recent study I am advised of was published in October 1999 by Booz Allen and Hamilton. This study, which was commissioned by the Northern Territory Department of Transport and Works, found that the project has a benefit-cost ratio of 1.88. (2) Yes. (3) (a) and (b) No.23867(Question No. 2085)208523867Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 30 October 2000: (1) Are compensation payments under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act payable to employees over 65 years of age; if not, what options has he considered to amend the act to provide for such payments to employees over the age of 65 years. (2) Has he or his department issued a discussion paper or sought the views of relevant stakeholders in relation to such a proposal. (3) Will he amend the act to provide for weekly compensation payments to employees over the age of 65 years; if so, when.23867Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The government's policy is to remove barriers to employees working beyond 65 years of age and it has been progressively taking action to achieve this aim. Following the removal of the mandatory retiring age in the Public Service Act 1999, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 (the SRC Act) was amended to enable compensation payments to be payable to an Australian Public Service (APS) employee if he or she is injured at any age after the age of 63 years for a maximum of 104 weeks (whether consecutive or not) during which the employee is incapacitated. A further amendment is proposed to apply the new arrangements to all employees covered by the SRC Act. (2) A discussion paper has not been issued on this matter. As the SRC Act has already been amended in relation to APS employees and a further amendment is proposed to extend the arrangements to all employers covered by the SRC Act, it has not been necessary to seek any further views. (3) It is expected that the further amendment to the SRC Act will be introduced in the current parliamentary sitting.23868(Question No. 2100)210023868Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 1 November 2000:Have there been breaches of the legislated cap of 80 movements per hour at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport; if so, (a) when were the breaches, (b) has he sought an explanation from Airservices Australia for the breaches and (c) what penalties or punitive action has he imposed for the breaches.23868Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (a) & (b) Under the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997, Airservices Australia is required to report to me on the extent of infringements (if any) of the maximum movement scheduling limit in each quarter. On 30 August 2000 I tabled a report detailing four hours in which the maximum movement limit was exceeded for the quarter ending 30 June 2000 including explanations for the events. Airservices Australia has also provided me with a report of movements for the quarter ending 30 September 2000. The report will be tabled before 6 December 2000. (c) No fines have been issued under the Act to date. The Sydney Airport Demand Management Act provides that the 80 movement per hour cap is to be the planning basis for the Slot Management Scheme established pursuant to the Act. The Sydney Airport Demand Management Act does not provide for penalties for breaches of the cap as such. Instead, the penalties for which the Act provides relate to breaches of the Slot Management Scheme (ie, aircraft which operate without a slot, or aircraft which operate outside allowed time limits which apply to an allocated slot). The movements are assessed by the Slot Compliance Committee which is currently finalising its consideration of all movements which took place during the Northern Summer Scheduling Season (ie from the end of March until the end of October). However, where a delay to an aircraft is caused by factors outside the operator's control (eg weather, operational constraints applied by Airservices or the airport, or safety factors) no penalty is imposed.23868(Question No. 2133)213323868McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 November 2000: Further to the answer to question no. 1746 (Hansard, 6 November 2000, page 22247) what do the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau or Airservices Australia regard as an acceptable safety hazard in respect to weather conditions applying to the landing and take off of aircraft. 23868Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: The Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has determined that air traffic control should not nominate a runway for use when there is a crosswind of more than 20 knots and an alternative runway is available. The new crosswind limit will apply to all airports with more than one runway, including Sydney Airport. CASA has also determined that Airservices Australia must provide pilots with an update of wind conditions when it issues takeoff and landing clearances, except at GAAP airports where the large number of aircraft in the circuit would make it impractical.23868(Question No. 2142)214223868Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 8 November 2000: (1) Further to the release of the Interim Factual Report 200002157 into the accident involving the Piper Chieftain VH-MZK near the Whyalla Aerodrome on 31 May 2000, will draft copies of that report be circulated to any parties; if so, (a) to whom and (b) what authority do these parties have to make changes to that report. (2) Who will sign off on the report before it is released. (3) Will the report be released to the families of those who died in the accident before it is released publicly. (4) When does he expect a final report into this accident to be released.23869Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) In accordance with established Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) policy, draft copies of Interim Factual Reports are not circulated for comment from interested parties to the investigation. A draft copy of the Final Report of the Whyalla Airlines investigation will be circulated for comment by interested parties. (a) The interested parties include: Whyalla Airlines; the family of the pilot in command; the Civil Aviation Safety Authority; Airservices Australia; the aircraft manufacturer; the South Australia Government; the South Australia Police; and the South Australia State Coroner. Other parties with an interest include: the families of the deceased passengers; and others who have expressed an interest. A party with an interest may be provided with a copy of the draft final report for comment, if a request for a copy of the draft has been lodged with the ATSB. Copies of draft final reports, classified by ATSB as high profile, are provided on a routine basis, for information only, to the: Minister for Transport and Regional Services; Secretary and Deputy Secretaries, Department of Transport & Regional Services (DoTRS); First Assistant Secretary, Aviation Division (DoTRS); First Assistant Secretary, Airports Division (DoTRS). (b) Interested parties are normally given 28 days to comment on the draft final report, and can suggest changes to the report only if supported by evidence. The ATSB assesses such evidence and decides whether changes should be made. The parties have no authority to make changes themselves. (2) Approval to release the Final Report will be signed by the Executive Director, ATSB. Approval to release the draft report to interested parties will be by the Director, Air Safety Investigation, ATSB. (3) Copies of the Interim Factual Report were released to the families of the deceased on 19 September 2000, five working days prior to public release on 26 September 2000. The families will also be provided with copies of the Final Report five working days before public release. (4) The ATSB has advised that the Final Report of the Whyalla Airlines investigation is expected to be released at about the end of March 2001. 23869(Question No. 2151)215123869Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 27 November 2000: (1) How much of the $27.3m over four years allocated under the Tough on Drugs program to his Department for the development and implementation of the National Schools Drug Education Strategy has been spent. (2) Which organisations and experts has his Department consulted in developing the Strategy. (3) Have any consultants been employed to assist in the development of the Strategy or in any materials; if so, what are the details of the consultants employed, costs and tasks undertaken. (4) What materials have been produced, or what programs or projects have been funded, under the Strategy.23870Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) The Commonwealth Government has provided $27.3 million over four years for school drug education under the Tough on Drugs initiative. This funding is directed towards the enhancement of school drug education programmes ($18 million for the National School Drug Education Strategy) and the management of drug related issues and incidents in schools ($9.3 million for the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) agreed measures). At the end of November 2000, $5.1 million had been expended. In addition, a further $17 million is either committed or allocated to projects where contractual arrangements are currently being finalised. (2) The National School Drug Education Strategy was developed by the National Advisory Committee on School Drug Education on the basis of a collaborative, intersectoral coordinated approach to drug education and reflects consideration of the issues raised by stakeholder groups in the initial consultations. Members of the National Advisory Committee on School Drug Education who were involved in the development of the Strategy are listed on page 22 of the Strategy (Attachment A). Organisations who responded to national consultations are listed on page 20 of the Strategy (Attachment B). (3) Details of the consultants employed, costs and tasks undertaken are listed here. PROJECTCONSULTANTCOST*Information for Parents on the National School Drug Education Strategy - writer.Mr Denis Muller$2,160Caring for the Kids in Our Community Satellite Broadcast - develop and deliver a satellite broadcast to Australian school communities.New South Wales Department of Education and Training through its Open Training and Education Network.$275,278Caring for the Kids in Our Community Satellite Broadcast - develop a concept plan which provided options for organising the satellite broadcast.LMS Consulting$4,800Updating the Candidly Cannabis KitEducation Image Pty Ltd$169,000Drug Referral Information Service Project - enhancements to the Australian Drug Information NetworkAustralian Drug Foundation$202,000Australian School Students Alcohol and Drug Survey - collation and analysis of additional questions.Anti-Cancer Council of Victoria$7,500Review of the Principles for Drug Education in SchoolsThe National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University in association with the Australian Drug Foundation$46,897Effective Implementation Practice in Relation to School Drug EducationThe Australian Drug Foundation in association with the National Drug Research Institute, Curtin University$108,350Review of Pre-Service teacher training in school drug educationHealth Education Unit, the University of Sydney$106,106Identification of and development of guidelines for implementing performance management processes for State and Territory based projects under the National School Drug Education StrategyErebus Consulting Partners$198,000 *Costs exclusive of GST (4) In addition to the projects listed in (3), the following projects are being funded.Local school-community drug summits Government and non-government State/Territory school jurisdictions have submitted a collaborative cross-sectoral State/Territory proposal for funding of local school community drug summits. The summits aim to bring school staff, parents and key community members together to encourage stronger, broader and more integrated community engagement and support in addressing illicit and unsanctioned drug use by young people. The summits will also provide a vehicle to disseminate the national approach agreed by COAG to managing drug use in schools. Contracts are currently being negotiated. The summits are expected to commence early in the 2001 school year and will be delivered over the following three years. State and Territory school drug education initiatives The National School Drug Education Strategy currently has contracts with State and Territory government and non-government education authorities. Proposals have also been sought for the next 3 years to support school drug education in government and non-government schools systems. StateDescription of projectExisting Contract costNSWInitiatives that support school based drug education and parent and community involvement. The focus is on primary education, policy and practice, parent and community partnerships, lighthouse grants, information dissemination and research.$1,204,560VICResearch projects that extend and enhance activities under the Victorian Government's Turning the Tide initiative on areas such as effective drug education, peer drug education, responding to illicit drug use, tobacco education and Koori drug education.$882,000QLDStrong emphasis on professional development for teachers and principals, through development of resources and research on baseline performance data.$720,000SAThe implementation of whole school community approaches and supporting professional development for teachers including development of drug education guidelines, dissemination of best practice and information programmes for parents.$429,840WAFocus on school and community partnerships through a School Community Grant Scheme and a School Community Transition project.$456,384TASFocus on school and community partnerships through the establishment of school community demonstration projects and the subsequent development of models for use by other schools.$232,056NTInnovative project on the delivery of drug education in rural/remote Aboriginal communities and support activities in the urban context.$185,880ACTDevelopment of whole school approaches to drug education, by the means of school drug education strategies for self identified schools.$209,280 Materials produced to date:· The National School Drug Education Strategy· Information for Parents on the National School Drug Education Strategy (brochure) · The Caring for the Kids in Our Community Drug Education Professional Development Package· The National Framework for Protocols for Managing the Possession, Use and/or Distribution of Illicit and Other Unsanctioned Drugs in Schools (National Framework)ATTACHMENT AMEMBERS OF THE NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON SCHOOL DRUG EDUCATIONCHAIRPERSONMs Karyn Hart:Principal Rochedale High School, Queensland; President of the Australian Secondary Principals Association; and Member of the Australian National Council on DrugsAssociate Professor Steve Allsop:Director of the National Centre for Education and Training on Addiction (NCETA), South AustraliaMr Rod Ballard:Coordinator Health Issues, Education Services Directorate, Education QueenslandMr Peter Collier:Teacher, Scotch College, Perth; and Member of State Youth Advisory Committee, Western AustraliaMr Richard Crane:Manager, School Drug Education Project, Western AustraliaMs Eleanor Davidson:Executive Director, Student Services and Equity Programs, New South Wales Department of Education and TrainingMs June Hicks:Executive Officer, Caroline Chisholm High School, Australian Capital Territory; and National Health Coordinator for the Australian Council for Health, Physical Education and RecreationMs Mary Johnston:Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (ex officio)Mrs Maria Marriner:Education Officer, Health and Drug Education, Northern Territory Department of EducationMs Bernadette Murphy:Teacher, St Columba's College, Essendon, VictoriaMr Leslie (Les) Nayda AM:Director, Aboriginal Employment, Education & Development Branch, Department of Employment, Technical and Further Education, South AustraliaMrs Julie Roberts:Australian Council of State School Organisations, TasmaniaDetective Inspector Malcolm Schluter:Australian Parents Council, South AustraliaMs Laurel Sutton:Manager, Police/Schools Involvement Programme, Victoria PoliceMs Margaret Sykes:Education Officer, Student Welfare Programs, Catholic Education Commission, New South WalesMrs Janice Szmal:Principal, MacKellar Primary School, VictoriaMr Michael Urwin:Principal, Brighton Grammar School, VictoriaMs Laurie Van Veen:Department of Health and Aged Care (ex officio)Ms Elaine Walters:Community member with involvement in school drug education. Ms Walters lives in MelbourneATTACHMENT BRESPONSES RECEIVED FROM CONSULTATION PROCESSAboriginal Education & Training Council of WA ACT Department of Education & Community Services ACT Department of Health & Community Care Alcohol & other Drugs Council of Australia Anti-Cancer Council of Vic Aquinas College, Vic Association of Independent Schools of Tas Association of Independent Schools of Vic Association of Independent Schools of WA Association of Independent Schools of NSW Attorney General's Department Australian Association of Christian Schools Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence Australian Council for Health, Physical Education & Recreation Australian Council of State School Organisations Australian Federal Police Australian Heath Promoting Schools Association Australian Health Promoting Schools (NSW) Australian Institute of Criminology Australian Medical Association Australian Parents Council Inc Australian Parents for Drug Free Youth, Qld Australian Professional Society on Alcohol & other Drugs Board for Lutheran Schools The Canberra College, ACT Canberra Grammar School, ACT Canberra Montessori Society Primary School, ACT Caroline Chisholm High School, ACT Catholic Education Commission, NSW Catholic Education Office, Archdiocese of Canberra & Goulburn Catholic Education Office, Lismore Catholic Education Office, Melbourne Catholic Schools Parent Forum, NSW Chapman Primary School, ACT Corpus Christi College, NSW Daramalan College, ACT Department of Education, Tas Department of Education, Training and Employment SA Department of Education, Vic Department of Health & Aged Care (Commonwealth) Dickson College, ACT Drug Education Network, Tas Drug-Arm, Qld Drugwatch Australia, NSW Education Department of WA Education Qld Families & Friends for Drug Law Reform (ACT) Inc Federation of Parents & Citizens Associations of NSW Focus on the Family Australia, Vic Fraser Primary School, ACT The Friends' School, Tas Health Education Unit, University of Sydney Holy Eucharist Primary School, Vic Holy Trinity Primary School, ACT Isabella Plains Primary School, ACT Jesuit Social Services, Vic Kaleen High School, ACT Kids Media Pty Ltd, SA Lake Tuggeranong College, ACT Life Education Australia Life Education Centre Foundation Qld Inc Life Education SA Inc Lyons Primary School, ACT Macgregor Primary School, ACT Major Brian Watters, Chair, Australian National Council on Drugs Miles Franklin Primary School, ACT Ministerial Advisory Council on Torres Strait Islander Education, Qld Mount St Joseph Girls College, Vic Mr Alan Heath, Vic Mr Graham Strathearn, CEO, Drug & Alcohol Services Council & Chair of the Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs Mr Keith Evans, Alcohol, Tobacco & other Drug Services, Queensland Health & Member of the Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs Mr P Anderson, Vic Mr Phillip Gosper, NSW Ms Bronwyn Barnard, ACT Ms Lorraine Robertson, NSW Ms Margaret Hamilton, Member of the Australian National Council on Drugs Ms Philomena Bisshop, Member of the Intergovernmental Committee on Drugs National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation National Catholic Education Commission National Centre for Research into the Prevention of Drug Abuse National Drug & Alcohol Research Centre NSW Department of Education & Training NSW Health Department NSW Federation of School Community Organisations NSW/ACT Independent Education Union O'Connor Cooperative School Board, ACT Palmerston District Primary School, ACT Pedare Christian College, SA Peirson Family Support Service, Qld Police & Public Safety, Tas Qld Catholic Education Commission Qld Council of Parents Citizens Association Qld Police Service QUIT Victoria Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Royal Australian & New Zealand College of Psychiatrists Rotary Club of St Peters, SA Rural Youth Information Service, Vic SA Independent Schools Board Inc Sacred Heart Primary School, ACT St Cathages Primary School, NSW St Joseph's School, Vic St Michaels Primary School, ACT St Thomas Aquinas Primary School, ACT Territory Health Services, NT Uniting Education, Vic Uriarra Primary School, ACT Victoria Police WA Police ServiceThanks to the students and teachers at the following schools who participated in a youth focus group: Rochedale State High School Brisbane State High School Redbank Plains State High School 23874(Question No. 2196)219623874Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 30 November 2000: (1) Further to the answers to questions No. 1915 (Hansard, 27 November 2000, page 20075), No. 1970 (Hansard, 27 November 2000, page 20077) and No. 2066 (Hansard, 6 November 2000, page 22261), has his attention been drawn to a statement by Father Tom Doyle, Deputy Chairman of the National Catholic Education Commission, before a Senate Committee on 22 August 2000 that the Catholic systems would have actually benefited more from an aggregation according to SES levels; if so, does he agree with this assessment. (2) Did the SES simulation project model the likely impact of SES funding on Catholic systemic schools; if so, (a) what are the details and (b) what was the projected impact of every school modelled? (3) Has his Department advised any Member of the House of the likely impact of the application of the SES model on Catholic systemic schools; if so, (a) what are the details and (b) what is the likely impact. (4) For every year from 2001 to 2004, what is the difference in funding between the amounts allocated to Catholic systems in the State Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill and an aggregation according to SES levels?23874Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) Initial estimates, based on simulated SES scores, indicated that this would be the case. (2) The 1998 SES Simulation Project was undertaken to test the validity and feasibility of an SES approach to funding non-government schools. As participation in the Project was purely voluntary and on the basis that the data provided by schools would be treated in confidence with no actual funding implications, it would be inappropriate to provide detailed information about individual schools or systems. (3) As Catholic systems will be funded at 56.2% of AGSRC (51.2% for the ACT) for the 2001-2004 quadrennium and not on the basis of the SES scores of their individual schools, my Department did not collect from Catholic systemic schools the data required for the calculation of individual school SES scores. Consequently, there is no basis on which to determine the likely impact of the application of the SES model on Catholic systemic schools. (4) Estimated general recurrent funding allocated for Catholic systems in the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Bill is as follows: 2001$m2002$m2003$m2004$m2001-2004$m1 924.12 056.72 195.02 335.58 511.3