2001-03-263918REPS2555302001-03-26—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Delegation Reports255532555312:31:0025553Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Bangladesh and India entitled An emerging South Asia. The parliamentary delegation spent two weeks in November visiting Bangladesh and India for one week each. In both countries there was a high level of awareness and interest in Australia and our bilateral relations. Particularly given the timing, there was in both countries, at all levels, an appreciation of the good job Australia had done in hosting the Olympic Games. I would like to thank all members of the delegation, especially Greg McIntosh, the delegation secretary; the member for Charlton, Ms Kelly Hoare, who was deputy leader in Bangladesh; the member for Oxley, Mr Bernie Ripoll, the deputy leader in India; and also Senator Ross Lightfoot.In Bangladesh we had several meetings with government and opposition members and met the Prime Minister, Sheikh Hasina Wajed, and the opposition leader, Madam Khaleda Zia. The delegation focused on the institute of parliament and noted the rich and deep exchanges between Australia and Bangladesh, not just in the parliament but also in the library and Speaker's office. For example, in the Bangladesh Speaker's office we met a gentleman who had spent a period working in your office in Canberra, Mr Speaker. However, all members expressed the view that, for parliamentary democracy to operate in full, the opposition needed to participate in full. This has not been happening. The BNP in Bangladesh has been boycotting the parliament.The delegation also met with Professor Yunus of the Grameen Bank and heard how he had developed a system of microcredit. We visited MATLAB, which is world famous for its development of the oral rehydration solution and epidemiological studies of a developing country population. We also visited the Chittagong Hill tracts and saw how Australian aid is being spent on sustainable food programs and the progress made in the peace process there.The delegation visited India in a year that had also seen visits by the foreign minister, the Prime Minister, the Minister for Trade and, after we left, the minister responsible for IT. This demonstrates the increased interest from Australia in India. In several meetings we discussed with former judges and the Minister for Justice the similarities between the development of the common law in Australia and India and also the federal systems of government we both share.IT was an area that the delegation was interested in. It certainly captured Australia's imagination. We need to point out that it accounts for only one per cent of India's economy and is largely concentrated in centres like Bangalore and Hyderabad. But, even so, India produces more IT graduates than anywhere else and there is significant Australian foreign investment in this area. We were also impressed by the interest shown by Indian parliamentarians in last year's coup in Fiji, their support for Australia's approach and their encouragement for Australia to do more.Another issue that was raised often concerned the 8,000 Indian students now studying in Australia. I note that Australia is now No. 2 after the United States for Indian students studying overseas. While there I was able to attend a disaster management seminar which was hosted by the Australia-India Council, and chaired by Michael Abbott QC. Both Australia and India cope with droughts, earthquakes, floods and cyclones—they have similar problems—and this was a useful example of second-track diplomacy and an exchange of approaches. Shortly after we were there, an earthquake occurred in Rajasthan. Hopefully, some of the expertise that was exchanged was of use there.We also had detailed briefings on the spread of HIV-AIDS. Australia is seen in India as a country which has successfully contained HIV-AIDS. The delegation believes that HIV is still spreading in India and more needs to be done. We support more resources to assist in this area. The delegation appreciates the support, assistance and hospitality it received from the parliaments of both Bangladesh and India and from the Australian high commissions in both countries. It is not possible to list individually all the people who helped and supported the visit, but we would like to thank the following people. In Bangladesh: the Speaker of the parliament, the honourable Humayyun Rashid Chowdhury; other members and staff from the parliament, including Mr Nojibur Rahman and Mr Shahidul Mamun; and the High Commissioner in Bangladesh, Mr Robert Flynn and his staff, including the Deputy High Commissioner, Ms Julienne Iftenne. In India there were the Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the Honourable Balayogi; the Honourable P. M. Sayeed, the Deputy Speaker; the Australian High Commissioner in India, Mr Robert Laurie, and his staff, including the Deputy High Commissioner, Mr Bryce Hutchesson, Miss Julie Ann Guivarra, Miss Bernadette McDonald, Ms Judith O'Neill, Mr Rick Kovac, Ms Elizabeth Ward and Ms Gillian Mellsop. I seek leave to include my acknowledgments in my speech. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—This is an unusual course of events. I think it may be opportune to see whether there is time at the conclusion of the reports to allow the member for Boothby to add to his speech.12:37:0025554Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00— Can I firstly express and convey my deepest sorrow for the tragic and huge loss of life in India on 26 January this year when an estimated 40,000 people lost their lives in an earthquake. I had the great opportunity to visit both India and Bangladesh with the member for Boothby, the member for Charlton, senator for Western Australia Ross Lightfoot and the delegation secretary, Greg McIntosh. It was a great opportunity to visit two countries which are emerging economies in the world, particularly India, which is now a thriving economy and achieving a great deal to raise the level of living standards for its own people. Bangladesh is a country which is one of the poorest in the world but which is striving very hard to raise the living standards in its country, as well. The delegation visited both these countries to help develop and strengthen the ties between our parliaments. I think that our visit achieved that goal. It was a great opportunity for me, as a backbencher, to see first-hand some international parliamentary relations and how the system of foreign affairs actually works. The visit to Bangladesh was absolutely fascinating and was a great opportunity for us to renew our links with the national assembly. There has been quite a bit of traffic between our two countries in terms of prime ministerial visits, ministerial visits and the visits of other delegations. It was also an opportunity to assess first-hand the political situation in the country. Again, in India, it was a great opportunity to be able to strengthen the ties between our two countries, to talk about trade, and to have a look first-hand at their process of parliamentary democracy and at how our two countries are very similar in the way our parliaments work. It was also a great opportunity to look at the impact of economic structural reform in that country. India, as most people know, has a well-established tradition of democracy and is moving very rapidly in terms of economic and social change. It is a country with a great future and a great confidence about where it lies on the world playing field. Bangladesh, on the other hand, is very similar in a lot of senses, but it is struggling a lot harder with economic development. Bangladesh has a few things going against it. One is political stability—the opposition and the government have boycotted each other for quite a lengthy period of time, which really does not lend itself to a great stable democracy, but they are working through those problems. The other things going against Bangladesh are its high dependency on foreign aid and its natural geography as a huge delta. To put it in simple terms, it is a country that is 90 per cent under water 90 per cent of the time. It makes it very difficult to have a stable and thriving economy when you are under water. But, like I said, it was a great opportunity for us to see these things first-hand. Bangladesh, in particular, has no real tax base and as such has no system of welfare. When you see that first-hand you really appreciate what we have in this country in being able to provide so that all people are at a minimum level and can share in the economic wealth and stability of a great country. In countries like Bangladesh and India, where there are no social welfare programs and where there is no money from the government to educate, provide public health and do all those things that we take for granted, you soon appreciate what it is we have here.For Bangladesh, today is a special day. Today is their 30th anniversary of becoming a nation. Bangladesh was formed after a very bloody revolution in 1971, and out of that came the country of Bangladesh. Australia was the first Western country to recognise their sovereignty and, as such, we have very close links with Bangladesh. They have now been given test cricket status, which I know is very important to them culturally and for the whole morale of the country. When we were over there, many of our discussions, to start with, to break the ice, centred around cricket, and it was a great opener. Both our countries have a great and deep love for the game.Bangladesh, as I said, is facing some degree of political instability and this is causing it a fair number of problems, but it is still a democracy, and a democracy that works quite well. The trade between our two countries is in favour of Australia by a fair margin—with both Bangladesh and India. I thank the high commissions of both countries and all people who were involved. (Time expired)12:42:0025555Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—In speaking at the tabling of this report, An emerging South Asia, I would like to say how pleased I was to participate in this bilateral delegation. This was only the third visit to Bangladesh, the last two being in 1978 and 1993. It was the first visit to India since 1996. I was also honoured to be in the role of deputy leader of the delegation during our visit to Bangladesh.In my opening comments I would like to reiterate some of the acknowledgments that are in the report. On a personal basis, I would like to thank Mr Robert Flynn, the High Commissioner in Bangkok, and the Deputy High Commissioner, Ms Julienne Iftenne. I must say that having the company of another female during our visits in Bangladesh was a great personal pleasure for me, and a great relief also. In India I would like to thank for their support the Australian High Commissioner, Mr Robert Laurie, and his staff, including the Deputy High Commissioner, Mr Bryce Hutchesson, and Ms Julie Ann Guivarra, who accompanied us for most of the visits in India.For our pre-delegation briefings I would like to thank Dr Ravi Tomar from the Parliamentary Library and Brendhan Egan, Brenda Herd and Onu Palm from the Parliamentary Relations Office. I would also like to convey the delegation's thanks to Greg McIntosh. Greg was a fantastic delegation secretary. He gave us all wonderful support and he was there to make sure that everything ran smoothly, which it did. So thanks, Greg, for that. I would also like to thank the member for Boothby for leading the delegation—Dr Southcott provided great leadership and we really appreciated that—my Labor colleague the member for Oxley and Senator Ross Lightfoot from Western Australia. I must say that for travelling in developing countries the company was good, and the delegation went off with good humour, good friendship and good fellowship.I would like to emphasise a couple of points in the report, particularly in relation to Bangladesh. In Bangladesh's single house parliament, an additional 30 seats are reserved exclusively for women, and these 30 women are selected by the parliament. Also, the nation's two leaders are women: Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina, the leader of the Awami League, and Madam Khalida Zia, the leader of the opposition, the BNP. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. I am prepared to extend 30 seconds to the member for Charlton to allow her to finish her concluding remarks and extend a similar courtesy to the member for Boothby. This would be an unusual event, but later in the day one of the debates has dropped off the blue, so time for private members business will not be compressed by that action. 83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE—I also congratulate Bangladesh on its 30th anniversary as an independent nation. We need to acknowledge that Bangladesh is still one of the poorest countries in the world. Over 60 million people live below the poverty line and in excess of eight children out of 100 die within the first year. I would like to give my personal support to Australia's ongoing commitment to strengthening our relationships with both Bangladesh and India.12:46:0025556Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I would like to thank the officers from DFAT, Austrade and AusAID, together with Dr Ravi Tomar of the Parliamentary Library, for their oral and written briefings prior to our departure and our post-visit debrief. I would also like to thank the Bangladeshi High Commissioner and the Indian High Commissioner in Canberra, both of whom hosted us at their homes and gave us a first-hand account of their thinking on matters of mutual interest. The delegation is also grateful for the assistance and coordination provided by the Parliamentary Relations Office, in particular, Mr Brendhan Egan, Ms Brenda Herd and Ms Onu Palm. Committees25556255562555612:47:0025556Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, I present the report of the committee entitled International financial markets—friends or foes?, together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—Today I present a unanimous report by the House economics committee which examines the effects flowing on to the Australian economy from the globalisation of international financial markets. The committee recognised at an early stage that this process of globalisation would produce profound effects in Australia and that policy makers would need to take those effects into account when considering Australia's economic policies. The report is based on a two-year inquiry, during which the committee received submissions and public evidence from the main participants, conducted a roundtable discussion with prominent members of the financial community and examined international efforts to address the rapid changes in world financial arrangements. The inquiry was a particularly challenging one. It involved issues of such tremendous scope that the committee had to concentrate on those areas which it considered most appropriate and which bore particular relevance for Australia. The report includes seven recommendations. If these recommendations are put into practice, the committee is confident that the economy will reap generous benefits, especially in the areas of transparency and risk management within the financial system.A number of specially appointed committees within international organisations are reviewing various aspects of international financial arrangements—the so-called international financial architecture. Australia has been very active in that work. This committee has recommended that Australia should continue to make a very active contribution and continue also its strong support for the modernisation of international financial arrangements. For Australia, the Asian financial crisis was a severe test of the strength of the economy. With a number of our major export markets in chaos, it was feared that Australia would follow them into recession. However, the Australian economy continued to grow strongly throughout the period of the crisis. In practice, it was revealed that the restructuring and reform of the Australian economy over the past 20 years has left us with an economy strong enough and flexible enough to resist the pressures stemming from the Asian crisis. The committee felt it was important to examine how this was achieved when other economies facing similar financial commitments were unable to cope. The Reserve Bank's opinion was that the flexible exchange rate maintained by Australia was the key factor. Treasury gave more weight to the effect of structural reforms, the availability of a fiscal surplus and a sound microeconomic structure which ensured that private investment did not suffer and that the confidence of international investors was also retained. The committee agreed that all these factors played a part but emphasised that the value of Australia's political stability and responsible government should also be recognised. In our view, proper weight should be given to Australia's democratic processes, such as the separation of powers between an elected parliament and the judiciary, and the valuable ability to change government without disruption of government processes.Turning to the international scene, the group of 22 countries has made wide ranging recommendations for the improvement of financial systems in areas such as improved data collection, transparency, risk management and the handling of financial crises. In most of the areas covered, Australia is already equal to the world's best practice but the committee has recommended that efforts should be made to reach that standard in the remaining areas also. In addition, it has recommended that high priority be given to achieving Australia's goals in the World Trade Organisation negotiations on financial services. Improving the transparency and accountability of the international financial system are high priorities for international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund. The committee also sees this as a very important area and has recommended that the government continue to give it high priority.The role of the giant hedge funds in the Asian crisis and in the attack on the Australian dollar in 1998 in particular has been the subject of considerable speculation. This led the committee to examine these matters in some detail. It concluded that the remedy lies in greater transparency in their operations, better risk management in financial systems and better regulatory oversight. The committee has recommended that the proposals put forward by the Financial Stability Forum to deal with these issues should be given urgent consideration by Australian authorities. The committee also recognised the growing importance of financial derivative products. It found particularly that this area is noted for its lack of transparency and the complicated nature of some of the products involved. The committee felt that it posed a threat to the unwary investor.The need for greater transparency is clear. The committee has recommended that Treasury, the Australian Stock Exchange and the Sydney Futures Exchange set up a working group to ensure that major companies and financial institutions maintain a proper level of public transparency on their exposure to derivative products. In the wider economy, the committee has proposed a number of areas where the public would benefit from better discussion and dissemination of information. It has recognised the need to continue assisting those displaced by the globalisation process to make the transition to the new economy. I cannot overemphasise the importance of that.One of the other main recommendations relates to Australia's taxation regime. The committee is aware that our ability to compete for international investment funding relies heavily on the comparative tax regime under which investors would operate. To obtain a better picture of Australia's position, the committee has proposed a major study to examine the taxation regimes of our major trading partners and assess them against the reformed Australian taxation system. The globalisation processes examined in this report are ongoing and are already producing very rapid changes in economic circumstances. Their effects on the Australian economy will continue for the foreseeable future and are of such importance that it is likely that the committee will re-examine this area during the next parliament. Finally, I would like to thank all committee members for their efforts during this inquiry and for their contribution to the findings set out in the report. I would particularly like to thank the deputy chair, the member for Chisholm, Ms Anna Burke. I would like to thank the members of the secretariat, particularly Bev Forbes and Tas Luttrell; and many thanks to Belynda Zolotto and Sonya Ristevski. Also, I thank Richard Gilbert from the Investments and Financial Services Association and John Rappell from the Australian Financial Markets Association for their assistance in setting up the roundtable discussions in Sydney. I commend the report to the House.12:54:0025558Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—There is a substantial debate in this country about globalisation, mainly in the media and some other public forums. One of the inadequacies of this parliament is that there is no great debate about globalisation. It is hardly a subject that is mentioned in question time or in the other forums of the parliament. The report of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration fills a significant gap in the deliberations of the parliament. It looks at the global financial system and the role that Australia can constructively play. I join with the chairman, the member for Wannon, in paying tribute to the secretariat for its work, particularly the outstanding contribution of the inquiry secretary, Tas Luttrell. This report fills a significant gap and provides some good recommendations about Australia's contribution.It is often said that in foreign policy Australia needs to punch above its weight. The same is true in the contribution we might make to the rules governing the global financial system. While we are a prosperous nation, we are not a big player in the global market, we are not a big population and we are not a big economy on the scale of North America or Europe. Nonetheless, through expertise and a strong contribution we can play a role in aiding the stability of world finance. The report shows how this can be achieved, how Australia can be an effective participant in the Group of 22, the WTO and the Financial Stability Forum. We can also contribute, of course, through our own expertise and regulatory systems. All of us have an interest in the stability of the global financial system and all nations need to contribute.The reference for this report arose out of the East Asian financial crisis. Australia, with its expertise and experience, is well placed to help other nations in the region to modernise their financial systems and regulations. One of the messages from the report is that there is more work to be done, that no-one can be complacent after the conclusion of that crisis some two years ago. For Australia to make a contribution is vital to our own prosperity. We all have an interest in global financial stability.Looking at the work that needs to be undertaken and the reasons why we should not be complacent, I note that China, for instance, now has access to third- and fourth-generation economic technology, but these systems are still monitored and controlled by a first-generation method of financial regulation. So in many respects in East Asia it is a question of closing the gap between modern financial technology and rudimentary financial systems. How do we close that gap? Obviously, it requires expertise, and Australia is perfectly placed in this region to play a major role—in effect, to punch well above our economic weight.That is the bottom line for the report, but there is also a very important message for all politicians out of this work, out of this reference and inquiry: governments need to show leadership on the question of globalisation. It is not just a matter of expertise and good recommendations and good contributions; it is also a matter of leadership. My belief is that there is nothing wrong with globalisation which cannot be fixed by political leadership and good public policy. As the data in the UN Human Development Report 2000 make clear, global economics, global finance, offers the best solution to global poverty. Just look at the world's two largest Third World nations, China and India. For centuries they tried to lock themselves away from the rest of the world, and achieved nothing more than the impoverishment of their people. Now, off the back of market based economic reform, they have achieved substantially higher economic growth rates throughout the 1990s—in the case of China, an average of 9.2 per cent per annum; and India, 3.8 per cent per annum. The World Bank, in its report, is providing evidence that these reforms lift up the whole nation, that in fact a rising tide lifts all boats. The World Bank has reported that the income of the poor in Third World nations rises one for one with national income growth. So these are not reforms for the rich; these are reforms for all poor nations and, in particular, they are beneficial for poor people. Economic reform has emerged as a powerful force for social justice. Over the past three decades the development of trading economies in East Asia has lifted 150 million men, women and children out of abject poverty. To allow the facilitation of further trade and investment through stable financial systems is one of the great contributions we can make, not only to our own prosperity but to those nations most in need.The countries which have been unable to break the poverty cycle, most notably in Africa, Latin America and the old Soviet Union, are those which have been most resistant to free trade and clean financial institutions. Internationally, the evidence is clear: the verdict has come in. Poverty can be beaten provided governments open their economies to free trade and market based growth, establish decent property rights and access to capital, invest heavily in education and training, respect the rule of law and eliminate corruption and—as this report points out—stabilise their financial systems with good modern institutions and regulations. Globalisation has many benefits for a nation like ours. At long last, the tyranny of distance for Australia will end. We can expand our economic markets and, of course, we can give all Australian people a world stage on which to present their ideas, innovations and insights. This report emphasises the need for political leadership.I have reached the conclusion that governments and politics, in many respects, are the most conservative parts of our society; so too they are the most backward in their attitudes to globalisation. Nowhere do you find a hang-up about globalisation other than in the Australian political system. Look at how Australians are living their lives in practical ways. Look how they are voting with their feet. An extra 10 per cent of Australians join the Internet each year. People are joining global communications networks. Australians are consuming a record amount of information, culture and entertainment from overseas. I take this to be the true meaning of a multicultural society. We are drawing the best of information and cultures from right across the world. Australians are engaging in international travel and communications in record numbers. They are continuing to buy quality overseas products and inventions. Australian consumers discriminate purely on the basis of price and quality, not nationality. The education system is also going global. Parents are happy to have their children in classrooms which are directly linked to schools overseas, learning from each other through international methods of communication and education.Given all those trends in Australian society, why should the political system be scared of global financial markets? Why should the political system be worried about globalisation, the ethos of people coming closer together as we break down national boundaries? Only politics is lagging behind. Ask any scientist whether ideas and inventions should be stopped at the national boundary and they will think you are mad. Ask any student whether they should learn from the knowledge of just one country and they will think you have gone quite crazy. Ask any businessperson whether markets and economic ambition should be limited by national boundaries and they will think that you have flipped your lid. In the financial system—the basis of this report— ask anyone involved in the regulatory regime whether governments should cooperate and work together and they will say of course they should. Governments working together to stabilise financial systems is the key for global economic prosperity. Why is the political system so backward? In many respects it has grown out of touch with the lifestyles and aspirations of the Australian people. In their practical day-to-day lives, the Australian people are engaging in the benefits of globalisation. It is only in the political system that scare campaigns and misinformation are being mounted. In fact, the political system responds too easily to the demands of special interest groups trying to protect their economic privileges from competition. If there is one rule in politics it is that if someone is campaigning against globalisation they are trying to protect the privileges of the wealthy, trying to protect those who have done well out of the market economy. That is the golden rule. We need leadership to make these points known, in many ways for the political system to catch up to Australian society and the way in which it is embracing global opportunities.This report is part of the leadership. I have been delighted to be part of the inquiry. We have all learned a lot from the material in the report. We are all satisfied with the recommendations that have gone forward. If the Howard government is serious about leadership, not only will it embrace the recommendations but it will put down the opportunistic voices and the special pleading groups who want to stand in the way of these global trends. Globalisation is a net benefit for this country. The Australian people do not want it rejected; they want it civilised. If we can do one thing to civilise global markets, it is to embrace the recommendations of this very fine report.13:04:0025560Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—The best book I have read on globalisation is The Lexus and the Olive Tree, by Thomas Friedman, an international writer from the New York Times. It is widely read in America but not so widely read in Australia. Mr Friedman was quoted in the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration report International financial markets: friends or foes? He has coined a number of phrases to describe international financial markets and what is going on. He uses phrases such as `the electronic herd' and talks about `operating systems' not in the sense of a computer but as operating systems for countries. The phrase I like is the `golden straitjacket'—liberal free market policies that a country needs to adopt to plug in to the electronic herd, to be part of international financial markets. These include seeing the private sector as the primary engine for growth, having a low inflation environment, having small government, having a balanced budget, lowering tariff protection, removing foreign investment restrictions, competition reform in monopolies, increasing exports—a sort of export oriented industrialisation—privatising government business enterprises, deregulating capital markets, floating the exchange rate, allowing foreign ownership and investment, opening banking and telcos to private ownership and competition and having competition in super funds—people having a choice of where they can put their retirement funds.Over the last 15 years Australia has adopted most of what comprises the golden straitjacket. That meant that, when the Asian financial crisis came, Australia was insulated against contagion in those foreign markets. The golden straitjacket leads a country to a higher growth path and higher incomes overall. This means that, if the Labor Party is successful at the end of the year, there will be a discipline on them already. It remains to be seen which way the Labor Party will go. Blair and Clinton largely accepted the free market reforms of their predecessors. In the area of workplace relations, on trade union power, on privatisation, we have seen an indication that a Prime Minister Beazley—the Leader of the Opposition as Prime Minister—might follow the New Zealand Labour Party. He might look at turning back the clock to the older days of the Labor Party and to increases in trade union power. What better example of that than the preselection last weekend of now the fourth ACTU president who will have in this parliament— 83SBurke, Anna, MPMs Burke—What has that got to do with the report?10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—That clearly has nothing to do with the report. The honourable member for Boothby will stick to the subject.TK6Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—Thomas Friedman also goes on to talk about operating systems that countries will adopt and he talks about various levels going from DOS capital 1.0 right up to DOS capital 6.0. DOS capital 6.0 is like Australia, like the United Kingdom and like the United States—a free market economy. It is associated with small government, a free market and a strong legal framework. It includes things like banking laws, commercial laws, bankruptcy rules, contract law, having an independent central bank, encouraging risk taking, judicial review, international accounting standards and world's best practice in regulatory oversight—which we have with APRA—and laws against conflict of interest and insider trading. Through such things as the financial systems inquiry—the Wallis inquiry in 1997—Australia's move to a twin peaks model of having consumer protection and prudential regulation separated and giving the Reserve Bank the sole responsibility of oversight of the financial system means that Australia is in the front rank. We are close to world's best practice in most of these areas.The committee has made a number of recommendations to improve information and transparency and to continue the deregulation in global trade and financial services. The proposed USFTA offers the opportunity to promote trade in financial services. However, I am concerned that the FTA, across all sectors, could become bogged down on agricultural products. If this happens, perhaps we should look at focusing on an FTA just on financial services with the United States. In the areas of legal framework, regulatory framework, government fiscal policy and monetary policy, we need to continue to strive to be in the leading pack to ensure that Australia fulfils its potential. The recommendations of this report are useful technical improvements which will enhance information and transparency and I hope will be adopted by the government.13:09:0025561Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—I also rise today to welcome the report entitled International financial markets—friends or foes? from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration. The report provides a detailed and extensive exploration into a topic which at times seemed limitless. At the outset I wish to thank the other members of the committee—in particular, our chair, the member for Wannon—for their work on a report which at times seemed beyond everyone's grasp, not so much because of the subject matter but because of the enormity of the issue and the frustration from all concerned about how to tackle genuine issues of globalisation. A large thanks and vote of appreciation must also go to the committee secretariat for their work on the report, particularly to Bev Forbes and Tas Luttrell, for managing to distil a marathon subject into what is a very readable and commendable report on many diverse issues united under the heading of `international financial markets'.Sovereign nations are overwhelmed by the notion of a borderless society, where countries are now asked to create macro-economic policies in consideration of how the international financial markets will perceive them. No longer can we operate in a vacuum, claiming our geographic isolation as protection from the world stage. As Dr John Edwards commented in the inquiry, the trend was towards major economic decisions being taken by `shifting coalitions of nation states regulators and global institutions'.Technology is moving at a greater speed than legislators are, and it is our task to work out how to regulate in many instances after the horse has bolted. We must also work out how to create—and, more importantly, enforce—global legislation that deals with the myriad issues international financial markets generate. I recommend that people in this place read this report, as it gives a clear outline of complex issues impacting on us all. It also highlights that, far from being behind in many areas, Australia leads the way in its prudential regulation of its banking systems, its floating of the dollar, its supervisory institutions and Corporations Law. These fundamentals saw Australia through the Asian crisis and continue to serve us well. So what is it all about anyway? An interview with George Soros, the man many credited as being the architect of the Asian financial crisis, in the New York Review of 14 January 1999 sheds light on this issue, and I would like to read from it. The interviewer asked:In England, you are still highly criticized in some circles for having been the most active seller of the pound in 1992. They say you drove it down, costing British taxpayers billions. ... ... ...I take it you also believe the pound would have fallen, anyway.George Soros's reply:Yes. It would have fallen whether I was born or not. So I think our position was completely defensible. I believe markets are amoral. The problem is that they are not always stable. They frequently swing to excesses. That's why I say that markets, instead of swinging like a pendulum, can sometimes act like a wrecking ball, knocking over economies.In the Asian collapse, the interesting thing is that the crisis there varied from country to country. You can identify some similarities. But none of the causes were present in all the countries. Some had too much debt. Others had weak banks. So there has to be a unifying theme and that was the international financial system itself.I think this article, which is fairly interesting, explains what the report went into, that there is a bigger movement beyond the shores of one nation. George Soros is one of the world's most successful hedge fund managers. A large section of the committee report was devoted to the role of hedge funds. There was a great deal of evidence before the committee on the lack of regulation of hedge funds, because of both their structure and the sheer magnitude of the volumes of capital they move. Interestingly, as pointed out in the New York Review article again, George Soros in his book The Crisis of Global Capitalism:... writes that what he calls “market fundamentalism” may be “a greater threat to open society than totalitarian government today.” Soros proposes more regulation of markets as well as the establishment of a global agency to help reduce market instability around the world.The committee's report proposes seven recommendations which go some way to ensuring that Australia is part of the international financial architecture and that our internal policies ensure our economy has the right fundamentals. The tabling of today's report comes at an interesting time in our economic cycle. Our dollar is at a record low, and whilst all experts claim it is undervalued and that Australia's economic principles are sound they cannot explain its worrying decline. The need for Australia to have a robust, diverse economy with government and private sector investing in new and emerging technologies was never more needed than now after we have seen this government let this slide, and as a consequence our dollar and our economy have also declined.The report highlights the need for Australia to have an economic outlook which encourages growth and continued productivity improvement, not just short-term stimulation through tax cuts. Australia needs a government that wants to be part of the world stage, not acting in isolation. But, more importantly, Australians need a government that takes its citizens with it on the journey of economic reform and does not leave them behind. I endorse most strongly the rather ambitious recommendation No. 2 to ensure that we are all on board for economic change and do not leave our citizens behind. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The time allotted for statements on the report has expired. Does the member for Wannon wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? 25563Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Bills2556310000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! I inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 140, the honourable member for Kennedy has withdrawn his notice relating to the presentation of the Excise Tariff Amendment (Petrol Indexation) Bill 2001. The order of precedence of remaining private members business notices, as determined by the Selection Committee's report adopted by the House on 6 March, remains unchanged.Bills25563R126325563Bill presented by Mr Katter.13:15:0025563Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—I originally proposed to present two bills: one to abolish indexation and the second one to take the 1.05c a litre rise and put it across to rural infrastructure. At the time of proposing those two bills, I was criticised in the media: terms like `rogue', `loose cannon', `maverick', and some even less attractive terms were ascribed to my behaviour. It was rather satisfying to see the government take up the idea some two weeks later. Unfortunately and sadly, many of my colleagues in Queensland are now no longer in parliament; perhaps, if moves like that had been taken sooner—if the statements that I was making were taken up sooner—we might have some more of our National Party colleagues in the state house in Queensland. There were many angry remarks about that on the weekend. We do not want to put up the price of petrol, so we modified our second bill to take 1.5c off the existing excise duty. If anyone thinks that that is radical or irresponsible behaviour, all of the parties, including the Independent, Mr Andren, who is seconding this bill, were on time that was running out in shaping regional Australia's future. A standing committee of this House said that 2c a litre should be taken and used specifically in addition to present road expenditures on road infrastructure in Australia. Some $350 million a year has been allocated as a special one-off for the next four years, so to some degree that recommendation has been implemented. But we have widened the idea here and said that not 2c but 1.5c should go to a rural development fund. Those who, like me, have had the privilege of serving as a minister for a long time know that budgets are very unwieldy if you have line items there. Things suddenly occur where tremendous opportunities arise, but, if you do not have a line item in your budget you have to go through the very unwieldy process of cabinet decision making to be able to secure some money for a particular purpose. It is very difficult if all of your budget is already taken up with line items. This measure gives a minister some flexibility. We are not moving towards any New Guinea type situation here or to a situation like Ros Kelly's whiteboard; we would expect that governments would act in a responsible manner. The Karumba road is very hard to justify at present; yet unless that road is shifted west of its present situation there will not be an all-weather port in the Gulf Country of Australia. Moreover, Karumba is the most central port for continental Australia. The five major offices of Westpac Bank and the AMP Society were in the four capital cities and in Normanton. Now the port has just moved a bit downstream to Karumba. People looked at a map of Australia and said that this was the most central port. But it is a port that cannot be used for three months of every year because the road goes under water for that period of time. Under national competition policy, we cannot build electricity lines anywhere unless they pay for themselves. So the Gulf Country of Australia languishes at the present moment because of this national competition policy agreement. As Minister for Mines and Energy in the parliament of Queensland, I decided to put a grid power system right across the Gulf Country from Cairns through Georgetown, Croydon and Normanton, all the way to Karumba. I told the cabinet that I could not see any way that the line could pay for itself—I was not going to deceive cabinet by telling them that it could—and that it was my belief that industries would come on that line and the line would more than pay for itself. I am informed that, at the moment, the line is almost doubly paying for itself—the amount of money coming in is almost double what is needed to service the debt. To quote one example, people approached me about mango farming in North Queensland and I said, `Go to Georgetown.' They said, `Why is no-one there?' I said, `There's no bitumen road and there's no electricity.' They said, `We cannot go there without those things,' and I said, `The bitumen road will be completed this year and the electricity will be through next year.' We now have 10,000 mango trees—one of the biggest mango orchards in Australia—creating a vitally needed industry for Georgetown, a very small town that has very little industry, with only 400 or 500 people living there at the moment.On more ambitious projects, even the Parliamentary Library informs me that 1.5c will deliver only $472 million per year, but that $472 million a year, if it were put into, for example, the Hells Gates dam in North Queensland, would yield an income for this country of $740 million per year. Current estimates are that it will cost about $600 million for the dam and delivery systems, yet every single year forever that dam will produce $740 million extra income for this country, creating 8,000 to 15,000 jobs that simply do not exist at the moment. I am sure that figure can be multiplied all over northern Australia where our water resources are not being used at all.To give you some idea of the potential that I am talking about, the Murray-Darling produces 40 per cent of Australia's agriculture. About $10,000 million of agricultural production comes off the Murray-Darling. That converts itself into about $20,000 or $30,000 million worth of food for Australia which comes off 22 million megalitres of water. The Gulf Country and its environs in Queensland alone have 126 million megalitres of water. There are some 35,000 farmers in the Murray-Darling; there are about 12 in the Gulf Country—arguably, there are only five and I could name them. I know them personally. So we have this enormous resource that God has given us, some six or seven times the size of the resource of the Murray-Darling, which is overtaxed if one listens to the media and various reports. Here we have a resource that is not being used at all. Not only is the second biggest river in this country, the Mitchell River, not used for farming but most of it is fenced off because there are a lot of crocodiles in the Gulf Country and cattle have to be protected from the crocodiles—they cannot be allowed near the water. Cattle are not even drinking the water in the Mitchell River.If it is a huge project like the Bradfield scheme—Bradfield was the man who built the Sydney Harbour Bridge, the Storey Bridge in Queensland, the underground railway system in Sydney and the University of Queensland, amongst many other things, and he had this wonderful proposal for North Queensland—it would probably bring $4,000 million or $5,000 million a year extra into the Australian economy. That is not exactly a foolish scheme. If we are talking about developing all of the water resources of the gulf, maybe we are talking about $20,000 million a year for the Australian economy.Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, a subject near to the heart of the members of parliament who represent electorates further north than yours is the ethanol industry, which involves more than just the sugar industry. People say that there is nothing we can do under globalisation—agriculture has just got to rot on the vine, which is what effectively is happening now. But that is not true. With an aggressive, intelligent government asserting itself, we can do wonderful things at no cost to the consumers and at no cost to the taxpayers. Ethanol is a magnificent example of this. Let us look at the example of Australia moving to a 15 per cent ethanol blend in our petrol. Germany and France have an ethanol blend in their petrol, as do Canada, the United States and Brazil. Indeed, it is hard for me to think of a single country that does not have an ethanol blend in its petrol. Sadly, the only country in the world that does not have an ethanol blend in its petrol is Australia—the one country that should have an ethanol blend in its petrol. What would happen if we moved to an ethanol blend? At the moment, Minister Hockey is going to get those pirates that are putting ethanol in the petrol tanks because it is cheaper than petrol. At present, the Brazilians are producing it for 25c and the world price is 29c. We are paying the oil companies about 35c. So ethanol is enormously economically attractive. If we proceeded down this pathway, $2,000 million a year would be taken away from the oil companies—the Shells and the BPs—and it would be handed over to Australian farmers and the Australian mill workers that would be working in the ethanol plants dotted throughout the wheat industry and the sugar industry of Australia. One has to ask the question: why are we not doing this? One must say: let us start doing this. One of the problems is that no minister has a fund of money that he can call upon specifically for this sort of purpose. He has to go through the extremely unwieldy process of going through cabinet—but I do not want to go into the machinations of how cabinets work.Mr Andren, who is seconding this motion, represents the electorate of Calare, which includes the town of Forbes. The Forbes transport centre project is of very great importance to Australia. At the moment, we have the ability to produce almost unlimited amounts of fruit and vegetables, but once we put them on an aeroplane to fly them to Asia under the present arrangements it becomes very non-competitive in cost terms. That being the case, we need a very well-set-up Flying Tigers type of operation out of an area that is central to the horticulture industry of New South Wales. Of course, we would also like to see those planes put down in North Queensland, which is a huge horticulture growing area as well. With those planes properly set up with back-loading, we could produce a fairly efficient and cost-effective traffic instead of putting produce in the hulls of Qantas passenger planes, as we are doing at the moment. I think that we could provide markets where markets simply do not exist at the moment. Finally, I have some comments for those who ask why this should be limited to rural Australia. I wish to refer to a Productivity Commission report on transport—I think it was Mr Fred Hilmer who produced the report—which came out just after the mid-1980s. It said that every single year $4,000 million was spent on the subsidisation of commuter transportation systems for the metropolitan areas of Australia. When people in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane go to work of a morning, around half of them are subsidised to the tune of about 50 per cent of the cost of going to work. There is virtually no commuter transportation system at all for the million people who live north of Brisbane. When we go to work of a morning, we pay 100 per cent tax on our fuel and we pay about 20 per cent in government charges upon our motor car as well. So we pay a huge regime of government charges, including taxation and tariffs, when we go to work of a morning, yet people in the metropolitan areas get subsidised when they go to work of a morning. One may say that a lot of people in the cities are driving cars. However, people in the cities have the option of using a commuter transportation system. It is not an option for those people living north of Brisbane and, I suspect, west of the Blue Mountains and north of Sydney, if I am using New South Wales as an example. This situation is terribly unfair. Government reports now indicate that the subsidy has blown out to over $6,000 million a year, and I would be fairly confident that it would have. The way to rectify some of that unfairness is to set up this fund. This fund means a lot to people in western Queensland where, over the last two or three decades, we have lost some 39 per cent of our population to places like Brisbane, which has seen its population explode and increase by 151 per cent in the same period. If you want anyone to be living outside the capital cities in Australia and the metropolitan areas, actions like this simply must be undertaken. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—In accordance with sessional order 104A, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business255662556610000The CLERKThe Clerk—I inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 138, I have received a letter from the honourable member for Calwell fixing the next sitting as the day for presenting the Australian Bill of Rights Bill 2001. 2556613:31:0025566Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I move: (1) That a Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing be appointed to inquire into: (a) proposals for the annual estimates and the additional estimates for the House of Representatives; (b) proposals to vary the staff structure of the House of Representatives, and staffing and recruitment policies; and(c) such other matters as are referred to it by the House;(2) That the committee shall: (a) in relation to estimates— (i) determine the amounts for inclusion in the parliamentary appropriation bills for the annual and the additional appropriations; and (ii) report to the House upon its determinations prior to the consideration by the House of the relevant parliamentary appropriation bill; and (b) in relation to staffing— (i) make recommendations to the Speaker; and (ii) report to the House on its determinations prior to the consideration by the House of the relevant parliamentary appropriation bill;(3) That the committee consist of the Speaker and 11 other members, 6 members to be nominated by the Chief Government Whip or Whips and 5 members to be nominated by the Chief Opposition Whip or Whips or any independent Member;(4) That the committee elect a Government member as its chair;(5) That the committee elect a deputy chairman who shall act as chair of the committee at any time when the chair is not present at a meeting of the committee, and at any time when the chair and deputy chair are not present at a meeting of the committee the members present shall elect another member to act as chairman at that meeting;(6) That the committee have power to appoint subcommittees consisting of 3 or more of its members and to refer to any subcommittee any matter which the committee is empowered to examine;(7) That the committee appoint the chair of each subcommittee who shall have a casting vote only, and at any time when the chair of a subcommittee is not present at a meeting of the subcommittee the members of the subcommittee present shall elect another member of that subcommittee to act as chair at that meeting;(8) That the quorum of a subcommittee be a majority of the members of that subcommittee;(9) That members of the committee who are not members of a subcommittee may participate in the public proceedings of that subcommittee but shall not vote, move any motion or be counted for the purpose of a quorum;(10) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to send for persons, papers and records; (11) That the committee or any subcommittee have power to move from place to place;(12) That a subcommittee have power to adjourn from time to time and to sit during any sittings or adjournment of the House;(13) That the committee have leave to report from time to time; and(14) That the foregoing provisions of this resolution, so far as they are inconsistent with the standing orders, have effect notwithstanding anything contained in the standing orders. Mr Deputy Speaker, firstly, can I say that you seem to be in somewhat different attire to the attire that I saw you in the last time I was in the House. 10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the honourable member, but I advise him that I do change my clothes from time to time. QI4Price, Roger, MPMr PRICE—Indeed, and even the style. I would love to stand up before you and say that it is my idea to have a staffing and appropriations committee for the Department of the House of Representatives, but I cannot. This was first proposed by Senator Jessop, a distinguished member of the Liberal Party. He proposed that there should be a staffing and appropriations committee for the Senate, a staffing and appropriations committee for the House of Representatives, and of course that they would meet jointly for those things that are jointly administered by both houses—for example, Joint House, Library, et cetera.The Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee has operated quite successfully for many years. I think that if you spoke to any President of the Senate you would find that, rather than being an encumbrance upon that high office, they have found it to be of great assistance. The reason for that is that the department of finance, whether it be under a Liberal or a Labor government, has great brainwaves from time to time about how money can be saved or extracted out of this parliament. It really saddens me to say that the only government instrumentality not subject to any parliamentary scrutiny whatsoever is the Department of the House of Representatives. I think that is very unfortunate. I come with no malice about this motion. I believe that what the parliament needs to do is to respond to the public's concern for higher standards and greater openness and transparency in all operations of government, this great House included. Our failure to do so means that the House is really a dinosaur. We are the last of the kind in our failure to have this facility. There are a whole bunch of reasons why we might want to have such a committee. Let me say, for example, that at the beginning of the Howard government $10 million was extracted from the budget of the parliament. Tragically, a great weight fell upon the committees of this parliament. Yet it is the committee system as we develop it, as we refine it, that allows so many of our fellow Australians to be able to have an input, to believe that someone is listening to whatever their concerns may be.It is true that committees are developing and refining ways in which ordinary Australians are able to touch this parliament. For example, at the end of a public hearing held in rural and regional Australia or in the city, wherever, some committees are allowing members of the public to stand up and offer a three- or five-minute speech that gets incorporated into Hansard and which is taken into account by the relevant committee. It is true to say that the Speaker and the Clerk have introduced two forms of internships in this parliament. The first is for people who are studying right around Australia to come here and be assigned to a member of parliament. I think it is an excellent scheme. I am pleased to say that I have one from southern Queensland. The other form of internship is to substitute attendants—that is, to allow university students to earn some money by working in the parliament. I am not going to say that that system has no merit, but if we wanted to really bolster the effectiveness of our committee system—and I have said it before—we should be offering internships to bright and talented university graduates to allow them to work for a fixed period for these committees. I am afraid to say graduates are not offered at market value, but they allow the committees to benefit from their brains, enthusiasm and research capabilities and for the graduates to be able to put on their CV that they work for a particular parliamentary committee. To me, this is far more exciting than trying to substitute some of the labour of our attendants who serve us so faithfully. Perhaps there is an argument that I am not aware of that motivated the Clerk to pursue this particular form of labour substitution. That is the whole point of my motion, that there is no scrutiny of this action whatsoever. If we had a staffing and appropriations committee, whatever the concerns that the Clerk or the Speaker might have had in addressing this substitution of university undergraduates for attendants, we could have discussed it. Indeed, we could have discussed the original taking of $10 million away from the committee system. Let me tell you of a couple of impacts that I am aware of through the Defence Subcommittee. I am pleased to say that the ADF allows us to second talented officers. Indeed, in the recent past we have had three very talented lieutenant colonels assigned to the subcommittee. But we do not have one permanent officer of this parliament assigned to the Defence Subcommittee. What a disgrace! It is true that Margaret Swieringa acts as secretary of the overall committee, as she does for the United Nations subcommittee, as she tries to run a very extensive and busy committee. We used to have a dedicated secretary of the Defence Subcommittee and, as well, an officer from the ADF working as a military adviser with us. I think that that was something that the parliament and this staffing and appropriations committee would want to look at.I know that Senator Schacht and Senator Sandy Macdonald have spoken out about our recent trip to East Timor. Unfortunately, I was not able to go because my doctor and my wife vetoed it. I was appalled that at one stage the Clerk was considering not allowing our military adviser to go. I was embarrassed—embarrassed for the individual, embarrassed for the parliament and embarrassed for the Army, which has been so generous in giving us these people. I guess the people outside will not be too fussed about the fact that the storeroom is closed—they probably think that we are just whingeing about inconsequential things—but it does seem to have been a crazy decision. It seems to be one of those decisions where you can be penny wise and pound foolish. That is the advantage of having a sounding board. That is the advantage of having a committee like this. I started off by saying that, in this parliament, we need to listen to the people; we need to hang onto our core values but we need to change and adapt. I put suggestions forward about changing question time, here on the Notice Paper. I have suggested that, if a petitioner in any electorate is so concerned about the issue about which they take up the petition, they ought to be allowed to come to the bar of this parliament and read out the prayer or what the petition is all about. That has been knocked back. That has been changed. I put on the Notice Paper that we ought to have joint estimates committees with the Senate, not to undermine the power and the influence of the Senate but because scrutiny of government activity has to be a good thing and, as members of this House, we deny ourselves the opportunity of becoming familiar with the different departments and instrumentalities of state. I hope there will be support for this proposal that I have put forward. It is not mine. It dates back to the 1970s and Liberal Senator Don Jessop. But we have to do this. And we have to do much more. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded? HH4Jenkins, Harry, MPMr Jenkins—Mr Deputy Speaker, to enable this worthwhile debate to go forward, I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 13:41:0025568Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—I have listened to the arguments of the honourable member for Chifley. More than a decade ago I served with the honourable member on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. I enjoyed working with the honourable member, but today, after having listened to that proposition and explanation, I think perhaps he should go back to that committee and leave the House to itself. This is a nonsense motion. The member for Chifley wants a standing committee of this House to examine the annual estimates and additional estimates for the House of Representatives, to examine all proposals to vary the staff structure of the House of Representatives and to examine its staffing and recruitment policies. It seems to me that the member for Chifley is trying to take over most of your job, Mr Speaker. I would think that you would not be in favour of that. Certainly I am not in favour of that, not in any wise. If it is necessary to have some scrutiny of the spending of the House department, then certainly it is in the purview of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, which I have the honour of chairing, to have a look at that issue. We just might have an inquiry into the operations of the House department and how it is performing, but realistically the amount of money that is put aside for the running of the House of Representatives is the responsibility of the executive. The Constitution makes it clear that even the Senate with all its equal powers to the House of Representatives has no power whatsoever over money bills. It is this House that decides money and it is the executive which puts forward to this House every year a budget and funding bills. We debate those bills. We debate them extensively through much of the session following the budget, and we pass those bills and send them on to the Senate. The Senate debates them again. The Senate has estimates committee hearings. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for a later hour this day. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Statements by Members255692556913:45:0025569Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—At the conclusion of this statement I will table a petition of 766 citizens of Australia which has been certified by the Deputy Clerk and calls on this House to review the issues surrounding HMAS Hawkesbury and the atomic testing on Montebello Island during the 1950s. It gives me great pleasure to table this petition on behalf of Keith Harrison and the sailors who served aboard HMAS Hawkesbury. These sailors were used as human guinea pigs during the atomic test on Montebello Island and were then not fully compensated by successive governments. The petition was signed by 766 people mainly from the Blacktown area but also from other parts of Sydney and, indeed, other parts of Australia. When we took this petition to shopping centres in Blacktown, Quakers Hill, Lalor Park, Seven Hills and elsewhere in the Greenway electorate, I found that people were eager to sign it and were eager to see justice done. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who signed the petition and gave their encouragement to continue this fight. The people in Blacktown are very generous in such things. I would also like to thank the local media outlets that picked up and ran with Keith's story. Keith Harrison himself, although suffering from ill health, was also very active in collecting signatures at these shopping centres. I urge the minister, when he has seen the community response through this petition, to re-examine this issue and to grant the justice that is long overdue. (Time expired)2556913:46:0025569Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to draw the House's attention to the worsening problem of crime in my electorate, particularly in Cronulla. I make this statement in light of the recent announcement by the New South Wales state government that they will supply Cabramatta with 100 extra police officers—but none extra for Cronulla. It is clear to me that the New South Wales Minister for Police, Mr Whelan, either has a listening problem or is severely out of touch with the community. The number one issue occupying the minds of the residents in Cronulla at the moment is law and order. I continue to receive many letters and telephone calls from residents of Cronulla and surrounding suburbs concerned about the lack of a police presence in the eastern end of the shire. The issue is both damaging to small businesses and is undermining the ability of residents to feel secure in their local area. The residents of Cronulla and the Sutherland shire at large have been demanding a greater police presence for over three months without the slightest acknowledgment from Minister Whelan. I do not doubt Cabramatta's need for extra police. However, just a fraction of that number being assigned to Cronulla would make a significant difference. Politics is local and the concerns of our community are local. When will the minister get out of the mindset of centralised government locked away in Macquarie Street and recognise that community policing produces positive outcomes? He must realise that the state government has to govern for the whole of the state, not just the western suburbs of Sydney. The law and order issue in Cronulla will not disappear overnight. However, an increase in police numbers and the upgrade of Cronulla police station to operational status will go a long way to arresting the situation.2557013:48:0025570Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I would like to add to the comments that I made earlier on the parliamentary delegation to India and Bangladesh and express my appreciation for the support, assistance and hospitality that the delegation received from the Australian High Commission in both countries and also from local parliamentary representatives, business representatives, aid and health workers and local community representatives. I would particularly like to thank the following people. In Bangladesh: the Hon. Humayyun Rashid Chowdhury, Speaker of the Parliament; other members and staff of parliament including Mr Nojibur Rahman and Mr Shahidul Mamun; Mr Robert Flynn, High Commissioner in Bangladesh; and other High Commission staff including Ms Julienne Iftenne, Deputy High Commissioner. In India: the Hon. Ganti Mohana Chandra Balayogi, Speaker of the Lok Sabha; the Hon. P. M. Sayeed, Deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha; Dr Najima Heptulla, Deputy Chairman of the Rajya Sabha; other staff in the parliament, including Mr Jose and Dr Dayal; Mr Robert Laurie, the Australian High Commissioner in India; and other high commission staff, including Mr Bryce Hutchesson, Deputy High Commissioner, and Ms Julie Ann Guivarra. I would also like to extend special thanks to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Austrade and AusAID together with Dr Ravi Tomar from the Parliamentary Library. Special thanks also to the Bangladesh High Commissioner in Canberra, His Excellency Mr Shamsuzzaman, and the Indian High Commissioner, His Excellency, Mr R. S. Rathore. Particular thanks also to the parliamentary delegation secretary, Mr Greg McIntosh, for his excellent work in providing the support and assistance needed for us to do our job.2557013:50:0025570Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—I have to confess to the parliament that I was locked in jail this morning. Fortunately it was not an ordinary jail; it was a jail provided by the Smith Family as part of the announcement of their winter appeal. I was required to raise enough money to get out of jail so that I could be here for 12.30—I made it by 15 seconds. People could actually pay to keep me in jail as well, but I reminded them that it would have cost them a lot more to keep me there, because the Smith Family provided black coffees and all those sorts of things, which are very expensive.Fortunately I was able to raise nearly $1,000 in three-quarters of an hour to get my bail. I would like to thank a number of businesses, particularly in Queanbeyan, who came to the party to give me that bail, including John Holden at EziRid Pest Control; Daryl and Robyn Jenkins at Canberra Trophy Centre; Neville Marsh at Vintage Cellars; Matthew and Wendy Mason-Cox at Queanbeyan Eye Care Centre; Peter Moran, a blind manufacturer; Bruce Morrison at Morrison's Newsagency; Kevin and Carol O'Connor at O'Connor Menswear; Con Perry at Perry Electrical; Chas Sliwinski, an electrician; Geoff Thomas at Data Voice Communication; Dale Brown at O'Rourke Funerals; and Greg Dark at Merritts Transport. Chris Vardon, the mayor of the Eurobodalla Shire Council, also contributed. I told him at the weekend that I knew this was going to happen and he provided me with some money as well. I thank all of those people and also a number of my colleagues who have contributed—Margaret May, Tony Lawler and Garry Nehl. (Time expired)2557113:51:0025571Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—On 14 December 2000 my wife, Adriana, and I, along with very many ALP stalwarts, attended the requiem mass at St Mary's Catholic Church in Concord for the repose of the soul of former New South Wales ALP Senator James Anthony (Tony) Mulvihill. The requiem mass was celebrated by Bishop David Cremin, who described Tony Mulvihill as a man of indestructible faith. His former staffer Marion Grace spoke affectionately of Tony as the ALP's first genuine greenie, who, as the shadow minister for the environment, together with the former state member for Drummoyne and federal member for Lowe, Michael Maher, cleaned up the Parramatta River.When we returned to parliament this year on 6 February 2001 the Senate held a condolence motion for Tony, and I particularly encourage members of this chamber to read the wonderful tributes to Tony by Senators John Faulkner and Robert Ray. I also suggest members read Tony's valedictory speech in the Senate on 14 December 1982 when he cleared his dog's honour—it was a ripper!Tony served in the Senate from 1965 to 1983, and today I wish to record my appreciation for the encouragement and continuing support Tony gave to me from the time I was elected to Drummoyne council and, more recently, as member for Lowe. Despite his failing health, he was still writing many letters to me on a number of issues shortly before his death. I will always remember Tony as a person who would always put the party ahead of his own interests. He was a classic team player and a warrior for the environment, the underdog and the public interest. Adriana and I will miss him. Vale, Tony Mulvihill, a champion senator and indeed a champion.2557113:53:0025571St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—Last Thursday night I joined with Dr Hans Graser, Director of the Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit, in celebrating 25 years of this wonderful unit at the University of New England. The Animal Genetics and Breeding Unit was established in 1976 by the New South Wales state government Department of Agriculture and the University of New England to carry out research, development and training in the genetic improvement of livestock for the benefit of Australian agriculture. From a small beginning of two scientists, one extension specialist and one secretary, it has grown to a team of 20 scientists, postgraduate students and support staff. It has an excellent international reputation and, as a consequence, an active program for visiting scientists.AGBU's achievements include the BreedObject software to calculate economic weights and selection indices tailored to individual requirements; BREEDPLAN, PIGBLUP and OVIS genetic evaluation systems, which have been widely adopted by beef, pig and sheep industries respectively; recognition as a leader in methods for the prediction of breeding values through these genetic evaluation systems; leadership of the beef cooperative research centre genetics program; new knowledge of the genetics of growth, carcass and fertility traits in beef, cattle and pigs; new methods for the estimation of genetic parameters; new methods for segregation analysis with and without genetic markers; and regular short courses for students and scientists in work related areas. (Time expired)2557213:54:0025572Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I would like to congratulate the Port Adelaide Football Club on recently securing their first premiership in the AFL against the Brisbane Lions in front of 35,000 people at Adelaide's Football Park. Mark Williams, the coach, and the players are to be congratulated, particularly Stuart Dew and Fabian Francis, who kicked six goals in the second quarter from 50 metres out, igniting the team and the crowd and destroying the Brisbane Lions. But the Brisbane Lions will come back again, of course; they are a good side, too. I would also like to congratulate the administration of the club through the direction of the Chief Executive Officer, Brian Cunningham, and President Greg Boulton. With a strong playing team and a strong administration, success in football is guaranteed, I hope, for Port Adelaide.I would also like to acknowledge that on this day, 26 March, in 1988, I was elected as the member for Port Adelaide in a by-election—by-elections have been in the news recently—and I certainly remember the drama of the by-election in 1988. This is the beginning of my 14th year in this place, and I look forward to the next term in government.2557213:55:0025572Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—It would come as no news to people in this chamber that last week was Senior Citizens Week. I had the pleasurable duty last week of attending many functions throughout my electorate, in Dubbo, Cobar, Bourke and Broken Hill.I want to make mention of a few people who contributed enormously to the success of that week. May I make special remarks about Anne Rockell in Dubbo, who tirelessly puts on events for seniors throughout the year; but, during the Senior Citizens Week, Anne outdid herself, beginning with a dinner at the Castlereagh Hotel, hosted by the Kennedy family, right through to the end of the week when she organised a concert by the three tenors. In Cobar, John Martin of the Cobar Shire Council largely arranged the dinner for the seniors at the golf and bowling club. The winner of Senior Citizen of the Year for Cobar was Ethel George—a very popular winner on that evening. In Bourke, Shirley Hayman was the recipient of a sports medal for her services to bowls in the area, and Shirley Booth was tremendous in helping to organise that surprise presentation. Further, in Broken Hill the winner of the Senior Citizen of the Year award was Mrs Geyer. She has been a strong advocate for seniors and has been involved in a large range of community groups over many years. Mrs Geyer is currently the Vice-President of the Pensioners' Association and has represented the association on liaison committees. I certainly would say that the Pensioners' Association in Broken Hill is a very robust organisation and has called me to task many times. (Time expired)2557213:57:0025572Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Last Sunday in my electorate, we had the pleasure of having the shadow minister for Aboriginal affairs, the Hon. Robert McMullan, join 300 local citizens in showing their interest in Aboriginal reconciliation. I am pleased to tell this parliament that in my electorate there is a very strong interest in Aboriginal reconciliation. Mr McMullan detailed in his speech one of the issues that I believe goes to the heart of the Australian people's interest in this area—the stolen generations. He documented—and I urge members of the public and the parliament to look at his speech—the large number of Aboriginal children who were stolen between 1909 and 1969 when this policy was in force—that is, over 100,000 children. This problem existed in all Australian states and is an issue that this country will have to face up to. It will face up to it when a new government is elected, when Mr McMullan is in the cabinet as the first Aboriginal affairs minister and when this country says `sorry' under prime minister Kim Beazley. 2557313:58:0025573Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—Yeronga Meals on Wheels is 30 years old this year and, over those 30 years, it has produced over one million meals for the people in my electorate of Moreton. Yeronga Meals on Wheels is currently producing 500-plus meals per week. It has reached a high in years past of 850 meals per week, and currently 150 citizens dedicated to assisting Meals on Wheels lend a hand each and every week. Over the 30 years, tens of thousands of people in the southern suburbs of Brisbane have benefited from the work of Yeronga Meals on Wheels. On Australia Day, the secretary of the association was awarded a Moreton Community Service Award. It was only a few days ago that I was able to personally hand that award to Esther Topping, the Secretary of Yeronga Meals on Wheels. Thirty years of service is inspiring in itself, but it is also worth noting that a lady called Dianne Burow has contributed 20 years work in the kitchen, helping those people in our community who are less fortunate than ourselves to make sure that they had meals on their tables. I am sure all honourable members would be interested to know that Dianne Burow is totally blind. For 20 years, a totally blind lady has been helping at the Yeronga Meals on Wheels. In the International Year of the Volunteer, those sorts of stories, I believe, are inspirational indeed. Congratulations to Yeronga Meals on Wheels.Miscellaneous2557314:00:0025573SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I draw the attention of the House to a gift this parliament has recently received from the Parliament of New Zealand. To mark the Centenary of the Commonwealth Parliament, on 7 March the Speaker of the New Zealand parliament, the Rt Hon. Jonathon Hunt MP, presented the painting Milford Sound and Mitre Peak by Sir Hans Heysen to the President of the Senate and me. We received it on behalf of the parliament. In his remarks, Speaker Hunt said that the gift was made in the desire to record with affection both the close historic, social and cultural ties between our two nations and the long tradition of parliamentary friendship and interaction. The painting has now been hung on the first floor in the north-east area of the public circulation area adjacent to the presiding officers' exhibition area. It will remain there throughout the Centenary of Federation year with appropriate acknowledgment of the source of the gift. I table the letter received from the New Zealand Speaker regarding this gift and recommend to all members that they take the opportunity to view this painting and appreciate the significance of this gift.Ministerial Arrangements2557314:01:0025573Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time this week. He is visiting the United Kingdom, the United States of America and South America to discuss a range of bilateral and multilateral issues including discussions with the new American administration. The Minister for Trade will answer questions on his behalf. May I also take this opportunity to advise the House that the member for Robertson has been appointed a government whip.Questions Without Notice255732557314:01:0025573Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister seen Labor's banking policy, released today, with a social charter for the banks that includes fee-free banking for social security recipients, a no-frills bank account for all Australians and full disclosure of ATM fees at the time of transaction? Prime Minister, do you support Labor's measures to give Australians a decent level of banking service?25573Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have seen Labor's banking policy, and I have also seen the level of interest rates today compared with what it was under a Labor government.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—I might remind those excited ladies and gentlemen opposite that when the Leader of the Opposition last had a serious position in the government of this country the interest rate charged by banks was 17 or 18 per cent. I would say on behalf of the coalition that the best banking policy is a low interest rate policy. Therefore, on the track record of what Labor did when it was in government and what this government has done since it has been in office, there can be no doubt that the best banking policy—namely, a low interest rate policy—is the policy to be delivered by a coalition government. Amongst a number of commitments contained in Labor's banking policy is a commitment to restore all of the services that have disappeared. Is that going to be funded by the government? How many bank branches are you going to reopen under that policy? Are you going to force the banks to subsidise the restoration of those services or are you misleading the Australian people? It is appropriate that the research centre that gave birth to this policy is the Chifley Research Centre, and the name Chifley will forever be associated not with progress in banking but with an attempt to destroy the private banking systems of this country. Let me say yet again that the best banking policy is a low interest rate policy, and on that score Labor has no credibility.2557414:04:0025574Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister outline to the House how the government is delivering on its commitment under the Tough on Drugs strategy to fund community education initiatives focused on prevention and on dialogue within Australian families?25574Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—As the member for Parramatta would be aware, I launched the public education campaign in the Ermington community hall in the electorate of Parramatta yesterday, choosing, as I did, a part of Australia that is very much representative of middle Australia and very much comprises families which, like families all over this country, are concerned about the threat posed by illicit drug use to their children and to the young people of Australia. This campaign, which went to air all over the nation last night, is unashamedly directed towards encouraging Australian parents to become more directly involved in dissuading their children from commencing taking illicit drugs.The research carried out for the campaign showed that more than 70 per cent of young people indicated that their parents and other family members did have the capacity to influence them not to commence drug taking. The campaign is comprised of a series of very direct, unambiguous television advertisements supported by radio and print ads and also supplemented by a booklet which will be distributed to every household in Australia. This booklet contains valuable information in relation to the nature of the drug menace. It contains very useful advice to Australian parents regarding issues to be canvassed in discussions with their children regarding drugs. It contains the street names of the drugs most commonly in use in Australia and contains other easy to be understood information about the threat posed by drugs.Under this government a record amount for a federal government has been allocated to the Tough on Drugs strategy, and I am pleased to say that I have had the cooperation of premiers of Australia across the political divide. Last week in Brisbane I jointly launched a diversion agreement with the Queensland Premier, several months earlier I launched a similar one with the Victorian Premier, late last year I launched one with the New South Wales Premier and my colleague the minister for health has launched and signed diversion agreements with at least one other premier of an Australian state. This is an issue that concerns all Australians. It is an issue that should unite all political leaders in this country irrespective of their political allegiance, and I am very pleased to say that the response, generally speaking, to the government's launch yesterday has been very positive. It is seen as a very direct, no nonsense appeal to Australian parents, and it is based upon the very commonsense reality that the greatest resource we have in fighting the drug menace is Australian families. That is why this campaign is unashamedly and very directly targeted towards enlisting the support of those families. 2557514:08:0025575Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the National Party and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Is the Deputy Prime Minister aware that Telstra's wholly owned subsidiary, NDC—Network Design and Construction Ltd—builds telecommunications networks in rural and regional Australia? Deputy Prime Minister, do you support the current proposal to fully privatise NDC?25575McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am very happy to answer this question. In regard to media speculation, which the honourable member has of course whipped up to his best political opportunist standards, that will result from a review. I am informed by Telstra that no decisions have been made on any of these matters, including staffing levels, and that, to preserve commercial confidentiality, Telstra does not comment about the substance of the ongoing transactions. The House might be informed, unlike the member for Perth, of the facts of the situation: in November last year NDC reduced its—5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The question was very simple: does the National Party support the privatisation of NDC or not?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Perth will resume his seat.XH4Mr McGAURAN—To finish the point, last November NDC reduced its staff base from around 6,300 people to 5,900 nationally. All but 12 of the 400 staff affected were voluntary redundancies and were not forced lay-offs. At the risk of stating the obvious—but it is necessary for the honourable member—while Telstra is partially owned, it is an independent corporation and its board and management are responsible for the day-to-day running of the organisation. So I would like to know from the member for Perth whether he would intervene. He never did when in government. I would like to know whether or not he would intervene. He makes a song and dance about decisions that the board has to make in a very competitive environment, which this government fostered. We would like to know whether or not he would intervene. He is bluffing, and he knows it.2557514:11:0025575Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister please inform the House of what the government's National Illicit Drug Strategy is doing for treatment and rehabilitation of people who have become addicted to drugs? What is the government's commitment in this essential and caring area of activity?25575Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the member for La Trobe for his question. The launch yesterday by the Prime Minister is just one part of a very large National Illicit Drug Strategy, the majority of which is in my portfolio because it relates to demand reduction measures. It has many parts, partly reflecting that there is no simple solution here and we have to attack the problem of drugs on many facets. In the health area the largest areas of activity are, as the Prime Minister said, with the states and territories where we have committed $70 million to finalise agreements with Tasmania, South Australia, Western Australia, Victoria and Queensland for drug diversion programs, programs to take people out of the criminal justice system when they are first-time offenders. This is a very progressive and very innovative program that shows very great promise.Our Non-Government Organisation Treat-ment Grants Program has allocated $57 million to 133 non-government treatment programs for new or existing treatment services. We have funded 87 projects nationally through community based prevention programs. We have spent $7½ million on doing additional research, on providing the evidence about best practice treatment. This sounds remarkable, but in this area there is a dearth of information as to how one can best manage the problems of addiction and it is only now that we are starting to answer some of these questions. Also, we funded the evaluation and monitoring of alternate treatment modalities. We started this in June 1998 and were expecting a report by midyear. One of the outcomes of this may be that we are actually able to fund for the first time in probably 30 years a major new treatment for heroin addiction that has been through a clinical effectiveness and a cost-effectiveness process, and that is the drug buprenorphine. It is unfortunate that people decided to talk about this last week before it has been through the full process, but the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee do advise me they have made a positive recommendation to go to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority, and if we can get it through the final stage of the process we should have a very exciting new treatment for heroin addiction available in Australia on a fully subsidised basis for the first time in 30 years.2557614:14:0025576Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the National Party and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Deputy Prime Minister, are you aware of yesterday's statements by Minister Vaile and Senator Boswell that the full privatisation of Telstra is off, at least until after the next election? Are you also aware of my commitment that no government I lead will sell the rest of Telstra? Deputy Prime Minister, what commitment on Telstra privatisation will you take to the next election for the next term of government? 25576Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The commitment that I will take to the next election in very large part will be this—that we are committed to the services that they need in rural and regional Australia. Here is the rub. We have clear evidence, an outstanding track record, proving that—in stark contrast to the ALP's posturing. The ALP would have you believe in the first instance, presumably, that when the PMG—remember those days; `back to the future' and then Telecom—was wholly government owned we got great services in the bush. That is the first thing you would have us believe—no effective USO and certainly no customer service guarantee, which are the real tests of commitment to services in the bush, the real deliverers. The next thing that has to be said is that we will be true to our own policy commitment. We clearly have identified the universal service obligation and the customer service guarantee as the most effective mechanisms for delivering what rural and regional Australia most needs in telecommunications—standards and the delivery of those standards, and mechanisms for penalties if Telstra fails. That is in contrast to the ALP. When the Leader of the Opposition talks about Telstra operating commercially, does he ever bother to mention who corporatised Telstra? It was the ALP—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I take a point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—The question was: what commitment—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. 4K4Mr ANDERSON—What is the position of the Leader of the Opposition now in relation to the corporatisation, or whatever, of Telstra? It is that he is going to start to direct it again. But it did not work in the old days. It did not give us the services we needed then. So there is no reason it ought to in the future. The only thing it will do is interfere with the effective commercial operation of Telstra, which I am sure the shareholders will really appreciate. So what we will take to the next election is a proven track record of commitment to the things that matter in rural and regional Australia in terms of telecommunications and the evidence that it is real because of the resources we have put into telecommunications. In relation to the question of the sale of Telstra, the government's position is quite clearly known. We have said that it is conditional— Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—It is—quite clearly known, unlike you. I have not met anybody in the bush who believes you on privatisation. Why should they? Remember the Commonwealth Bank? Remember all those dodges you put out saying, `We will never, ever, without consultation with the Australian people, privatise the Commonwealth Bank'? You are not believed. Neither should you be believed. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Has the minister concluded his answer. 4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson—Yes.2557714:20:0025577Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the findings of the International Monetary Fund's recent report on the Australian economy?25577Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Curtin for her question. Last week the IMF released a third time a public information notice summarising its assessment of the Australian economy. The government, for the first time, voluntarily released the article IV report on the Australian economy, something that has not been done before. Previously, the information notice has been put out but not the full report. The government made the decision to publish the full report. The IMF praised Australia's economic management, stating:... prudent economic management had created a dynamic, flexible economy that was well-positioned to withstand external shocks.The IMF pointed to the `narrowing of the current account deficit, the limited impact of sharp currency depreciation on balance sheets, and the generally strong financial sector indicators'. The IMF also noted the far-reaching structural reform in Australia, and found particularly impressive the fact that Australia's productivity had increased and increased markedly in the second part of the 1990s. Unlike many countries that did not have an acceleration in the second part of the 1990s, Australia did. Other international measures, particularly from the US Federal Reserve, found that our productivity kick up in the second part of the 1990s was more substantial than in the United States itself. The IMF stated that they supported the mild fiscal stimulus in 2000-2001—that was the fiscal stimulus arising from income tax cuts—which they saw as a price worth paying for achieving the long-term benefits of comprehensive tax reform. I might say in passing that the fiscal stimulus in itself may well have been a good thing, notwithstanding the long-term benefits of comprehensive tax reform. They also acknowledged the inherent political difficulties with industrial relations reform but noted that the potential pay-off in terms of growth and employment is likely to be significant. One of the two things that the IMF has recognised and welcomed in Australia, and urged more work to be done on, is industrial relations reform. I think everyone on this side of the House would say that industrial relations reform is important. It is something that has the capacity to create more jobs for Australians and we should not let an entrenched trade union movement direct political parties to hold it back. We noticed on the weekend that yet another ACTU president was preselected for the Labor Party frontbench. We have the member for Hotham, former ACTU president, the member for Batman, former ACTU president, and now Jennie George wants to make her entry into this House. The Labor Party would turn the House of Representatives into some kind of old age home for ACTU presidents, if it had its way. The second thing is that the IMF talked about the long-term benefits of comprehensive tax reform. The only thing the Labor Party first promised it would do on tax reform was to repeal it. Then, when it realised that the benefits were such that it could not go through with the policy to repeal it, it has been promising—well, it was promising on an almost daily basis—roll-back. We have not heard any more of roll-back since 17 June of last year. Australia waits breathlessly to see which goods will have the GST taken off them, which services will have the GST taken off them, how much it will cost and how much income taxes will go up as a consequence—and make no mistake: when you hear roll-back on GST, hear roll-up on income taxes. The Leader of the Opposition was on the radio on Monday of this week, and he was asked about his policies and he said, `On the one hand, we are criticised for not having policies.' And here he drew a great deal of strength from not having policies and he said, `If you don't have any policies, the issue of how you can afford them doesn't come up.' The opposition have no policies, no conception of how to fund them and no idea of a coherent economic policy. The people of Australia deserve to know, and more particularly they deserve to know what the cost is going to be. 2557814:25:0025578Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs and it follows the Treasurer's last answer. Minister, can you confirm that, until last week, new motorbikes purchased by T&PI veterans were subject to the GST? Can you confirm that you have now made these bikes GST free to ensure that these riders are `treated fairly'? Minister, doesn't this show that the GST can be rolled back to make it fairer for the people it has hurt without making it more complex?25578Scott, Bruce, MPMr BRUCE SCOTTYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—I thank the member for his question. In relation to the issue of wholesale sales tax and now the GST exemption for motor vehicles for T&PI pensioners, the original entitlement was extended on the basis of the need for mobility after the Second World War and was a compensation measure in T&PI pensions for loss of mobility. It extends to the veteran an entitlement for a vehicle. It may be for a motor car or a panel van or it may be for a motorbike.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Jagajaga! The minister has the call and will be heard in silence.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—The entitlement has been there since 1948 or 1949.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Until you took it off them. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Deputy Leader of the Opposition! The minister has the call.CT4Costello, Peter, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Treasurer! The minister has the call.YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—What I announced last week was that the exemption would apply to a motor vehicle—in other words, a motorbike or a motor car—for T&PI pensioners, and it will apply—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—It will change the application of the GST. YT4Mr BRUCE SCOTT—It will not. It is the entitlement that they have always had, and it will apply from 1 July last year.2557814:28:0025578Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House how this government treats the proceeds of asset sales—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Wills is warned. 0L6Mrs DRAPER—Would the Treasurer advise the House how this government treats the proceeds of asset sales in the budget? How does this compare with alternative approaches?25578Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Makin for her question. I can inform the House that the government has always treated the purchase of non-financial assets as an expense and the sale of non-financial assets as a revenue—non-financial assets being plant, equipment or buildings. That has always been the case under all governments including this one. The treatment of non-financial assets is similar to buying and selling furniture. If you bought furniture, that would be an expense; if you sold furniture, you would save the proceeds as revenue. But a very big change has taken place at the Commonwealth level in the treatment of sales of financial assets. A financial asset is something like equity. Up until 1996, whenever there was a sale of equity—notwithstanding that you were swapping one financial asset for another; in this case equity for cash—the Labor Party treated the sale of financial assets as recurrent revenue. They put it directly on their bottom line. YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne!CT4Mr COSTELLO—When the Labor Party stands, as it does from time to time—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne!CT4Mr COSTELLO—and asks the government whether it should take Telstra out of its forward estimates, the truth of the matter is that, because the sale of equity in Telstra is the sale of a financial asset, it is not shown on the bottom line in the forward estimates.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Yes it is. CT4Mr COSTELLO—The sale of Telstra is not shown on the bottom line of the forward estimates—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne!CT4Mr COSTELLO—because that way of deceptive accounting that the Labor Party practised was abolished in 1996.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne is warned!CT4Mr COSTELLO—I heard the Leader of the Opposition ask earlier whether the government was attracted to Labor's banking policy. Labor's banking policy, as I recall it, was the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank. Again, that is something the Labor Party said it would never do. I remember in the 1990 election the poor officers of the Commonwealth Bank Officers Association running around with placards saying, `Don't vote Liberal; they'll privatise the Commonwealth Bank.' Then Labor got elected and it privatised the Commonwealth Bank.In the first tranche of the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank in November 1993, the Labor Party received $1.7 billion for privatising it. That $1.7 billion was treated as revenue—and every last dollar was spent in the 1993-94 budget. In the 1993-94 budget the Labor Party ran a deficit of $17 billion, sold off the Commonwealth Bank's first tranche—and spent every last dollar; they had nothing to show for it. In the 1995-96 budget the Labor Party ran a deficit of $10 billion, put out a Qantas sale, received $1.4 billion—and spent every last dollar, and still went out onto the financial markets to borrow the difference. So they were spending more than they had, flogging off assets, expending the whole of the proceeds and then borrowing to fund their deficits. The following assets were effectively sold for nothing—that is, there was nothing left after they had been sold—the Defence Service Housing Corporation loans area, Australian Airlines, Qantas, Commonwealth Bank 1, CSL, the Moomba to Sydney pipeline system, the Commonwealth uranium stockpile, Aerospace Technologies of Australia and Qantas. The Labor Party sold all of those assets—every single one of them—SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—And spent the money.CT4Mr COSTELLO—They spent the proceeds in their entirety in the year of sale, counted them to the bottom line and went onto financial markets in order to borrow to fund their deficit. As a result of losing those assets, Australia has nothing to show. As a result of selling all of those assets, notwithstanding the fact that the Labor Party—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPCT4Mr COSTELLO—This shows the actual genius of financial accounting under Labor. Notwithstanding selling Australian Airlines, Qantas, ComBank 1, the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Authority, the CSL, the uranium stockpile and Qantas, you still ran up $80 billion of debt. You ran a deficit, you sold the assets, you expended every last dollar—and then you went and borrowed $80 billion of Commonwealth debt. This government does not treat Telstra in the way that the Labor Party treats it. We do not put it in our bottom line. This government does not sell off assets and have nothing to show for them. When this government turned the budget into a surplus, all of its privatisation was paying Labor's debt. Today, $50 billion of Labor's $80 billion has been repaid. If this government had not repaid the $50 billion we would be holding $50 billion of debt, servicing $50 billion worth of debt, and the budget would be in a much more precarious position. This government has always adopted the principle of not putting that on the bottom line, of using assets sales to build other assets and retire debt. Shame on the Labor Party for its wanton mismanagement! 2558014:35:0025580Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, and it is further to the question I asked him a few minutes ago. Deputy Prime Minister, what commitment on Telstra privatisation will you take to the next election for the next term of government should you be elected? Will you privatise it—yes or no?25580Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The government has made it perfectly plain that any further sale of Telstra is conditional upon us addressing and discharging our responsibilities in relation to the findings of the Besley inquiry that we set up. Their only response to it was to seek to denigrate three very fine Australians we asked to go out there. They are about as high a quality as possible but, no, they did not like it.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Will you or won't you?4K4Mr ANDERSON—You can dish it out but you cannot take it. We have made it quite plain—Opposition members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—It is true. That is all they did—just denigrate the three fine Australians we asked to report on the state of telecommunications in the bush. They gave us an honest answer about what needed to be done, and we have said that any further sale is conditional upon us addressing those concerns. I would have thought that that was a very strong policy position for anyone who was genuinely interested in service outcomes in rural Australia.2558014:36:0025580Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Will the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House of improvements to telecommunications services for people in my electorate of Riverina and in rural and regional Australia as a result of our government policies? Is the government committed to further improvements, and is the minister aware of any alternative policies in this area?25580Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Riverina for her question, and I note her very real interest in telecommunications in her own electorate. As has already been highlighted in this place today, in the end you have to look at evidence, in the end you have to look at the facts and in the end you have to look at performance and compare it with something. There is no doubt that we have delivered consistent, real and ongoing improvements in telecommunications services right across Australia, but in particular in rural and regional areas. Let us come to the most effective device of all for those who are really interested in service delivery outcomes as opposed to political rhetoric and the scoring of cheap personal points, as the opposition spokesman so busily concentrates his energies on, and that is the customer service guarantee. The first question that has to be asked is: who put the customer service guarantee in place? It was not the ALP. Indeed, unless something has happened that I am unaware of, we do not even know yet from their policy platform whether they support it. Yet it is that very mechanism that has set down standards of service delivery which telephone companies have to meet across Australia—and if they do not meet them there are penalties.I do not know whether anybody remembers the old days of the ALP's fully owned PMG and Telecom, but I remember them. I remember being on a party line; I remember what the service delivery standards were like in those days—all of 14 or 15 years ago when they were still in power. If you wanted a telephone there was absolutely no obligation—none—on Telecom to actually get you one in a decent period of time. There was nothing at all. The evidence is that no-one in the ALP is actually interested in standards—that is really evident to everyone who is listening. We expanded the universal service obligation, too, to beef it up very considerably. Then there is mobile phone coverage. Who was it who, without a thought for rural and regional Australians, just wiped out the old analog network? And under whom was it that an alternative was found? The coalition, with CDMA, which is now replacing the service that Labor gave away. Then there is Networking the Nation. We have now delivered around $250 million in funding for around 500 projects to expand and improve services. The latest round includes, for example, at Mungindi in my own electorate, a new base station and a repeater to give the town and surrounding area—8T4Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson—You've never been there!4K4Mr ANDERSON—Someone has been there—who has been there?Government members interjecting—4K4Mr ANDERSON—No, they would not have been out there—none of them would have been out there.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will respond to the question.4K4Mr ANDERSON—That will give that town and the surrounding area mobile phone coverage, something they would never have got under the ALP. In South Australia a pilot project will trial the use of high quality Internet access for the School of the Air, connecting remote kids in an advanced virtual classroom. That would never have happened under the ALP. In New South Wales a joint project with the state library, worth around $5 million, will provide broadband access to at least 90 rural communities. Then there is the $150 million local call access arrangements for the 40,000 people who live in remote Australia. Was that an ALP doing; was that something the ALP thought of—the putting out to tender of the provision of services out there? And so it goes on: $25 million to complete mobile phone coverage along nearly 9,500 kilometres of Australia's busiest highways.There is more work to be done—we identified that via the Besley report. The installation, repair and reliability of phone services is still an issue, and mobile phone coverage is an ongoing issue, as is access to the Internet and data speeds generally. These will all be areas of further focus by the government. But, when it comes to alternatives, what do we find? A one-liner from the ALP. And guess what it focuses on? Not on outcomes, but on who owns Telstra. That is all. That is the only policy commitment they have—it is there on Labor's web site. You look up Telstra policy and all you find is a 95-word extract from the Leader of the Opposition's address in reply to last year's budget. All it covers is the question of Telstra's ownership. So there has been nothing since May of last year on Telstra policy and telecommunications policy—nothing. There is nothing about the customer service guarantee or service levels, nothing about ISDN access or Internet speeds, nothing about mobile phone coverage, nothing about improved services for businesses, nothing about distance education and nothing about reduced call costs for remote areas—nothing of substance at all, nothing that matters, for rural and regional Australians.2558114:43:0025581O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—My question is to the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, are you aware of yesterday's assertion by Senator Boswell that he has an understanding with both you and the Prime Minister in relation to national competition policy? Does Senator Boswell's understanding with you and the Prime Minister extend to a backflip on the government's plans to deregulate Australia Post?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If the question has not been understood, I am happy to have it re-asked. If the Minister for Transport and Regional Services is in a position to respond to it, I will recognise him. Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Bass will resume her seat. I am trying to facilitate the chamber by ensuring that the minister knows what the question was. Is the minister familiar with the question?4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson—No, I would like to hear the question again.84SMs O'BYRNE—The question that I asked, and I will ask it again quite slowly, was whether or not the minister was aware of yesterday's assertion by Senator Boswell that he had an understanding with both the minister for regional services and the Prime Minister in relation to national competition policy. I asked whether Senator Boswell's understanding with the minister for regional services and the Prime Minister extended to a backflip on the government's plans to deregulate Australia Post.25582Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—It is true that Senator Boswell and I, and the Prime Minister and others, including the Treasurer, talked about competition policy. But the suggestion that we are going to do a backflip on something that was never a policy intention and, in fact, is directly contrary—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call.4K4Mr ANDERSON—The deregulation of Australia Post is not part of government policy. It is an absolute absurdity. But it does give me the opportunity to simply ask rhetorically: how many post offices closed when the ALP were in government? It was 280. How many have opened since we have been in government? The answer is: a very substantial number. 2558214:46:0025582Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would the minister inform the House how Australian consumers will benefit from possible changes to our regulation of credit cards and how these changes can come about? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies in relation to this area and to banking in general?25582Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I would like to thank the member for Barker for his question. I am glad to inform the House that last week the ACCC asked the Reserve Bank to investigate ways of making Australia's credit card system more competitive for consumers and particularly for small business. As of January this year, there were 9.5 million credit card accounts in Australia and there were 64 million card transactions a month. There is also $6.4 billion a month spent on credit cards which, for the average Australian family, represents spending of $15,000 a year on credit cards. Under the current interchange arrangements, about $150 from that credit card expenditure each year goes in interchange fees to the bank. Under the powers given to the Reserve Bank by this government in 1998, the Reserve Bank has the capacity to reopen the interchange system for competition and to break down the cartel that is being run particularly by the international credit card providers. The Labor Party did nothing for 13 years on this. Under the Wallis reforms in 1996, and by their delivery in 1998, we have put in place the mechanism that allows this credit card cartel to be broken open to competition.The member for Barker asked me a question in relation to alternative banking policies, and I must say that I was a bit surprised to see the Labor Party announce their banking policy today. The reason is that the Labor Party have been reported in the media on numerous occasions now saying that they were going to release their banking policy in April. All of a sudden, they release their banking policy today.Opposition members interjecting—DK6Mr HOCKEY—I am coming to `why'. The reason why it is a little surprising is that the government and the Australian Bankers Association have been discussing a consolidated response from the banking industry to the recommendations in the Viney report. The Australian Bankers Association had discussed it with the government and decided to release it this Wednesday. PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I do not expect, as the occupier of the chair, to have to draw the Leader of the Opposition's attention more than once to the fact that I am endeavouring to get his attention. The minister is entitled to be heard without interruption.DK6Mr HOCKEY—The Australian Bankers Association coordinated all the major banks in order to have four legs to their announcement this coming Wednesday. The first was a basic account for disadvantaged Australians; the second was a branch closure protocol; the third was special services for disabled customers; and the fourth was a response to Viney on the banking code. Today I looked at the Labor Party's policy and it says there will be, firstly, a basic account for the disadvantaged; secondly, a branch closure protocol; thirdly, special services for disabled customers; and, fourthly, a review of the banking code. I think the word for that is `plagiarism'.It gets even better. To give credit to the Labor Party, there is something that is unique, and that is their promise to reregulate banking with a social charter. They refer to the social charter which they are going to negotiate with the four major banks—all the major banks. They state that, if this social charter is not implemented by the banks on a voluntary basis, it will be implemented through law. In case the Labor Party missed it, I have here a copy of Banking Finance, with the headline `CBA resists charter'. The biggest consumer bank in the country has already said that it is resisting Labor's policy: it will not sign up to the Labor Party's policy. If the Labor Party think—BV5Adams, Dick, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons is warned!DK6Mr HOCKEY—In the next 24 hours we will be endeavouring to find out as much as we can about the Labor Party's policy, because the indications so far are that they have stolen half of it from the banks themselves. Secondly, they have a voluntary social charter that the biggest bank in the country has already said it will not sign up to. The third key factor is that they say they are going to levy the banks—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You're not going to try.DK6Mr HOCKEY—The member for Hotham—God bless his soul—said that we are not going to try. The member for Hotham is out there promoting the reregulation of banking—and do you know what the total cost will be? The Labor Party closed 500 bank branches in their last three years of office. They reckon that they can reopen 500 bank branches with $20 million a year. They are going to levy every bank in Australia, which means levying every bank account in Australia. They are not capping profits. When it comes to the Labor Party's policy on banking, who pays? I will tell you who pays—the people who have their money in bank accounts. They are the people that are going to pay for the Labor Party's sloppy, plagiaristic policy on banking.2558314:53:0025583Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer and it refers to his earlier answer on Telstra. Treasurer, doesn't the midyear economic forecast say that the budget and forward estimates include the effect of the sale of the Commonwealth's shareholding in Telstra? Wasn't this is a view confirmed on 20 February by the general manager of the budget division in a Senate estimates committee? Treasurer, won't the Australian public only believe you on Telstra when you take the proceeds of its sale out of the budget?25583Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thought I had fully explained this to the member for Hotham earlier. When the Labor Party was in office, the proceeds of sale were put directly on the bottom line of the budget. For example, in November 1993, the Commonwealth Bank secondary public share offer, which raised $1.7 billion, was put directly on the bottom line of the budget, and you announced an outcome after treating that as revenue. Let me give another example. The Qantas public share offer of July 1995, which was sold for $1.4 billion, you put on the bottom line. When you announced your budget bottom line, you put $1.4 billion in as revenue, notwithstanding that it was a one-off sale of a capital asset. It was not until this government was elected that we said that one-off sale of capital assets, financial assets, are not going on the budget bottom line. They do not go on the budget bottom line. We report an underlying surplus every year in the budget which does not include the proceeds of capital sales in the bottom line. Only in relation to cash flow do we produce a cash flow statement where you can add it back in and it appears as a headline figure. Let me tell you what the budget bottom line would be. The budget bottom line in the 2000-01 budget, which is reported without any asset sales, was $2.8 billion. If we accounted, like the Labor Party, on a headline basis, we would be claiming that we were turning an $8 billion surplus. MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—So Telstra is in there.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Telstra is not taken onto the bottom line and it has not been since the Labor Party's fraudulent accounts up until 1995 and 1996. Let me go through it further. Not only do we turn a surplus budget without including asset sales, like the Labor Party, but we actually pay down debt out of the budget and, because asset sales are not in the bottom line, the full proceeds of asset sales either go into new assets or go into retiring debt. What the Labor Party did was put asset sales in its bottom line, still turned a deficit and still went out and borrowed the difference. For example, in 1993, the Labor Party, in a period of growth, produced a budget deficit of $17 billion, padded it out with $1.7 billion, which it put in the bottom line, it was about $15 billion short, and it went out onto the financial markets to borrow the difference. You not only produced deficits; you applied asset sales as recurrent revenue, you expended the full proceeds in the year on which you did that and you borrowed the difference. And notwithstanding the sale of all of those assets—Qantas, Commonwealth Bank, Snowy Mountains, CSL, the uranium stockpile and Australian Airlines—you still borrowed $80 billion on financial markets. When the economy was growing at four per cent, you borrowed $80 billion, you ran up deficits, you included in your bottom line assets sales and you expended every last dollar in the year of assets sales. The member for Kingston is smiling because he did it. He knows how it was done. He was working in the then Treasurer's office and he knows how they did it. And then they were still short and they went and buried—borrowed—Australia in $80 billion debt.This government does not report the proceeds of asset sales as revenues, it does not report them as negative outlays, it does not report them in its cash balance, it does not report them in its fiscal balance and, what is more, it uses them to build assets and retire Labor's debt.2558414:58:0025584Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister advise the House of progress on Federation Fund projects to replace bridges on the Murray River? Are there any impediments to the successful completion of these projects? 25584Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. I note that none of the bridges of concern are in his electorate, but I can certainly assure the House that the member for Eden-Monaro is a vigorous advocate of the need for infrastructure in his own electorate. There are other members of this place, though, that are very concerned indeed that there are impediments to the successful completion of three very significant and important bridges that were announced three years ago as part of the federal government's Federation Fund commitments. It involved $44 million to build new bridges at Echuca, Robinvale/Euston and Corowa as part of the Federation Fund, which was of course a program designed to celebrate the Centenary of Federation and national unity. These bridges are in fact technically the responsibility of the two state governments, but we, recognising that there was a very great need here, put together a package which would have delivered as an outcome of our centenary very much better transport links. It was agreed that as part of this the states would contribute remaining funds to construct the three bridges. I am very disappointed indeed to have to report that three years on—thanks very much to Victoria and New South Wales—we are not yet in the process of building any of them. Despite the fact that most of those original bridges were built at around the time of Federation—thus making it very appropriate that we now rebuild them—the fact is that the Commonwealth's funding is still sitting on the table.The apathy of the New South Wales state government to the construction of new bridges over the Murray River is a disgrace to the Federation spirit. Not only are they being slow in progressing the planning of the bridges but they have committed no money. It ought to be kept in mind that there has been a joint cabinet meeting of the two state governments down in Albury, and we have committed around $440 million to road projects in and around towns along the Murray River. Some of them go to projects that are not, strictly speaking, Commonwealth responsibilities, but we have been prepared to help those communities to make a real difference to their economic and their social lives, and it is about time that the ALP in both Victoria and New South Wales showed a similar commitment.In particular, the time has come for the New South Wales minister, Mr Scully, to stop palming his problems off to the Commonwealth and accept his responsibilities to Murray River communities, particularly given the quite scandalous overrun that the RTA engaged in when it came to estimating the costs of the Albury bypass. Mr Scully wants to avoid all of that now and sidestep it. He cannot. He has a political and a moral imperative to step up to the mark.The Carr government has just announced a $323 million package to upgrade Windsor Road in Sydney. I am sure that is needed. I know that, when I was out there announcing the Western Sydney orbital, people were pointing to the need for the state government to do something about it. But just one-tenth of that would do something for the people of rural and regional Australia along the Murray River. The fact that that one-tenth is not there, that it is not forthcoming, ought to leave no-one under any misapprehension at all about the apathy that the Australian Labor Party has for rural and regional Australians.2558515:03:0025585Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—My question is also to the Deputy Prime Minister, Leader of the National Party and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. It follows on from his answer to the question from the member for Bass in respect of Australia Post when the Deputy Prime Minister said that the deregulation of Australia Post was not part of government policy and that that suggestion was an absurdity. Deputy Prime Minister, does that mean that the government is proposing to withdraw the Postal Services Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 from parliamentary consideration or does it mean that you were simply not aware that that legislation has the effect of further deregulating Australia Post services, to the detriment of rural and regional Australia?25585Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—To describe the actions that we are undertaking in relation to Australia Post as deregulation would be as absurd as calling it privatisation. I was challenged by a member on my side to just actually point out to the House how many post offices have actually opened—post offices that provide services to Australians—since we have been in government, and the answer is 105.2558515:04:0025585Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service. Is the minister aware of any recent announcements concerning the rights of members of the Australian Public Service? What are the implications of these announcements? 25586Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Grey for his question. Last week the opposition announced what it had in store for the Public Service if it were ever to gain office. One has to say that this is quite a remarkable blast from the past, because what it does is take the Public Service right back to the days when policy came out of the office of the Commonwealth Public Sector Union, where uniformity was everything and where flexibility had absolutely no place in determining Public Service working conditions. What the union hates more than anything else is the right of members of the Australian Public Service to negotiate agreements that seek to give them more than the union model. Jumping to its master, the ALP plans to take this right away from members of the Public Service and force them back into the clutches of the union. AWAs, Australian workplace agreements, are to be dispensed with and future employees are to be deprived of the right to make such agreements, even though it has to be said that these agreements have been crucial—quite crucial in some cases—to ensuring that key members of the service remain in the service. Indeed, all the Senior Executive Service are now on AWAs and 15 per cent of the middle management of the Public Service are on AWAs. There are some 5,000 AWAs in the service and the Labor Party intends to get rid of these. It intends to get rid of the right of all members at whatever level of the Australian Public Service to enter into these individual agreements. Moreover, employees are no longer going to be allowed to negotiate directly with the agency to improve their conditions.At present, some 43 of the 100 certified agreements in the Public Service have been negotiated not with the union but directly with employees. Under the Labor Party this is going to be prohibited and the union officers are going to be enthroned once more in every negotiation. It is no wonder that the officers of the CPSU were out there welcoming the policy in the media. Of course, this is what is going to happen with every Labor policy as it comes out and as the relevant union dictates what the terms of that policy will be. Running like a flame on a petrol trail, we are going to see union power zooming through every Labor policy. That is what it is going to be about. It is going to be inflating the power of the unions in every area, and the Public Service is the start. It is very bad news for the Australian Public Service; it is very bad news for the rights of Australian public servants. This is the ugly face of Labor, taking away individual rights and enthroning union power in their place.2558615:09:0025586Ferguson, Martin, MPMr MARTIN FERGUSONLS4BatmanALP00—Mr question without notice is to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Minister, can you confirm that the Liberal Party candidate for Capricornia approaced a senior aviation industry official earlier this month to discuss problems facing regional aviation in Queensland? Minister, are you also aware that an adviser to your junior minister, Senator Ian Macdonald, then convened a telephone conference on 8 March with that industry official, during which he said that the problems are attributable almost entirely to you as the minister? Minister, can you also confirm that, following this, the candidate, your junior minister's adviser and the industry official are now drafting a secret strategy to address regional aviation problems when they blame you for creating those problems?25586Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I have long learnt in this place not to take for granted anything that is said by a member of the opposition. I will have a look at those claims, establish the accuracy of any part of them, should that be the case, and then come back to the shadow minister. But, when you talk about the stability of aviation safety arrangements in this country, simply have a look at how the place was run when Laurie Brereton was in charge.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—Mr Speaker, to assist the minister, I seek leave to table the documentation relating to these secret discussions on aviation policy.Leave not granted. 0L6Draper, Trish, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Makin!2558715:11:0025587Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Will the minister inform the House of any plans to alter the conditions of Victorian workers not covered by federal awards and agreements? What is the government doing to further improve workplace arrangements for these workers?25587Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Deakin for his question. The Victorian government's 1996 referral of its industrial relations power to the Commonwealth was one of the most significant changes in 100 years of industrial relations history, because it meant that in at least one state of the Commonwealth we had one law, one tribunal and one system. That was very much to the benefit of workers and businesses in Victoria. The Victorian government now wants to celebrate the Centenary of Federation by re-enacting 1901 and by re-creating its own industrial jurisdiction with its own tribunal, commissioners, awards and orders! This will cost Victorian taxpayers $10 million a year. It might create a few jobs for the comrades, but it is potentially going to cost the jobs of up to 40,000 Victorian workers. Perhaps this is a last-ditch attempt to create a retirement home for Jennie George before she comes up here to be the third superannuated ACTU president on the Labor front bench.This government has previously tried to enhance conditions for Victorian workers through its Workplace Relations Legislation Amendment (More Jobs, Better Pay) Bill 1999 that the ALP has blocked in the Senate. We are now proposing a specific package of measures to improve the conditions of Victorian workers not covered by federal awards: we are going to provide carers leave and bereavement leave; we are going to enable federal inspectors to take action on behalf of workers; we are going to provide extra protection to outworkers in the textile industry. If members opposite were really concerned about the condition of workers, rather than just the power of unions, they would back the government's bill when it comes into the House and the Senate.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Members on my left are denying the Leader of the Opposition the call.2558715:14:0025587Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware of yesterday's comments by Senator Boswell that he has an understanding with both you and the Deputy Prime Minister in relation to national competition policy? Do you recall saying:There may be some areas where the impact of competition policy can be adjusted so that the public benefit is more obvious.Prime Minister, what changes are you proposing to the intergovernmental agreements and Commonwealth legislation on national competition policy to implement the changes you speculated about yesterday?25587Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question is yes, I am aware of the comments made by Senator Boswell. Can I interpolate by saying how delighted I was with the decision of the Central Council of the Queensland National Party to endorse Ron Boswell. If ever—Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Prime Minister has the call. He has made a comment that I would observe was endorsed by both sides of the House. 8I4Martin, Stephen, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Cunningham! ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is warned. I would have thought it inappropriate for the Prime Minister to struggle to be heard when what he said had the endorsement of both sides of the House. MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Then why won't you endorse John Fahey? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell is warned. 4I4McLeay, Leo, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Watson is also warned. ZD4Mr HOWARD—I say again that I am delighted with the decision of the Central Council of the Queensland National Party to endorse Senator Boswell as the person at the top of the National Party ticket in Queensland at the next federal election. I wish him well. Can I say that there is no greater fighter for the interests of country Australians than Ron Boswell. He is a person who fights very hard for the interests of country Australians. The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether my attention had been drawn to the comments made by Senator Boswell about competition policy. It has. It is true that I said yesterday a number of things about competition policy, and I am very happy to repeat them today. They are as follows. This government very strongly supports policies that promote competition in the Australian economy because we believe that greater competition brings great benefits to the Australian community and to individual Australians. I think particularly of the banking competition that was promoted by the findings of the Wallis inquiry, implemented by this government. I think of the cheaper telecommunications charges which have been a consequence of the policies pursued by this government. I think of a number of other policies that have resulted in much greater competition. I also said, and I repeat again today, that in the implementation of any broad policy there may be areas where it does not always operate completely in the national interest. That is what I had in mind when I made those comments yesterday. If I find areas where the policy is not working to the public benefit or in the national interest I will not be the least bit reluctant to pursue changes with the state governments, because that is the commonsense thing to do. But nobody should imagine, and no state government should imagine, that in the process of doing that the government is going to walk away from the implementation of pro-competitive policies. But there can be occasions where a very small nominal gain for consumers can be at the cost of significant dislocation to an individual community. It may well be the judgment of people of commonsense and goodwill on both sides of politics that that does not necessarily represent a net public benefit. That is the kind of public interest test that I am going to bring to this. I think it is a commonsense approach. I should say that there is no understanding between Senator Boswell, the Deputy Prime Minister and me. A number of discussions have taken place between the three of us. Those discussions will continue. The reaction of the government will be against the background of maintaining the thrust of our competitive policy but making certain that, where they are not working to the public benefit, then there should be assessment and adjustment where necessary. Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Leave of Absence25588Motion (by Mr Reith) agreed to:That leave of absence until 5 April 2001 be given to the honourable member for Macarthur, the Minister for Finance and Administration, on the ground of ill health.Motion (by Mr Beazley) agreed to:That leave of absence until 22 May 2001 be given to the honourable member for Canning, on the ground of ill health.15:21:0025588Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Honourable members may know that the honourable member for Canning has been hospitalised. Our prayers are with her and we, of course, are totally confident of a full recovery on her part. I am grateful to those members who have volunteered to assist in the circumstances in which she finds herself with the work in her electorate.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I believe it would be appropriate—while unusual—given the circumstances, for the chair to endorse the sentiments expressed by the House in the case of both Minister Fahey and the member for Canning. Questions to the Speaker255892558915:21:0025589Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—On 28 November 2000, Question No. 2179 addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care concerning the Commonwealth public funding for dental care first appeared on the Notice Paper in my name. I would be grateful if, under standing order 150, you would write to the minister and seek an early reply to that question.25589SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Lowe as the standing orders provide.255891The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:25589121009CW83N83MMs Corcoran;Ms Hall;Ms PlibersekTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to:(1) our strong support for our independent national public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation;(2) the sustained political and financial pressure that the Howard Government has placed on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), including:(a) the 1996 and 1997 Budget cuts which reduced funding to the ABC by $66 million per year; and(b) its failure to fund the ABC's transition to digital broadcasting;(3) our concern about recent decisions made by the ABC Board and senior management, including the Managing Director Jonathan Shier, which we believe may undermine the independence and high standards of the ABC including:(a) the cut to funding for News and Current Affairs;(b) the reduction of the ABC's in-house production capacity;(c) the closure of the ABC TV Science Unit;(d) the circumstances in which the decision was made not to renew the contract of Media Watch presenter Mr Paul Barry; and(e) consideration of the Bales Report, which recommended the extension of the ABC's commercial activities in ways that may be inconsistent with the ABC Act and the Charter;Your petitioners therefore ask the House to:(1) protect the independence of the ABC;(2) ensure that the ABC receives adequate funding;(3) call upon the Government to rule out its support for the privatisation of any part of the ABC, particularly JJJ, ABC On-line and the ABC Shops; and(4) call upon the ABC Board and senior management to:(a) fully consult with the people of Australia about the future of our ABC;(b) address the crisis in confidence felt by both staff and the general community; and(c) not approve any commercial activities inconsistent with the ABC Act and Charter.79Ms Corcoran009CWMs Corcoran (from 79 citizens),18Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 18 citizens) and24Ms Plibersek83MMs Plibersek (from 24 citizens).25589154ET483NMr Bevis;Ms HallTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the extremely high price of petrol and other fuels and the increase in the amount of tax on fuel due to:. The Government's failure to keep its promise that the price of petrol and other fuels would not rise as a result of the new tax system, by reducing the excise by the full amount of the GST;. The fuel indexation increases on 1 August 2000 and 1 February 2001, which will be significantly higher than usual because of the inflationary impact of the GST; and . The charging of the GST on the fuel excise, making it a tax-on-a-tax.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:. Hold the Government to its promise that its policies would not increase the price of petrol and other fuel;. Support a full Senate inquiry into the taxation and pricing of petrol;. Consider the best way to return the fuel tax windfall to Australian motorists.119Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis (from 119 citizens) and35Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 35 citizens).25590288AK6Mrs GashTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out to the House that we, as a group believe that, since the decommissioning of HMAS MELBOURNE (II) in 1983, the ability to deploy aviation assets for maritime operations, in realistic numbers and with a wide range of capabilities, remains a significant defence weakness. Over that approximate period, three nations—Spain, Italy and Thailand—have acquired, or are in the process of so doing, a versatile capability to deploy surveillance, strike and fighter aircraft at sea, independent of shore based airfields, offering significant warfighting capability at an affordable cost. The operational experience gained by the Royal Navy over this broad period has led to the recent decision to retain, for the long term, the capability presently represented by the `Invincible' class ships and their aircraft. We believe that, noting the growing uncertainty of Australia's strategic situation, and the large size and maritime aspect of Australia's area of strategic interest, the acquisition of this capability would substantially enhance the ADF. We further believe that the building of the platform element of the capability could be within the scope of Australian industry.Your petitioners therefore ask that the House request the Minister for Defence to consider all possible options for deploying surveillance, strike and fighter aircraft for the full range of maritime operations as part of future ADF capability considerations.288Mrs GashAK6Mrs Gash (from 288 citizens).2559045VU5Mr GriffinTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Members of St Barnabas' Anglican Church, Glen Waverley, Victoria 3150, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will every pray.45Mr GriffinVU5Mr Griffin (from 45 citizens).255902383NMs HallTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament. The undersigned citizens and residents of Australia call on you to:. Label all Genetically Engineered foods that may be approved for sale;. Ensure pies contain meat and jam contains fruit;. Make food labels reflect the true nature of the contents;. Ensure that the Australia New Zealand Food Authority (ANZFA)—the food safety watchdog—is adequately resourced to protect our food.And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.23Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 23 citizens).255902383NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are deeply concerned at any plans to further privatise Telstra. Further privatisation of Telstra will result in the loss of thousands more Telstra jobs, worsening services to regional and rural Australia, and the loss of up to $1 billion a year for all Australians earned from Telstra profits.We believe these profits, both now and in the future, should be set aside to secure improved educational opportunities for our children, increased research and development funds for our scientists and doctors, and more money for rural and regional Australia.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House reject any further sale of the Commonwealth's shares in Telstra and that the annual profits from Telstra be used for the benefit of all Australians.23Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 23 citizens).255912483NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The Petition of the undersigned shows we are opposed to the Government's funding cuts to Centrelink, which will mean the loss of 5,000 Centrelink jobs.. This staff cut will mean increased waiting times, reduced access and reduced service levels for clients.. It will place more stress on an already understaffed and underfunded service.. It is an attack on our right to an efficient and accessible social security system.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives should stop the Centrelink staff cuts.24Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 24 citizens).255918283NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the government reopen Belmont Medicare Office as there is no Medicare office between Charlestown and Lake Haven and there has been a drastic decline in the numbers of general practitioners bulkbilling.The closure of Belmont Medicare Office has caused great hardship to many local residents particularly the elderly and those with young children.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to ensure that Belmont Medicare Office is reopened as a matter of urgency.82Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 82 citizens).2559116383NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the Government take action to preserve bulkbilling and to strengthen the Medicare system.The cessation of bulkbilling by many general practitioners as a direct result of government policy has caused great hardship to many local residents on low incomes particularly the elderly and those with young children.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives introduce legislation to ensure that bulkbilling is preserved and that our Medicare system is strengthened.163Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 163 citizens).255911583NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of Parliament of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that John Simpson Kirkpatrick, of Simpson and the donkey fame, be awarded a Victoria Cross of Australia.Under the Imperial Award system, the award of the Victoria Cross was denied to `Simpson' as the result of an error in the original application. A second application, in 1967, was also denied as the British Government claimed a dangerous precedent would be set, in spite of such a precedent already existing.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to ensure the appropriate recognition of John Simpson Kirkpatrick. 15Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 15 citizens).255912483NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The Petition of certain electors of Australia draws the attention of the House to the unfairness and inadequacy of the GST compensation for elderly Australians, in particular:. the unfair rules of the Aged Persons Savings Bonus scheme which has failed to deliver on the Government's election promise of $1,000 for each aged person over 60; . the misleading claim of a four per cent pension increase when in fact it is only a two per cent increase after taking into account Mr Howard's two per cent clawback;. the complete inadequacy of both the bonuses and pension increase to compensate for the double taxation of Australia's retirees.Your petitioners condemn the government's contempt for older Australians and request the Parliament explore ways in which the GST can be made fairer and simpler and compensation improved to protect the living standards of elderly Australians.24Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 24 citizens).255921783YMs HoareTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the level of noise generated by traffic using the F3 Freeway in the Wyee area. This situation has a negative effect on the health of residents, property values, and impacts on livestock.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to provide funding for noise abatement measures on the F3 Freeway in the Wyee area.17Ms Hoare83YMs Hoare (from 17 citizens).Petitions received.Miscellaneous25592QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—May I inquire if there are any ministerial responses to the petitioners?10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—To those petitions that have just been announced?QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Yes.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I think you are being a little premature in expecting petitions to be responded to when they have only just hit the deck.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—I beg your pardon.Private Members' Business2559225592Debate resumed.15:25:0025592Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—I thank the honourable member for La Trobe for not being here. I have pleasure in seconding this motion to enable this worthwhile debate to continue. As the honourable member for Chifley indicated, this is not an original idea of his, but I think that the House should applaud him for bringing forward for discussion the way in which the House sees its role in the management of its own affairs. In speaking to his motion, I think that the honourable member for Chifley was perhaps a little harsh in indicating that there was actually no parliamentary scrutiny of the expenditure of the Department of the House of Representatives.In his short contribution before question time, the honourable member for La Trobe, whilst being dismissive of this particular motion, did commence to indicate that there were, of course, other forms of parliamentary scrutiny which, if we as members of this House were skilful enough to use them, we could use to put under the microscope some of the things that happen under the appropriations given to the House of Representatives. But the main thing—and I think this is the point that the honourable member for Chifley outlined—is that a Senate standing committee on appropriations and staffing already exists. This arose out of an inquiry in the early 1980s and it was envisaged at that time that there would be committees on appropriations and staffing of both the Senate and the House, that the House committee would look after the appropriations for the Department of the House of Representatives, and that the two committees would meet jointly to look at the three other parliamentary departments.At that time there were obvious reasons why the suggestion had been put forward and there were obvious reasons that drove the decision of the Senate to agree to put in place its committee, but successive governments have rejected the notion of putting in place the House of Representatives committee and therefore the whole scheme has broken down. In fact, the appropriations that are put forward on behalf of the Department of the House of Representatives are in the terminology that abounds in these matters and, while I do not often quote Odgers' Australian Senate Practice, perhaps it is appropriate on this occasion to do so: ... and the appropriations for the other parliamentary departments are determined by the President and Speaker subject to veto by the government.The terminology `subject to veto by the government' is interesting, because we should not delude ourselves that the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing has not had difficulties in carrying out its role. In the principles that are outlined by this motion, the committee, under its powers, would put in place the appropriations of the Department of the House of Representatives and they would go forward. In the case of the Senate, the reality is that those appropriations have often been tampered with and modified by the government through successive ministers of finance. This matter has been the subject of a number of reports by the Senate standing committee and, in fact, motions of the Senate, who have rejected this interference in the way in which the Senate chamber has been able to put in place and decide upon its own appropriations.The other aspect that should be highlighted about this proposal is that it has precedent in other jurisdictions. If we look at the situation in the House of Commons, we see there is a different manner in which they put in place the control of the matters to do with the administration of the Commons and the Lords. In fact, there is the House of Commons Commission, which has overall control over the matters to do with the House of Commons. It has the power to appoint staff and it has the power to delegate those appointments. But in the case of matters to do with the financing and annual estimates of the House of Commons, they have in place the Select Committee on Finance and Services, one of the domestic committees of the Commons, and this plays—and I quote from Erskine May—`a central role in the management of House services'.In that case, this committee puts up the annual estimates for submission to the commission and that makes the decision about the budget proposals that go forward to the commissioner and the Speaker and that are recommended to go through the Commons. There is a model in which we have this ability for members of that House to be involved through the finance and services committee in decisions that are made about the House's administration.The honourable member for Chifley also, in putting forward this motion, quite correctly noted that, over recent times, there has been developing a strong interest in matters to do with the administration of the parliament. We have seen in recent times after question time, in questions to the Speaker, questions about the messenger staff, their chamber duties and the changed arrangements for the stores. In the past, as was highlighted by the member for Chifley, there have been questions about the staffing of the committees, the staffing of the transport office, and the money that was spent on the executive wing recently to do with landscaping. That brings me to this point: if we are to look only at expenditures related to the Department of the House of Representatives, we are very much missing out on the way in which this place in toto is administered. This is one of the things that should concern us all, and it is also worth while that we look into it.As part of my research for this motion, I got my hands on a report of the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing into a proposed amalgamation of the parliamentary departments. Here, in the year of the Centenary of Federation, 2001, we also celebrate the centenary of this notion that there be five parliamentary departments. I put this to you: if we are going to have a parliament that is relevant to the times in which it serves the nation, then perhaps notions like that need review. What were the reasons back in 1901 that we found we had five parliamentary departments? History shows that, by 1910, then Prime Minister Fisher was already in the position to question why it was that there was this need for the five departments. There have been many proposals to have this changed, and at all times for various reasons we have not gone forward. Myriad suggestions have been put forward. Some are as simple as this: we have three departments—the Senate department, the House of Representatives department and we amalgamate the three other departments that serve the parliament. When we look at the five annual reports and, before the appropriations, five portfolio budget statements, we must ask this: what is really going on? If members are concerned and are asking questions about the sorts of decisions that have been made by the Speaker and the Clerk to try to find the efficiencies that are demanded in meeting the continuing one per cent efficiency dividend that government asks of all departments, why do we not ask about the efficiencies that might be gained by amalgamating departments? It is obvious that, if we have a situation where there are five departments with five administrative supports, there are lots of gains to be made by rationalising the way that these supports are put in place. The other reason this is worthy of proposal is that there are myriad committees that members of this place can serve on that can have advisory or direct roles in the way the various components and different departments of the Australian parliament actually operate. We have a Library Committee that can go into the ways in which decisions are being made by the department. We have the Joint House Committee, where a lot of discussion goes on about the changes that have been going on over the last decade, and where the way the Joint House Department has been operating can be queried. We have POITAG, the Presiding Officers Information Technology Advisory Group, which advises the presiding officers about those things.I think the importance of this motion, which I support in principle if not in detail, is that it gives an opportunity for members to be involved in the decisions that have to be made about the way in which this place is administered. It is important to note that there are changes in managerial practices across the Public Service, and this place is not immune: there is casualisation of the work force; there is more part-time work; and there are the difficulties that we have in being able to control the different workloads in sitting and non-sitting weeks. I believe that if there were a consultative process available to members they would be able to agree with the decisions being made. (Time expired)15:35:0025594Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I have a considerable amount of time for the member for Chifley. We both serve on the Standing Committee on Procedure, and he has quite often produced some good ideas which the committee has then put before the parliament in order to make this place seemingly more relevant to the wider Australian community. I have supported some of those initiatives, but I am sorry that on this one I really cannot quite see the point. I listened very carefully to the member for Chifley's contribution and to the member for Scullin's, who has made a very worthwhile contribution, but I remain unpersuaded as to the real benefits of forming yet another standing committee of the parliament. We have 16 standing committees already, with 10 members on most of them. We have seven joint statutory committees and five joint standing committees, all of which—and the member for Scullin has alluded to this—have the capacity to examine some of the issues highlighted in the member for Chifley's contribution that he wishes to see more attention paid to. In terms of the way in which the House manages its own affairs, I think those processes are already available to members. In fact, I was almost persuaded by the member for Scullin's contribution until he started arguing that way and mentioning other committees that are not necessarily standing committees but that are important working committees around the parliament, such as POITAG and so many others, providing members with a process to have direct input into the way in which technology, in particular, is invested around this chamber. Members are now seeing some of the benefits of that input—for example, the way in which members in the parliament are directly connected to technology. There is process for members to have input. I do not see the necessity to form yet another standing committee such as the one referred to in the member's motion as appropriations and staffing. As a whip, I have to say that it is a big enough job to get members to attend the enormous number of committees we have now and, given the number of committees and the breadth of the issues that they address, there is already appropriate scope for the concerns that the member has to be addressed. I do not support the motion today, although I commend the member for bringing it to the House's attention. I would instead counsel members to use the processes that the parliament already provides. There is ample opportunity for members to make the changes and to see the things done around this place that we would like to see. At the end of the day, to make the parliament more relevant to the Australian community, we should use the committee process to implement change, and that is the process that I would commend members to follow. 15:39:0025595Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I rise in support of the motion before the House moved by the member for Chifley. The member for Mallee made an interesting point: that we have 16 committees of the House but we do not have one examining our own expenditures. I think that is an imbalance. If you look around different areas of public policy in this country you will see that the institution which is in the greatest crisis is democracy itself. The thing we have neglected is the thing under our own nose—the massive public distrust and dissatisfaction with representative democracy. I applaud the member for Chifley for taking an active interest in parliamentary reform, because I think he is one member who has identified the core problem—that is, that the institution in the greatest crisis is this place itself, and if we are to fix public problems in this country we should start right here and now. So I think the resolution has much to commend it. For instance, we all talk about the information age. The truth is that this parliament still operates under horse and buggy principles—archaic standing orders, archaic debating formats and, as we find today, a House that more often resembles a mausoleum than an interactive debating chamber. So the main problem is here, and to have a standing committee which examines appropriations and staffing would be a useful part of the reform process. If we cannot heal ourselves, if we cannot reform our own institution at this time when democracy suffers a crisis, a loss of public faith and satisfaction, then we are in big trouble indeed.I am one of those members that the member for Scullin mentioned who gets up at the end of question time and puts the odd question forward about how the House and its expenditures are being run. For instance, I am unhappy at the loss of entitlements for some of the permanent parliamentary attendants. I do not support the measures that have been taken. People who have had their rights and entitlements should preserve them, especially when there are so many other wasteful expenditures.Let me just give an example of the sort of thing this standing committee should examine. I received a letter of 16 March from Foxtel informing me that Fox Sports is going to provide two sporting channels into my parliamentary office. Why do parliamentarians need to watch sport of a day? What is the need for parliamentarians to have two sports channels in this place? If Foxtel is providing this service for free, then it raises an important question of conflict of interest, given that we are the regulator of this industry. The parliament makes the laws governing pay TV. If Fox Sports is providing the service for free, should we be accepting a gift from an institution which we regulate? If parliamentary money is being paid to Foxtel to provide this service to members of parliament, that is even more outrageous. Why should taxpayers be subsidising sporting channels in MPs' offices? This is a matter that needs some investigation. It could usefully be considered by the Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing. Do members of parliament really need to watch sport in their offices? Haven't we got bigger issues at hand? I think it is good to have the news service to keep up to date with the nature of our work, but sporting games are not directly connected with our parliamentary duties. It is an unnecessary service. If there is money being spent on it, then it should be cut out. This place is starting to resemble a resort rather than a functional working building.Look at some other waste that we see around us—the millions spent in the south-eastern courtyard, which is totally unused. You could fire a gun through there and not hit anyone. It is totally unused—millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds spent on an area that is not used. The Senate playing field, which was rearranged at substantial cost, was made dysfunctional. The member for Braddon, a keen sportsman who is always exercising, does not even know that the playing field exists. That is how low a profile it has. It demonstrates the extent of waste and mismanagement under the current regime.Some people say, `Oh well, this is Joint House.' The truth is it is all money being spent on this building and it needs greater scrutiny. The member for Chifley has put forward a good point. Why should we have a building which resembles a resort rather than a functional working facility? We have got these wasteful expenditures, but we do not have something that is vital to the discharge of work around here, and that is a child-care facility. How did they ever build a $1 billion project with many hundreds, if not thousands, of people in this building without a child-care facility, for not only members of parliament but the many staff who work long and arduous hours in this place?There really is a misallocation of priorities—no child care in a $1 billion building but we have courtyards, playing fields and Foxtel. It is like Roy and HG, when too much sport is never enough. There is so much sport in this place but not enough spending on the basics: child care, decent facilities and a focus on parliamentary reform. There is a real problem. We should be putting our money into new forms of direct democracy, into mobilising the Internet to a far greater extent and reforming our standing orders to make question time more than a national joke. I support this standing committee and many other like reforms. (Time expired)15:44:0025596Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Firstly, I would like to compliment the member for Werriwa on his superb speech raising some very important issues that this private members business has raised in the House. I would also like to compliment the honourable member for Chifley for raising this issue in the House today. Accountability and the capacity to change are important organisational factors, and this place needs to be able to satisfy itself of its ability to achieve in both these areas.I acknowledge that the operation of this House runs very smoothly under the auspices of the office of the Speaker, but it may surprise the people of Australia that Australia's House of Representatives is the only government agency not subject to scrutiny by a parliamentary committee. Within the framework of the Charter of Budget Honesty and the call for accountability of all public bodies, it makes sense to me, and I think it is rather appropriate, for there to be such a mechanism for this place, the seat of federal government, to have something similar.In the debate on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill (No. 4) 2000 during the last sitting week, I made reference to areas where Australia has extremely high standards, standards the rest of the world envy. The mechanism to scrutinise the expenditure of the House would further enhance our consistent approach to these high standards. Our parliamentary system is the envy of the world, and I know that the setting up of this committee would make it even better. Dare I suggest that the people of Australia would want us to have that higher level of accountability. We are under enough stress and strain over the fact that our reputations are considered to be less than those of travelling salesmen and used car salesmen and the fact that we cannot actually look at our accountability and reckoning in this place. The House operates a committee system that brings members of this place in contact with the public in areas outside our electorate boundaries. I have been privileged to serve on quite a number of committees. I currently serve on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and the Standing Committee on Family and Community Affairs. Last year the ATSIA committee conducted an inquiry into Aboriginal health that took over 2½ years. This year the family and community affairs committee is inquiring into substance abuse. Both these inquiries have taken me to places I have not experienced before—to Aboriginal settlements in the Northern Territory where I talked with Aboriginal elders about the health problems of their communities and to the streets of Sydney and Melbourne where drug use is clearly evident and where the homeless and destitute can be seen throughout the night going through the deprivations that drugs and alcohol abuse have inflicted on them.The House resources the committee system so that members can experience the things that I have just mentioned. As we in this place are well aware, it is the recommendations of committees that form the basis of legislative change, thus providing a counterbalance or foil for the monopolisation of power by executive government. It is the ability of committees to hold public meetings and to meet with members of the public individually or in groups that keep members of this place in firm touch with the reality of what is happening out there in society.When some $10 million was slashed from the House appropriation in a previous budget the committee system suffered the brunt of this resources shortfall, and those of us who work on committees know exactly what I mean. With a committee to scrutinise the appropriation, perhaps the devastating cut to committee resources would not have been so severe and so fundamental. I know the secretary of our committee is also shared by the Public Works Committee, and I do not know exactly how the support staff manage to fit in all their work. On the other side of the coin, I understand that United States congressional committees can have as many as 80 support staff. Compared with this, we run a system on a shoestring. Our colleagues in the other place, as members have mentioned, have a committee to scrutinise the operation of that chamber, and that has operated successfully over 20 years. Perhaps it is time we took a lead from our colleagues and instituted the same system here.As people have mentioned, we are celebrating the Centenary of Federation and, in raising this issue, I think the honourable member for Chifley has highlighted the fact that, after 100 years, there is a real and significant need to change the procedures in this place. I strongly recommend the motion that he has moved here today.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate25597Question proposed:That grievances be noted.2559715:50:0025597Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—One of the emerging indicators of the crisis in our public hospitals is the number of ambulance diversions: what is the frequency and duration of particular hospitals, or a number of hospitals at any one time, instructing ambulances bringing patients to them to divert to other hospitals? The last time I spoke in the House on this subject I revealed the ambulance diversion figures for the months from October 2000 to January 2001. Those figures were given the prominence they deserved by the Advertiser, which published them together with a photograph on the front page showing patients lying on trolleys in the corridors of the Accident and Emergency Department at the Royal Adelaide Hospital. This was a serious situation, because the RAH is supposed to be sufficiently well resourced to be able to accept patients who have been diverted from other hospitals. When the RAH refused to accept ambulances on bypass from other hospitals it was a very serious symptom that the crisis in our public hospital system is worsening. Today I am revealing last month's ambulance bypass figures. They tell another story. That story is how the poor management of South Australia's public hospital system—and I emphasise system, not the management of individual hospitals—is putting pressure on the private hospital system. The summer months are one of the quieter times of the year for our hospital system, or at least they are supposed to be, because there are fewer elderly patients requiring hospitalisation to manage complex conditions, including respiratory illness. Overloading of hospitals requiring ambulance diversion is, therefore, something you would not expect to be a major problem, except in the winter months. In February—these are the new figures—there were 41 diversions, the same number as January, but the total period of diversions was slightly longer, at 429 hours and 30 minutes, compared to 417 hours in January. The minimum diversion time was the same, at two hours, and the maximum duration slightly longer, at 23 hours and 30 minutes, compared to 23 hours in January. This shows a continuing, though slightly worsening, situation with ambulance diversions. In February, of the public hospitals, Flinders was on diversion once for 10 hours and 48 minutes and the Queen Elizabeth five times for a total of 37 hours and 44 minutes. The Repatriation Hospital, Lyell McEwin, Gawler Health Service and Modbury did not have to go on diversion. The private hospitals were, however, hit hard: Ashford seven times for a total of 97 hours and 15 minutes; St Andrews 17 times for a total of 181 hours and 17 minutes and Wakefield 11 times for a total of 102 hours and 26 minutes. There were two hospitals on diversion at once eight times and three hospitals on diversion at once four times. The state Liberal government has taken some comfort in, and tried to downplay the problem by pointing to, the fact that the majority of instances and hours of diversion are from the private hospitals. They are maintaining the public pretence that they have not got a problem and are not the cause of the problem. Nothing could be further from the truth. At a recent briefing from the AMA I was advised that the state Health Commission had asked private hospitals to cut back on elective surgery so that they would be better able to handle emergency cases. I have checked this information with one of the private hospitals and found out that it is correct. Last year Professor Brendan Kearney, who was a member of the board of the South Australian Health Commission, chaired a meeting with public and private hospital emergency department directors to discuss the lack of beds in the total hospital system and the problem of ambulance diversions. At that meeting it was suggested to the private hospitals that they cancel elective surgery so they could do more emergency cases. Given that the public hospitals are now doing very little elective surgery—waiting lists as of January this year were 10,190—because of their own bed shortages, that would have had a detrimental effect on waiting times. It would also have undermined one of the principal reasons why those who can afford it are encouraged to take out private health insurance—when you need treatment you will be able to get it faster. Fortunately, while the Minister for Human Services in South Australia has the power to issue directions to public hospitals, he does not have the power in relation to the private system. The private hospitals declined to reduce their elective surgery for two reasons. First, they took the view that they had a contract with their patients who needed elective surgery. Second, unlike VMOs and doctors on staff at public hospitals, the treating doctors were dependent on elective surgery for their income. The fact is that demand is outstripping supply for hospital beds in South Australia. Dean Brown's own annual report shows a reduction of 553 beds in public hospitals in South Australia since the Liberal government came to power in 1993. Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard the relevant table from the latest South Australian Health Commission annual report. Leave granted.The table read as follows:APPENDIX 1STATISTICSHospital Activity Statistics1992-931993-941994-951995-961996-961997-981998-991999-2000Average daily available beds251195060494648744725469646264566Occupancy rate372%75%70%71%73%73%72%72%AdmissionsOvernight stay patients193 480191 104191 811191 007186 820190 626189 545184 970Same day patents81 57993 471108 243115 725124 852135 976146 028154 407Total admissions275 059284 575300 054306 732311 672326 602335 573339 377Admissions/1000 population4189194203208210220226227% Same day admissions30%33%36%38%40%42%44%45%Average length of stay55.04.94.44.34.34.14.04.0Occupied bed days1 386 2351 384 9891 327 5671 334 1871 336 4731 342 2301 356 2401 347 819Non-inpatients6Casualty371 046377 433414 369435 378438 103455 659461 256463 044Outpatients71 299 3621 323 7141 356 2471 384 5801 389 4011 453 2091 418 8871 483 803Source:Data sourced from the Monthly Management Summary System.Notes:1 This table contains data for all public recognised hospitals, including the Pregnancy Advisory Centre and Torrens House.2 The average number of beds available for use by patients in the course of the year.3 The ratio of occupied beds divided by annual available beds. This excludes day only patients treated in designated day only facilities.4 Population figures represent the mean resident population of South Australia as estimated by the Australian Bureau of Statistics for that financial year.5 The average number of days all admitted patients spent in hospital, including day only patients.6 The increases in non-admitted patient activity reflect, in part, trends in the use of these services and, in part, the results by the DHS to improve the quality of data reported. It should be noted that the series has changed from reporting attendances as outpatient and casualty clinics (for the years 1990-91 to 1992-93) to occasion of service at each clinic (from 1993-94).7 Excludes private outpatients.83UCox, David, MPMr COX—Over the last five years, in the face of the deteriorating situation in our public hospitals, the private hospitals have sought to meet their patients' needs by establishing emergency services. Together, they have in fact provided an equivalent amount of accident and emergency services for private patients as would have been provided by the addition of one major teaching hospital. The private hospitals are not the cause of this problem; they are doing something to make up for the shortfall in public hospital services in South Australia. South Australia has a particular problem with its public hospital system. That was caused by Mr Brown when he was Premier. According to the Commonwealth Grants Commission 1999 report on general revenue grant relativities, Mr Brown cut South Australia's own sourced public hospital funding in constant 1997-98 prices from $394 million in 1993-94—Labor's last state budget—to $270 million in 1996-97, the last budget before Mr Brown was deposed as Premier. That is a reduction of $124 million in public hospital funding per year—these are Grants Commission figures. I note that Mr Brown was reported in the Australian on 19 February this year as criticising the Howard government's $2 billion private health insurance rebate because it failed to take the pressure off public hospitals. The reason South Australia's public hospitals are under so much pressure is that Mr Brown has personally been responsible for closing 553 public hospital beds. The federal Minister for Health and Aged Care, Dr Wooldridge, responded to Mr Brown's comments by pointing out that South Australia consistently failed to invest all its tied Commonwealth funds into hospitals. The situation would be that much worse if the private hospitals had not set up accident and emergency services.In the few moments I have left, I would like to make a couple of observations about the progress of the foreign investment application by Shell for its takeover bid for Woodside Petroleum. I first spoke on this matter in the House on 6 February this year. On that occasion, I set out what is the national interest in the case of this application, and that is that exploration and development of the North West Shelf not be impeded by the conflicting interests of Shell. Those conflicts were confirmed by none other than the Shell executive in charge of its bid for Woodside, Raoul Restucci, who was quoted by the business editor of the Scottish paper, the Evening News, as saying:If Shell wins control after the shareholder vote, probably in late March or April, it will aim to stop Woodside from competing directly with Shell, as it has in liquefied natural gas receiving terminals in China and India.Shell has done nothing but dissemble in relation to that statement which reveals Shell's intention to ensure the operations of the North West Shelf joint venture do not conflict with Shell's other interests when the opposite should be the case. It is evidence that there is a very significant national interest issue remaining in relation to this application. I understand from Shell that they were looking at what unilateral undertakings they could make that would address the conflict of interest problem they so obviously have. However, unilateral undertakings would be inadequate because to be effective any changes to the government's arrangements of the North West Shelf joint venture that could protect our national interest would require the agreement of the North West Shelf joint venture partners. In turn, those changes would require the agreement of at least some of the non-Shell joint venture partners' bankers. Arrangements of that nature would be likely to take quite some time to negotiate. I understand that the government has put some conditions to Shell and the other joint venture partners apart from Woodside. I do not know whether those conditions are likely to be acceptable either to Shell or to the other North West Shelf partners, nor am I convinced that the conditions are likely to protect the national interest, but I would counsel the government that it not be dictated to by Shell's timetable in working through those issues to ensure that the national interest is protected.Finally, I note reports in relation to the BHP-Billiton dual listing that the BHP Petroleum chief executive will move to London. There is no guarantee that other elements of the BHP Petroleum management will not soon follow. I have little doubt that, if Shell's takeover of Woodside is successful, that company will soon resemble a branch office. In my own state, the position of Australia's largest onshore operator Santos is presently protected by an act of the South Australia parliament which limits shareholdings in it to 15 per cent. That legislation is presently under review and, if it is changed, with a lower dollar, Santos could become a takeover target. Within a short period, we could lose the head offices of all our major Australian petroleum companies. I question whether that would be in the national interest. 2560115:59:0025601Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—I raise today the concerns of hundreds and possibly thousands of constituents from Park Orchards in my electorate who learned recently of a proposal by Vodafone to erect a 40-metre telecommunications tower in the midst of their neighbourhood. Park Orchards, I should indicate to the House, has long been regarded as a model of environmental balance in a residential area. Partly designed by Walter Burley Griffin and nestled amongst the native gums along Mullum Mullum Creek, it is known as part of the `green wedge' in Melbourne's eastern suburbs. For decades, residents jealously guarded their environment, resisting incursions from those who would destroy the fragile beauty of the area. The area is not just a place of natural attraction; it is also a home for many people who have chosen to live there because of the balance of living amidst nature. It therefore comes as a shock to learn that Vodafone proposes a major telecommunications tower in the middle of Park Orchards. This is no ordinary tower. It is not one of the ubiquitous poles sporting a collection of antennae and transmitting plates that we see throughout the suburbs of our major cities these days or, indeed, on the tops of buildings in what seems to be every few blocks. What is proposed here is a 40-metre tower, something that would stand the height of a 12-storey office block above the canopy of native eucalypts. It is proposed that this massive structure will have 24 panel antennae and seven rapid transmission disks. The carriers say the structure is necessary to overcome local black spots, but the size and the location suggests that this is either extraordinary overkill on their part or only part of the story. Located as it is on a hill with a clear line of sight to the central business district of Melbourne and to the other major transmitting points in the metropolitan area, mainly Mount Dandenong, many suspect that this is, at least in the future, a major transceiving station in the digital network.The residents of Park Orchards are concerned about a number of matters, including the amenity of the area, the right of local people to have a say, effectively, over planning proposals, the intrusion of this tower and the health and safety of all in the community, not the least of which are children at nearby schools and preschool centres. What concerns me is that the issue of health and safety appears to fall into a regulatory crack. Honourable members may recall that Labor's original telecommunications legislation had virtually no checks on the placement of towers by carriers. As a result of this government's 1997 changes, low impact facilities—that is, those less than 6.5 metres in height—are free of state and territory planning restrictions but other facilities—those higher than 6.5 metres—are subject to planning laws.Despite the intent of this legislation, it appears there are still some deficiencies, and I wish to illustrate by reference to the state of Victoria. In Victoria, section 4(c) of the Planning and Environment Act 1987 has the objective of securing a pleasant, efficient and safe working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians. Moreover, the statutory planning provisions provide that the local council must consider not only community needs in the location of telecommunications facilities but the development of the telecommunications network consistent with the economic, environmental and social objectives set out in section 4—in other words, the securing of a safe, working, living and recreational environment for all Victorians. That is what is required by the legislation. Despite this, residents' concerns about the effects of telecommunications towers on them can be, I believe, effectively ignored. The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, whilst accepting the expert evidence that there is not yet—to quote from a decision in the case of Connell Wagner Pty Ltd v. City of Port Phillip, as reported in the 1998 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Reports at page 606—a scientifically sound basis for setting a threshold level for biological effects, has nonetheless said that the Australian standard of 200 microwatts per centimetre squared of electromagnetic radiation exposure is to be applied.A number of things can be said about this. First, guidelines adopted on precautionary scientific advice by the Sutherland Council in New South Wales, and followed by many other councils, limit the exposure to 0.2 microwatts per centimetre squared—that is, 1,000 times less than the currently permitted level. Moreover, the telecommunications companies have been able to cope with this guideline in the municipalities where it has been applied. In the case of the Park Orchards tower, I am advised that it would mean possibly up to a one-kilometre buffer zone around the proposed facility. I am also aware of the draft industry code which was adopted by the Australian Communications Industry Forum in September 2000 and within which, where it has been applied, telecommunications carriers have apparently been able to work.While it is arguable that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal has misdirected itself as a matter of law—for example, their assertion that what is safe can simply be regarded, in the absence of consistent evidence, as an indication of the 200 microwatts limit—a number of other options are currently available. Firstly, the Manningham Council should adopt the Sutherland Council guidelines and apply them to this proposal. I also note in this regard that proposals have been made to Vodafone and other carriers for them to use existing facilities in the area, such as major transmission pylons that are located nearby. Secondly, the Victorian government should amend the Planning and Environment Act to ensure that a responsible planning authority can properly take into account health and safety concerns. Before the last Victorian state election, the Bracks government campaigned on giving local people and local government more say over planning issues. This is an opportunity to fulfil that promise by making amendments, if required, to the Planning and Environment Act in Victoria to clarify the situation.Thirdly, I urge the Commonwealth to closely monitor this situation. I am aware that a Senate committee is currently examining related issues. I urge the government to consider its report carefully when it is finalised and, if necessary, to consider amending the Commonwealth legislation. This is particularly relevant where, once a permit to build a tower is issued, any number of additional antennae, microwave dishes and the like can be added without further planning approval as long as they do not exceed an additional height of 6.5 metres. What planning approval grants in the first place is the tower, the structure itself. What residents in particular are concerned about are the devices attached to the tower. But, once the tower has been given approval by the local government authority, any number of devices can be added to the tower without any further approval having to be sought.I also urge some closer consideration of the current proposal to effectively double the standard of 200 microwatts to 449 microwatts per centimetre squared. There does not seem to be a case to increase this. If one accepts the evidence of, for example, Dr Garry Smith—who was responsible for and has carried out the implementation of the Sutherland Council guidelines—it is demonstrated that carriers can operate at a level much lower than even the standard of 200 microwatts that is utilised at the present time. There is no place to increase it; in fact, there may well be a case to decrease the standard. In conclusion, the telecommunications network is important to the country but so too are the health and safety of Australian residents. I regret that Vodafone in this instance have refused my offer for them to meet with residents. I will continue to urge the case on behalf of the residents of Park Orchards. 2560316:09:0025603Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—On Thursday, 15 March we marked Public Education Day in this country. It was organised by concerned parents, by P&C associations, by Teachers Federation representatives, by teachers and by people in the community concerned about the future of public education in this country. I had the opportunity on that day to visit quite a number of schools in my electorate. Starting at 8.30 in the morning, I visited Helensburgh Public School, Otford Public School, Stanwell Park Public School, Scarborough Public School, Coledale Public School, Austinmer Public School, Thirroul Public School, Bulli Public School, Waniora Public School, and finally ended up at Bulli High School. I thought it might end there but, no, it did not: there was a demonstration outside my electorate office of concerned residents of my electorate, protesting against what they saw as the Howard government's approach to education funding, particularly the education funding bill that went through the parliament last year, and seeking redress for a range of funding issues associated with that. Last week, I also had the opportunity to attend a public forum that had been organised by the Woonona Public Education Lobby Group. It was held at the Woonona High School auditorium and I and the local state member for Keira, David Campbell, addressed a crowd of people, numbering in the hundreds, representing P&C associations, concerned parents, teachers and so on. The issues that were canvassed there went to things like the present Commonwealth funding arrangements; plans to lift the percentage of GDP funding for education in comparison to other OECD countries; state and Commonwealth responsibilities for funding education; teacher recruitment and how to address looming teacher shortages; growing societal and family dysfunction and its impact on education; what future plans exist for both TAFE and university education; OH&S requirements in terms of older schools. and the need to replace buildings; and, of course, some of the concerns about the state government's back to school allowance in New South Wales.I have to say that, after such a round of discussions, and following my visits to a number of other schools within my electorate over a long period time, it has become quite clear that there are many issues of concern to Australians about where public education funding is going. We all recall that last year, as part of this government's approach to dealing with these matters, we saw private schools, particularly those in category 1, receive an extra $700 million, but we saw no matching increase to public schools, which educate something like 70 per cent of Australia's children. Even worse than that, we saw something like $56 million go to just 61 wealthy private schools such as King's and Geelong Grammar. The Australian public expect to see reasonable funding for their children in Australia's school system. From discussions I have had with people in the public education area, it is evident that they want to see that balance swing back: they want to see the government at the national level address some of the funding inadequacies that they perceive—and rightly perceive—to exist. People were suggesting that that balance should tip back to 70 per cent of funding going in favour of public schools. At the other extreme, however, I found that there was an acceptance that, yes, there are low-fee-paying non-government schools in this country that need support and that the majority of that support would come from the Commonwealth government. People recognised, for example, that the Catholic school system needed support. But they were almost as one in their universal condemnation of this government's preparedness to provide additional funds to those schools that basically did not need it. They were concerned about the money going to the likes of the King's School for additional rifle ranges or cricket pitches and so on, when some schools do not even have a school hall for assemblies. They were concerned that some schools do not even have covered walkways to get kids from one end of the school to the other. In fact, there was a range of issues that were raised with me and I will go through those very quickly. They were as follows: a lack of school hall facilities; old classrooms that were not up to standard and required replacement; airconditioning requirements; P&Cs being forced to pick up the slack on basic items such as photocopying; substandard toilet blocks; substandard office administration space; poorly drained playing fields at some of those schools that were fortunate to have them; problems associated with the provision of sick bays in schools; security for schools' computers—in my electorate, unfortunately, and, I am sure, around Australia, more and more we are seeing people breaking into schools to knock off the computers, to sell them in many cases, I suppose, to facilitate the health problem that many of these people have; incessant changes to the curriculum in many schools; and schools having a budget of only about $70,000 a year to run the entire school when it costs about $300 a day to get a relief teacher to come in when in-service training is required. And, of course, a most pressing and urgent issue which was raised with me was that of school counsellors.There is a need for funding to be reviewed in this respect. That is why I was so pleased to read today that Premier Carr announced yesterday his intention to put $430 million into the school system for public schools for the replacement of demountable buildings; the construction of buildings, staff rooms and halls; and the installation of heaters and air conditioners in many schools. From what I have seen, that will certainly be welcome. I think what people also have to recognise is that there are state and Commonwealth responsibilities. But I think that, equally, we can be a little lateral in our thinking. For example, I have suggested to people that perhaps the health budget at the national level could be revisited to provide funding for school counsellors, because the problems, identified in the schools, of kids with all sorts of problems stemming from the home environment or whatever it might be are health issues and need to be addressed accordingly. The fact that school counsellors go into schools perhaps only once a week, if they are lucky, to address some of those problems means that those societal problems will stay with those kids throughout life and indeed many of those kids will become the criminals of the future. If we could have counsellors in there, funded perhaps at the national level by the health budget, to give assistance to those teachers in thinking outside the envelope a little, maybe we could stop some of those kids from going on to a life of crime.It is equally important to outline that, as far as Labor is concerned, we are making education the No. 1 priority of an incoming Beazley Labor government. We have already announced quite a number of policies in this respect and I will outline those very quickly: we propose to introduce education priority zones in disadvantaged areas, abolish the enrolment benchmark adjustment scheme, attract high achievers to teaching through generous scholarships, retrain existing teachers to ensure they have expertise in their subjects, raise literacy and numeracy standards, establish a learning gateway to improve the use of the Internet in classrooms, provide students with after-hours online assistance from teachers, improve and modernise vocational education, ensure that university is more affordable, and of course we will establish the University of Australia online. They are just some of the things that we in the Labor Party have already outlined we would be proposing to do as part of our knowledge nation approach to education and improving standards in this country. What I want to clearly indicate is my commitment to ensuring that education in this country is a right. Labor intends to fund education on the basis of need, and clearly that need is very much alive and well in the public education sector. You see the dedication of the teaching fraternity in the schools in my electorate and generally in Australia. You see the commitment and the dedication of P&C associations in the public sector and also, I might say, in the private or non-government sector at some of the smaller Catholic schools' P&F associations. You can see them working through raffles, fetes, lamington drives and other fundraising activities to try to find funds to assist in ensuring that the learning environment for Australia's future generations is going to be reasonable. Governments need to address these issues. We must do it at the federal level. The state government—and Premier Carr in New South Wales has started the process—is on the way to doing something about it. Public education is a right; education is a right, and we must address some of those issues to ensure that people get an education that puts them on the path to their future. We now know statistically that people change jobs four times, I think it is, in their working life. We have to ensure that reskilling, retraining and employment generating opportunities through education are created at each one of those steps. It fundamentally starts in primary education; it is extended in secondary education. Public education plays a real role in that way and that support must be forthcoming from Commonwealth governments. (Time expired)2560516:19:0025605Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I would like to take the opportunity this afternoon to make some remarks in this chamber about the flurry of activity we have seen in the last 10 days or so concerning greenhouse policy. You might have seen the odd article in our daily press. There was another one this morning purporting to quote the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the subject of the Bush administration's clarification of its policy on this subject. As far as debate here goes, it is worth elucidating some of the reasons as to why this is suddenly being reported.What happened originally was that, on 6 March this year, four United States senators—Senators Hagel, Craig, Helms and Roberts—wrote to President Bush. If I may, I will quote from their letter.Dear Mr President:We write to seek clarification of your Administration's policy on climate change.We are aware that your Administration has recently begun a formal interagency review of climate change policies. Yet on Tuesday February 27, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman testified on this subject before the Senate ...It goes on to say:Administrator Whitman stated at this hearing that the Administration would seek to make the Kyoto Protocol workable. She went on to advocate the regulation of carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. She called for, “putting [carbon dioxide] into the process and recognizing that we have to deal with it, which would be to put on a cap of some sort, a target anyway.”The United States Senate is on record regarding the Kyoto Protocol. In July 1997, the Senate voted 95-0 for S. Res. 98, a resolution that called on the President not to sign any climate change treaty that would—among other things—cause serious harm to the U.S. economy ...The senators went on to say:We look forward to working with you and your Administration on the development of a comprehensive national energy strategy ... However, we need to have a clear understanding of your Administration's position on climate change, in particular the Kyoto Protocol, and the regulation of carbon dioxide ...This was quite a letter, as the tone of it would suggest. Coming from some senior members of the Senate, it clearly generated a rapid response from President Bush, who wrote back on 13 March to Senator Hegel saying:Dear Senator Hagel:Thank you for your letter of March 6, asking for the Administration's views on global climate change, in particular the Kyoto protocol ...He went on to say: As you also know, I support a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy that takes into account the importance of improving air quality ...He also said:As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centres such as India and China, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. The Senate's vote, 95-0, vote shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns.That is again quite a reply from the President. It makes it very clear—as his national security adviser, Ms Condoleeza Rice, is reportedly quoted in an article of the Financial Review telling European Union ambassadors at a meeting in Washington last week—that Mr Bush's stance meant that the Kyoto process was dead.In the light of that and in the light of comments by some of our ministers clearly endorsing the approach of the United States administration to this treaty and to the issue of climate change, we have to consider what we are going to do about it here in Australia henceforth. It is quite clear that the view is that if there is no participation of developing countries in this proposed scheme then there can be no scheme for industrialised countries such as Australia and certainly the United States. Clearly, if the United States is not going to go along with a system or a plan of caps on the emissions of carbon dioxide, it is sheer fantasy to believe that the People's Republic of China would ever agree to emission caps; and thereafter you would see other large emitters of carbon dioxide or the large economies in the developing world—India, Indonesia and Brazil—doing the same thing. It is quite clear they are never going to agree to it. So Kyoto, which was originally conceived, I think, as the first step in a radical plan to decarbonise industrialised society, is going to fail.There is, nonetheless, a lot of money being spent on research into this, not simply in the International Panel on Climate Change, which is the body of scientific advisers established under the original climate change framework convention—these advisers are the most ferocious proponents of the Kyoto protocol—but also outside that. In a sense, there are some interesting developments bringing to light some contrary scientific theories regarding the greenhouse effect, not so much about whether there is a greenhouse effect—of course there is; if there were not the earth would freeze every night—but about how the planet may be adapting to an increasing amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. There is an interesting article in the latest edition, volume 82, of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society by three authors, two from NASA's Goddard Institute, Arthur Hou and Ming Da Chou, together with Professor Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The scientists have been studying cloud cover over the Pacific Ocean and they have discovered that, as the sea surface temperature increases, the clouds above those areas where the sea surface temperature is particularly high have been reacting in such a way as to permit the release of infra-red energy to outer space, if you like, providing a heat vent in the atmosphere which acts to stabilise the temperature in that particular region. If this natural feedback stabiliser is a genuine phenomenon, as these very senior climate scientists have observed, then the important thing about it is that it has not been included in any of the computer models used by the scientists who have been making predictions of large climate change. These new developments, unless incorporated in the models, cast some doubt about how up to date those models are.Another piece of science that caught my eye was published in the October 2000 edition of the magazine Nature. It deals with the sequestration of carbon in the ocean interior. It talks about the presence of carbon dioxide in ice cores taken in the Antarctic and it focuses on the possible action, as I think you would describe it, of the ocean as a carbon sink and how, over the great trends in temperature change during the past few centuries, it may be that the ocean itself adapts at certain times to absorb more carbon when there is more carbon in the atmosphere. Again, for those interested in the topic and where it is going scientifically, this is well worth reading. The point now is this: what are we to do in Australia about this? A large amount of money was allocated a couple of budgets ago to the Australian Greenhouse Office for research into this issue of climate change and what it might mean for Australia. I note, like everyone else in this House, that there has been an astonishing amount of advertising material in the newspapers and lately on the television by the Australian Greenhouse Office pointing to measures that individual citizens can take—for example, among other things, taking shorter showers. To believe that taking shorter showers is somehow going to contribute to a mitigation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is, to put it politely, drawing a very long bow. I would prefer to see some of this money spent not so much on advertising in our media but on agricultural science and on developing or forecasting the methods which we will require to adapt to climate change if it comes. If climate change does not happen as rapidly as the IPCC predicts, then the money will not be said to have been wasted. (Time expired)2560716:29:0025607Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I would like to join with my colleague the member for Cunningham in speaking about public education. On 15 March the first ever National Public Education Day was held. Public Education Day was celebrated around the country in cities and in rural and regional areas. It was celebrated in the 39 government primary and eight government high schools in my electorate of Charlton. The first ever Public Education Day celebrated the achievements of public education and sought to defend public education from the attacks by this government over the past five years. Teachers, parents and students all joined in that Thursday to celebrate and protect public education. Our local ABC radio conducted its broadcast all day from Newcastle High School. The journalists spoke with everybody involved in that public school: the principal, the students, the parents, the teachers, the support workers, the counsellors, and all the friends of public education. Amongst other events, I attended an afternoon tea at Warners Bay High School in my electorate, organised by the P&C, the students and the principal, Ms Kerri Leigh-Gordon. I took the opportunity that afternoon to speak with the school leaders, Darwin Natano, Liam Holmes, Bianca Murphy and Adee Antebey. I was impressed and inspired, but not surprised, with their intelligence, nous and commonsense. They were articulate and able to debate various issues. We spoke about youth issues and feminism, about work and family responsibilities and about politics. It was great to see our young Australians becoming involved in the political debate in our public schools.There are 7,000 public schools in Australia, and two million parents of students in public schools, but nationally we have reached the disgraceful point where this federal government spends only 32 per cent of its schools expenditure on the 70 per cent of Australia's children who benefit from public education. To quote Denis Fitzgerald, the Federal President of the Australian Education Union, we have the best education system in the world, and we aim to keep it that way. I would like to reiterate to Denis that he and his members can include me in that `we' and all of my colleagues in the Australian Labor Party. Let me look now at the history of this government with its ideological undermining of our public education system. The government's enrolment benchmark adjustment ripped away $60 million from public schools. In the schools funding legislation last year, the minister handed $60 million which was lost from 7,000 public schools to 60 category 1 private schools. I will read out just 12 of those schools which will receive millions of dollars over the next four years: Trinity Grammar in New South Wales, $3.1 million; Newington in New South Wales, an extra $1.8 million; the King's School in Parramatta, an extra $1.5 million; Wesley College in Victoria, $3.9 million; Caulfield Grammar in Victoria, $3.6 million; Haileybury in Victoria, $2.9 million; Ivanhoe Grammar in Victoria, $2.4 million; Geelong College in Victoria, $2.3 million; Geelong Grammar in Victoria, $1.7 million; Mentone Grammar in Victoria, $1.6 million; Scotch College in Victoria, an extra $1 million; and St Peters Collegiate in South Australia, an extra $1.5 million. During previous debates we have heard about the types of facilities that this government money will assist in funding. For example, the King's School in Parramatta, which charges fees of up to $11,500 a year for day students, advertises the following facilities: 15 cricket fields, five basketball courts, 12 tennis courts, a 50-metre swimming pool, a gym, two climbing walls, an indoor rifle range, 13 rugby fields, three soccer fields, a cross-country course and a boat shed. Last August the Prime Minister said that these new funding arrangements were designed to `provide more resources in a more accurate way to those communities in the independent sector that are more deserving of assistance'. That is just wrong. Just today in an article in the Australian, the principal of Geelong Grammar School was quoted as saying:... to be able to afford Geelong Grammar fees puts you in a certain category ... the reality of it is that a number of our students here come from highly privileged backgrounds.The article goes on to say that the Geelong Grammar council has been worried about the school's image of inaccessibility and was looking to change its profile in the community as the exclusive domain of the rich; but, as Ebru Yaman reports, with fees for year 12 more than $15,000 a year for day students and about $25,000 for boarders, the school inevitably remains out of the reach of most families. In stark contrast to these wealthy schools, visitors to our public schools on Public Education Day, while being delighted and inspired by the quality of education provided by public schools, would have been angered by the resource levels and maintenance arrears in some schools. Visitors would have seen teachers working in their own time to help students in need and to teach drama, dance and sport.They would have seen parent volunteers, community volunteers, Aboriginal volunteers and many more united in their determination to provide the best possible outcomes for the children in their local schools.One of those volunteers is Gordon Triplett. Gordon helps students at Booragul primary school with writing and reading in particular but assists wherever he can. Last year Gordon received a Commonwealth Recognition Award for Older Australians in appreciation of his contribution to the Booragul school community.I am proud to say that I was educated in the public system. I attended Kurri Kurri Primary School and Kurri Kurri High School. I was able to attend Canberra University without having to pay fees. Both my parents were teachers and deputy principals in public high schools. I can remember as a young child attending anti-Vietnam war rallies carrying banners and wearing T-shirts which read `It will be a great day when public education has all the funding it needs and the Air Force has to hold a cake stall to buy a bomber'. Unfortunately, our communities are still pleading for that level of funding, though fortunately not against a backdrop of war. I would like to read into Hansard two of the letters that I have received following Public Education Day. The first one is from Booragul Public School:Dear Kelly,The staff of Booragul Public School congratulate you for being one of the few members of the Federal Parliament who choose to send their own children to public schools.We also thank you for your personal stand in party forums and the Parliament which defend public education and its funding.The undersigned would like to take the opportunity to tell you to warn the coalition through Mr Howard & Dr Kemp and your own party through Messrs Beazley & Lee that we expect future policy to go against current trends. All politicians should be warned that we expect public moneys to fund public schools. Public schools provide an inclusive education. The letter goes on:We had our largest community turnout in daylight hours in many years yesterday when we held our school's Public Education Day assembly with only a few days' notice of the event. We would ask you to remind your parliamentary peers of this level of support for public schooling.It is signed by Iain Macpherson of the New South Wales Teachers Federation. Iain is a gallant and tireless advocate for public education in our area. The other letter is from Edgeworth Heights Public School:Public education is the cornerstone of our democracy and one of the reasons that Australians live in the most peaceful nation on Earth.Students from public schools are among our nation's greatest achievers. Students in public schools have the opportunity to meet and relate to others from many different backgrounds and they benefit from the knowledge and skills of dedicated teachers who are proud to be making a difference.Today in public schools and TAFE colleges across Australia we are celebrating public education—its achievements and its progress.The Edgeworth Heights School community support public education and calls on you to ensure that public education is pre-eminent in the decision-making of government.”I want to take a brief moment to respond to those schools and all the people in my community who, along with me, believe in, support and will unite to protect good quality public education for all Australians. The Labor opposition will campaign on the issue of fair funding for government and non-government schools until the next election. The Hon. Kim Beazley, Leader of the Opposition, has introduced a private member's bill which proposes to change the inequitable aspects of the government's funding arrangements for schools. The Australian Labor Party has always staunchly defended public education. It remains a key tenet of a civilised society and government must ensure that adequate public funding is provided for an inclusive education for our children.I congratulate all involved in making Public Education Day a huge success: the Australian Council of State School Organisations, the Australian Education Union, local parent organisations and principals organisations, and, of course, our local school communities—teachers, students, other staff and school friends. Only the minister diminished the day by using it as a platform to attack Labor and the AEU. In conclusion, I would like to quote the President of the Australian Council of State School Organisations, Rodney Molesworth, speaking on Public Education Day, a celebration of achievement:Public Education Day will highlight the vibrant, progressive, and inclusive cultures of public schools, and their outstanding outcomes across the whole range of the aims of schooling. It will also draw attention to the policies of political parties and the threat that some of these pose to the institution underpinning this nation's future peace and prosperity.I would like to say to all those who support public education: I support public education, the Australian Labor Party supports public education and we will continue to do so. (Time expired)2560916:39:0025609Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Last month two fine Australians died. Both lived their lives as a shining example of courage, integrity and singular commitment to personal goals and values that raised them high in the great vortex of human endeavour. One is known and loved for his spectacular talent and ability in his chosen field of sport and the other, lesser known perhaps, has been recognised for her loyalty and her courage against evil. Both, however, were known for their standards, their principles and their family values and for the way they quietly lived god-fearing lives as true blue citizens of Australia.Both these exceptional Australians lived extraordinary lives, and both will continue to command their own place within our national psyche for their own very special contributions that they have made in making Australia a little finer for the rest of us and for our children. The first, of course, is Sir Donald Bradman, who died on 25 February this year. As others have laurelled his life far better than I, it is enough for me to add that, in addition to his superiority as the world's greatest batsman, he also lived an exemplary life of principle, of love for his wife and family and of respect for his fellow human beings. The other Australian who lived an extraordinary life died only one day before Sir Donald. Her name was Barbara Mackay, a woman whose life reminded us that evil will always prosper when good people do nothing. Of course you will remember that Barbara Mackay was the wife of murdered anti-drug campaigner Donald Mackay, and her death should be a clarion, shrilly reminding each and every one of us that we ignore these warnings about violence at our own peril and at the peril of our children.Today I would like to record my personal tribute to the courageous Barbara Mackay for her principled stand against illicit drugs and official corruption and also for her achievements in the area of drug rehabilitation. I take no pride in stating that Barbara Mackay did this important work against a backdrop of attempts to vilify her as a widow and physical threats to herself and the surviving members of her family, following her husband's assassination in 1977. Donald Mackay was murdered because of the effectiveness of his anti-drug campaign in the heartland of illicit drug production and distribution in the Griffith district of New South Wales during the 1970s. In one of life's little ironies, Barbara Mackay died only a few weeks after the assassin hired to kill her husband was released from prison. James Frederick Bazley, now aged 75, walked free despite a life sentence for the murder of the drug couriers Isobel and Douglas Wilson and for the conspiracy to murder Donald Mackay. It was alleged that ethnically based organised crime bosses paid Bazley $10,000 to execute Mr Mackay in a hotel car park in Griffith on the evening of 15 July 1977 and to dispose of his body. The perpetrators who were responsible for ordering and paying for his killing have never been brought to justice. We can only hope that, with the reflection that comes in later life, someone's conscience will speak to them loud enough for them to come forward and confess the truth. The full truth was never revealed to the public, despite quite a lot being known about organised crime in Griffith at that time—a good deal of which was revealed in the 1979 Woodward Royal Commission into Drug Trafficking report, which even named identities.It was the circumstances of Mr Mackay's murder that stopped the nation at the time. It was not the result of a failure in human relationships or a criminal dispute; it was a murder that involved official corruption and, as such, it remains a blot on the official life of Australia. Had justice prevailed in the 1970s, we may have learned lessons that could have helped in the present day combat against ethnically based organised drug crime in Australia. Perhaps John Newman would still be alive and still be the state member for a very different Cabramatta from that which exists today.Donald Mackay was killed because his antidrug activities were endangering the profits flowing from illicit drug production and distribution by well connected people in the Griffith area. Those profits directly and indirectly enriched many people whose hands today are stained with the blood of Donald Mackay. Mr Mackay also campaigned against corruption of people in high places, people with power and positions of influence and all those who, by either their omission or their commission, cleared the way for organised crime to succeed.Barbara Mackay died before she could publish her book entitled Before I Forget. It was due to be released on the 20th anniversary of Donald Mackay's death in 1997 but was forced to be withdrawn on legal advice. This is another irony as it seems that, while the classification laws legalise the publication of sleaze, the defamation laws in our country outlaw the publication of truth. As Barbara Mackay said, `My husband was effectively silenced, and now it is my turn.' In an interview shown on the ABC's 7.30 Report on 3 December 1991, Barbara Mackay said: I think one of the frustrating things is that constantly people are saying to you: `We're looking after it', you know, `we've got it in hand'. The Premier, right at the beginning, said: `We shall leave no stone unturned', and you realise it's just garbage, you know, they've got no commitment to change.Both Donald Mackay and his wife, Barbara, have passed from this world now, and the least we can do is to put on the record our regret that official Australia let them down and that the elected representatives of the people failed to heed the warning written all over Donald Mackay's murder.Our inaction has won us a terrible double-barrelled legacy. Firstly, there are the thousands of young people caught in the net of suicide or other mental illness induced in full or in part by marijuana, the so-called soft, harmless or recreational drug. It was this drug that the Griffith mafia did so much to promote and entrench in Australia's youth culture, and this is more blood on their hands. For many, marijuana has been the door to heroin addiction and worse. Secondly, today there are approximately 70,000 heroin and methadone addicts who are the disabled product of organised crime and the tolerant official policy attitude to the use of illicit drugs that the Mackays strove so courageously to expose and that still continues and remains the official policy.Today, we still fail to heed the warnings of other areas of violence against the minds of our young people. I refer to the horror that passes as entertainment today. A few weeks ago the rap performer known as Eminem won three prestigious Grammys for his music that had sold eight million recordings. In the lyrics, he talks of killing his wife and his mother. According to the widely read entertainment paper the Rolling Stone, the lyrics were a masterpiece. These lyrics are certainly not a masterpiece to wives and mothers. Despite the protestations of the music industry, the eight million buyers of this demonic material are immature children and youth, for whom they are designed and to whom they are marketed and targeted. The Rolling Stone article I referred to earlier and the other industry comments are the same sort of vested interest protection that was used to cover up the corruption that the Mackays tried to expose in the area of illicit drugs.The leader of another pop group, Marilyn Manson, who performed to tens of thousands of Australian youth, is Brian Warner, an ordained minister of the Church of Satan in the United States. Some of his raps include, `Kill God, kill your parents and kill yourself.' I am informed that he once tossed a six-week-old puppy into the audience and encouraged the kids to rip it to pieces and to smear the blood on one another, which they did. Regretfully, his kind of `entertainment' has been promoted in Australia by Triple J. This is the same sort of lack of judgment by people in official and responsible positions and the same sort of failure to act that undermined the Mackay murder investigation.There are more important consequences than entertainment industry profits. Two young followers of Marilyn Manson known as the Trench Coat Mafia, screaming out `Marilyn Manson rules', carried out the massacre of 13 classmates at Colombine High School in 1999. Their targets were mostly Christian students who had spoken out against Manson's music of hate.A further encouragement of desensitisation to violence and killing was recently released in the film Hannibal. This feature film contains a graphic sequence in which one character eats a man's brain. The Office of Film and Literature Classification did not have the brains to appropriately classify Hannibal, and the Attorney-General had to intervene and get it reclassified. Can any of us really imagine someone of the stature of Don Bradman going to see rubbish like this? Why in the world do we allow our children? One of the daily Sydney newspapers reported two 14-year-old children who had been allowed in to see Hannibal. One has to ask whether or not the movie operators were ever prosecuted for breaching the classification regulations. There is too much violence in the media and in the live entertainment industry at any hour of the day or night. To varying degrees, it is desensitising our children and adults alike. It is not only the classifiers who are failing to protect our children from harm; there is not enough law enforcement of videos and this sort of entertainment at the state level. Last year, a Sydney teenager who murdered a 15-year-old boy at Katoomba was desensitised to killing him by viewing snuff movies. These videos showed real-life scenes of killing, cruelty and torture. He had been introduced to snuff movies by his satanist drug dealer. He said that he felt queasy the first time he was shown the movies but that over time he came to feel a rush or a thrill. It seems that there is no specific offence for the possession of snuff movies, and I have been unable to identify any convictions in regard to them. In fact, the low number of convictions for breaches of any of the classification laws is evidence of its low law enforcement priority, despite the ever-increasing evidence of harm.Official attitudes are changing in the United States, even under the Clinton administration, where they are beginning to treat TV violence as a public health issue. There are reports that the US Surgeon General is about to release a report that concludes that the old debate about the effects of exposure to TV violence is over. Graphically violent entertainment hurts children. (Time expired)2561216:49:0025612Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I rise to talk in the grievance debate today about banks—and what a thing to grieve over! We have witnessed increasingly arrogant behaviour from the banks in this country over recent times. We have seen closures of banks occur with regularity. We have seen fee increases as almost the norm and probably never with any acceptable excuse or explanation to the customer base they are affecting. Within my electorate in recent times, three branches have closed or are due to close. The Westpac branch at Curtin closed in April last year. That was followed by the Commonwealth branch at Wanniassa in January 2001 and the National Australia branch at Phillip will be closing in May. I will briefly outline what happened in each of these cases.On 4 April last year I received a letter from Westpac's regional manager, ACT and southeast New South Wales region, telling me that they were not going to close a branch—and this is what I found very cute—that they were going to amalgamate the Curtin and Woden branches. I call that a closure but they choose to call it an amalgamation. The letter came to me dated 4 April and the closure, or amalgamation, occurred on 28 April, just over three weeks later. In the letter they said, amongst other things:I can assure you that this decision to amalgamate the Curtin and Woden branches was only taken after detailed analysis of such key business issues as:Changes in retail shopping patterns in the area.The way in which Curtin branch customers carry out their banking.The overall level of customer usage of the Curtin branch.I am sure you would recognise that the information considered in this analysis is commercial-in-confidence. In other words, it is all a top-secret to them as to how they came to the decision to close the Curtin branch and move their business into Woden. I disregard the word amalgamation, I think it is very cheeky. That is what happened in relation to the Curtin branch of Westpac. I contacted the business sector surrounding that branch in the retail area of Curtin and found that a number of them were going to close their business with Westpac and move to the Commonwealth, a branch of which still existed at the Curtin shops at the time, and I believe it still does.The next closure was the Commonwealth branch at Wanniassa. I received a letter from their regional manager, sales and service, dated 1 December 2000, to tell me that on 12 January 2001, the Commonwealth's Wanniassa branch would cease operations. They said: The decision to close this branch was taken only after a thorough investigation of many factors, including both current and future business trends, customer usage and the alternative services.One of the alternative services they told their customers to go to was the Post Office, without realising that the Post Office had also closed, but that is another issue. I took them to task and wrote to them outlining my concerns on behalf of my constituency. They wrote back and said:The decision to close this branch was taken only after a thorough investigation of all factors affecting the Commonwealth Bank's business.I find that a notable comment because it talks about the Commonwealth Bank's business but does not mention its customers. Further down, the letter says:Closure of any branch is contemplated only where business levels have not met our expectations to the extent that a difficult decision had to be made. Then there is the very telling sentence—It is not normal practice to involve local business or community consultation about the decision to close a branch.Thank you very much. No wonder they are only considering factors affecting the Commonwealth Bank's business because they admit to me that they do not do anything in relation to consultation with local business or local community people. They also say:People who still use passbooks for over-the-counter withdraws may be impacted by the branch closure...The pricing of our product range is geared to offer substantial savings to our customers who use card based electronic mechanisms and there is genuine financial gain and convenience for our customers.They also say that they understand that it will unfortunately deprive some of their customers of a convenience. It certainly does. It certainly also indicates to me the absolute manipulation by the banks of the marketplace. In other words, if you want to sell more of one product and less of another, you gear your fees and costs accordingly and you make sure that the one that you want to get rid of is the one that is most difficult for the customer to maintain. And that is exactly what that bank has indicated it does, as I think others do as well, by saying, `Look, if they get rid of their passbooks, we won't need that branch. So we'll do that by making our other services a little bit cheaper for them.' But that is without any regard for the needs of the customers concerned.The third closure that we are facing now is the National Australia Bank, which tells us that they are going to be closing their Phillip South branch on 23 May. They say that `due to a decline in customer traffic and over-the-counter transactions' they are deciding to close that branch. When I rang the person suggested in that letter and asked for more details—as I was encouraged to do—a funny thing occurred. The bank officer I spoke to said, `Look, whenever I visit that branch on behalf of the bank it is virtually empty—nobody there.' They then went on to say, however, that the four staff who were in that branch would probably be located elsewhere but the bank was going to employ five more people at the levels of II, II and I in three close-by branches to handle the customer overflow from the closure of Phillip. Now, you cannot have it both ways—you cannot have an empty bank and, at the same time, confess that you have to employ people in other branches in the area to handle the overflow of that closure. It is terribly arrogant and, I think, unbelievably contradictory.I believe the attitude of the banks has got to the point where the community is demanding something be done. My community has made it very clear to me at every opportunity they have that the banks must learn again to respect the various needs of their customers, to value each one of them, regardless of their economic or social situation, and to ensure that they judge their continuing success not only by the margin of their huge profits but also by the service to and consideration of each of their customers. I do not for one moment say that banks should not make a profit—they are happy to—but they cannot do it at the cost to these other customers. I am very pleased today to see the release of the Labor Party policy for better banking because that policy has the very things that I have been talking about. It has the social charter of community obligations for banks which will be legally binding on those banks. If the banks refuse to negotiate that acceptable social charter, a Labor government will impose a charter through legislation. That charter will be developed in close consultation with the banking industry, consumers, pension allowance recipients, community groups, representatives of rural and regional Australia, and other interest groups. The social charter will be legally enforceable, as any contract is. We do not believe that a social charter has any point at all unless it is absolutely enforceable.In relation to the three local branch closures that we have seen in recent times in my electorate, it is interesting to see in our policy platform that where a bank proposes closing a branch, Labor will ensure that communities are consulted. So the bank that said that they do not talk to anybody about it and that their surveys are commercial-in-confidence will have to have a new approach to the way they relate to their client base and their community, and I will be very pleased to see that. We also say in our policy that a notice period of six months will be required for each branch closure to allow communities to find alternatives. My community in Tuggeranong, where the Wanniassa branch of the Commonwealth closed, are currently attempting to get up a community bank—and good on them because if these banks will not service that community maybe a community bank will.The other thing in our platform that I am pleased to see is that banks will be required to consult with communities prior to a bank closure, and so they should. So a three-week notice from the Westpac bank about the closure of the Curtin branch last year will no longer be able to happen. And it means that the Commonwealth, the NAB—and, in fact, the whole lot of them—are going to have to come to grips with the fact that a Labor government, when we are in power, will simply not allow to happen what has been happening in the past—an absolute and total cheap disregard for those community customers out there, who are very important individuals, who see a great value in their communication with their bank and who have a history of supporting those banks in the past. I applaud that policy released today. (Time expired)2561416:59:0025614St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise in the House today to again bring to the House's attention the importance of the Roads to Recovery program to local councils, particularly local councils in my electorate of New England. There has been quite considerable discussion on the Roads to Recovery program and the fact that it is delivering for our road networks in regional Australia a much needed and long overdue level of service that we have been unable to provide through local government for a long time. In the 11 years that I was involved in local councils as a councillor and then as a mayor one of the dreams I had was to see funds coming to our local council roads to fix that little culvert or that bit of road that had always been boggy in rainy times and to be able to ensure that the children of the people who lived out on properties were able to get to school.Quite often, when we talk about council roads, people in the city seem to take for granted the fact that they always have access to be able to get out and go to school or go to the shops whereas I can assure you, in country areas that has not been the case. When I look at the Roads to Recovery program and what it has delivered direct from the Commonwealth to local councils, I think it is tremendous. In my electorate alone, over the four-year period of the Roads to Recovery program, it will deliver an extra $23 million direct to local councils for their local road network. In fact, as there are two payments due before the end of June this year, that is directly putting about $2.8 million extra into the road network. Last week I went out with the mayor of one of my local councils, the Guyra Shire Council, together with some of its councillors and engineers, to have a look at the work being done on many of the roads that were pinpointed years ago as desperately needing a gravel resheeting program. To stand there on the side of these roads while the trucks were rolling was incredible because you are physically seeing, for the first time, substantial works being done which will bring direct benefits to the people who live in those areas.I pay tribute to the Guyra Shire Council, its mayor, Robyn Jackson, and its five councillors; to Geoff Brooks, the general manager, and his engineering staff, led by David Wolfendon; and to works engineer, Andrew Dance. I also take this opportunity to congratulate the staff of Guyra Shire Council, those who drive the trucks and the graders and those who provide the supervision for these works to be done, because they are rolling out a gravel resheeting program at about a kilometre per day. That is quite an achievement when you consider the old standards that people used to use. They are using a combination of their own day labour—which is, as I say, highly trained and very professional—and subcontractors, particularly with the trucks and their dozer work. To see the level of professionalism that one of their new grader drivers who has just started on the graders is bringing to the job is, I think, a credit to the whole staff.Why I have taken the time to go through this today is that I believe that this has been one of the most significant programs that this government have been able to deliver for our road network, whether it is in the federal seat of New England or indeed the seat of the minister at the table, the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the member for Maranoa—an enormous electorate. His seat borders my seat and I know that his councils have written to him expressing their appreciation for the extra funding and, as I say, mine have as well.YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott—It is not a boondoggle.84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR—It is not a boondoggle at all. The Labor Party seem to think that country roads are something that nobody should look after and that funds should not be allocated to them. It is important that we recognise that there are people living on roads which often do not get their fair share of taxpayers' money. For example, I know that 4.9 kilometres of resheeting is being done on the Old Armidale Road by Guyra Shire Council in the electorate of New England. I know that people who travel that road to take their stock to market or in turn to receive superphosphate and other inputs to their farm certainly appreciate the fact that that work is being done. Brushy Creek Road is only a small road, but it is vitally important and the council has been able to do a gravel resheeting program in areas where it was very boggy. There has been $2,600 spent on that road. I am joined here by the member for Parkes who also has a keen interest in local council roads.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—Another endangered species!84BSt Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR—That again shows that the Labor Party has no conception of what is happening in the country. The member for Parkes is also aware of the need to get this money paid directly to councils, not for it to be put back through the states. Jackson Road is to have $7,800 spent on it. The Moredum Dams Road is very important not only for the local industry but also for tourism. Under the Roads to Recovery program, $29,000 worth of work is going into that road alone. Junction Road is another one that carries a lot of traffic, $20,000; the Falls Road, $6,800; the Hilton Road, $5,100; and $28,000 worth of work is to go into Ramah Road, an enormous amount. As I look at the map of the shire and the way that the engineer has been able to split up this work—over the years I have travelled all those sections of road—I notice that the work covers the whole of the shire from the eastern side right through to the west and through to the Ben Lomond region. People in my electorate in particular are just so pleased that the Howard-Anderson government has delivered substantial funds to our local council road networks. As we look at some of the larger shires in my electorate and the programs that they have undertaken, we see that Inverell Council has a very large area to look after. Under this program, they receive an extra $826,000 per year for the next four years. Their engineer, Greg Moran, and the mayor, Barry Johnston, have both taken great delight in advising me of council's readiness to get into the work, to get the gravel resheeting programs down and to get some new culverts in a lot of areas where they have been washed away or have been eroded over a period of time. Even in the smaller councils in my electorate, in Manilla for example, Paul McManus and his team have an extra $265,000 a year coming into their road network for the delivery of gravel resheeting programs. They were unable to complete some roads, as the funds they were receiving were insufficient. I am not suggesting for one moment that we should stop at the end of this program. I believe it should be an ongoing program. I still do not believe that it is enough money to be spent on our local council road networks. What we have to do, though, is to put pressure on the New South Wales Minister for Transport, Carl Scully, and on Mr Bob Carr to get them to spend some of their money on the state road network. I have a road that actually runs right through the Guyra Shire Council, Main Road 135 or the Guyra to Ebor road, that is still unsealed—a major road. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative.Committees25616256162561610000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Lloyd to be a member of the Selection Committee in place of Mrs Elson.Motion (by Mr Scott)—by leave—agreed to.That Mrs Elson be discharged from the Selection Committee and that, in her place, Mr Lloyd be appointed a member of the committee.Bills25616Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills:Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission Amendment Bill 2001Communications and the Arts Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001Sydney Harbour Federation Trust Bill 2001National Museum of Australia Amendment Bill 2001Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001Therapeutic Goods Amendment Bill 2001Environment and Heritage Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001Workplace Relations Amendment (Tallies and Picnic Days) Bill 2001Australian Research Council Bill 2001Australian Research Council (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2001Defence Legislation Amendment (Enhancement of the Reserves and Modernisation) Bill 2001Defence Reserve Service (Protection) Bill 2001Medicare Levy Amendment (CPI Indexation) Bill (No. 1) 2001Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001Bills25616R118225616Debate resumed from 8 March, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.17:11:0025616Sciacca, Con, MPMr SCIACCA6J4BowmanALP00—In rising today to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Integrity of Regional Migration Schemes) Bill 2000, first of all, I want to say that this is essentially a positive bill, designed to tighten some provisions within the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme. The scheme has been a valuable tool over the last several years to address skill shortages in the regions and to attract good migrants, quality migration, to work and settle in regional areas. I understand that, depending on which state has actually embraced it, it has been quite a good scheme. My understanding also is that South Australia has ended up with something like one-half of them. Since the beginning of the scheme, over 2,000 migrants have benefited from this program. To date there has been little evidence of abuse, meaning that these migrants are indeed moving to and settling in regional areas for, at the very least, the designated period of time—namely, two years. The opposition is keen to see that the scheme continues and prospers in our regions, along with any program that encourages the repopulation and revitalisation of our regional centres. Any Australian state would benefit from an influx of good, skilled and community minded migrants flowing to regional areas. Indeed, I was in Ballarat only a couple of days ago and I met with members of the multicultural community in that town. Whilst it is not a very large community, it certainly could do with an influx of more people. Indeed, they said to me that there were enough of them to have a need for services in that area so that those who do come and settle in those places—not under this scheme but under any scheme—would have appropriate services to rely on. They were very keen on getting some extra services up there so that they could attract people of non-English speaking backgrounds to go there and to stay there. The concern that I have with this bill—and I hope that the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs will address it in his summing up speech, and I am sure that he will—is that Labor wants to see the employee, the person who holds the visa under this program, being protected in the event that, through no fault of his or her own, the job is terminated or the employer can no longer employ them, for whatever reason. I certainly take heart from the words of the minister, who in his second reading speech said:The new power to cancel a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa would not—And I repeat that:would not generally be used where a nominating employer terminates the employment contract within the two-year period. Cancelling a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa in such a situation would not serve the purposes of the scheme, particularly where the circumstances leading to the termination are outside the employer's or visa holder's control.He goes on to say:For example, a failure to commence or remain in employment will not generally lead to visa cancellation where a downturn in business activity, closure of the business, financial loss or bankruptcy is involved.As the minister has asserted in the speech, it would defeat the purpose of the scheme to select someone whom we deem would make a good contribution to the local community and economy and then send them back to their country of origin.In addition to the assurances in the minister's second speech, I would ask that the minister instruct the department to ensure that, in the event that through no fault of their own the sponsored applicant finds himself or herself out of work, the ensuing investigation would be conducted in consultation with the employer, the employee and, if appropriate, the employer's and the employee's representatives. Statements should be obtained from all the parties involved to ensure that, provided there is no fault at all on the part of the employee, their visa is not cancelled. I am assured by the minister and the minister's representatives that that is not the case and that, if something like this does happen, most of the consultations are with the person who holds the visa—in this case, the employee. I would like to think that such measures would not be necessary—that is, I would like to obtain this assurance—and that the department would, at all times, act with the utmost sensitivity and compassion under these circumstances.I do not intend to speak at length about this bill because, basically, it simply wants to tighten up the powers of the minister and the department to cancel a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa in the event that it is being abused. I do not think that there is much evidence that it has been abused, but this is a bill which obviously wants to address situations that may arise. Subject to the minister, in his summing up speech, assuring the opposition in this House that his department will be instructed to ensure that all sides are taken into consideration; that statements will be obtained from all parties—particularly from the employee who will, of course, be the person most aggrieved or most associated with any cancellations because it is their visa—that full investigations will be carried out; that all parties will be treated with the utmost sensitivity and compassion; and that it would be under only very abnormal circumstances, where there is clearly a case that the employee has come here under false pretences, had no intention of working in that nominated area or with that employer and that it was a sham, that a person would have their visa cancelled, the opposition will support the bill. Provided the minister is prepared to give us those assurances in his summing up, the opposition will support the bill. 17:18:0025618Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I am pleased to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Integrity of Regional Migration Schemes) Bill 2000, the import of its content, and to support the comments made by the shadow minister, because it gives me an opportunity to talk about my home state of Tasmania, particularly my region of Mersey-Lyell in north-west Tasmania and because, at the same time, it gives me an opportunity to comment on the question of population, its unfortunate decline in Tasmania since 1996 and the policies and programs designed to improve that, particularly under the present Labor government. The bill as it stands amends the Migration Act 1958 to introduce a new visa cancellation scheme for Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visas. In effect, the bill is designed to provide the minister with power to cancel a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa. The Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme encourages the migration of skilled persons, particularly for the benefit of regional and rural Australia. The scheme was established, as a pilot, in 1995 in recognition of the fact that regional and rural Australia have difficulty in attracting and retaining skilled migrants to alleviate local skills shortages. The Migration Regulations 1994 provide that a criterion for the grant of a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa is that the visa applicant has been nominated by an employer in respect of an approved appointment that will provide full-time employment for at least two years.The Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme is one of a number of schemes, collectively called state specific migration mechanisms, which provide state and territory governments with the opportunity to influence the number and the profile of skilled migrants settling in their areas. It is important to reiterate the intent of these schemes. They are very important to rural and regional Australia, particularly in terms of assessing their effectiveness. The objectives of these mechanisms are to address skill shortages that may exist in the jurisdictions so mentioned, to attract overseas business people to establish new or joint ventures, and to encourage a more balanced dispersal of Australia's skilled migrant intake.Since 1995, there has been an increasing trend of Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa grants. For example, in 1996-97, 170 visas were granted; in 1997-98, 581 visas were granted; in 1998-99, 765 visas were granted; and, in 1999-2000, 640 visas were granted. Out of the total planned intake of 82,000, that is not remarkably significant. However, it does play an important role, as mentioned by the shadow minister. Under the state specific migration mechanisms, a total of 3,309 visas were granted in the period 1999-2000—up from 1,126 in 1996-97—out of a total planned intake of 82,000. As has been mentioned earlier, more than half of these have gone to South Australia, the state which most actively promoted the mechanisms. An applicant for a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa must meet certain entry requirements, and rightfully so, including: the requirements for lodging a valid visa application; hold a visa of an acceptable kind or before becoming an unlawful non-citizen have held an acceptable visa—for example, temporary business, medical practitioner, business long stay, et cetera; be nominated by an approved employer for an approved appointment in Australia; be under 45, except in exceptional circumstances; have a diploma or higher degree that is relevant to the appointment, except in exceptional circumstances; arrange an assurance of support if one is requested; meet health and character requirements; be likely to settle in Australia without undue difficulty or cost; and, if their application includes a family member under 18, meet the special custody and best interests of the child requirements. Employers, on the other hand, must have the appointment approved by certain bodies—for example, chambers of commerce.In order to gain a more even distribution of skilled migrants across the country, substantial concessions are made in relation to the criteria for the grant of a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa. These include the need only for diploma level qualifications and the possible waiver of language and age requirements. However, the key criterion for the grant of a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa relates to employment in Australia. The criterion is that the visa applicant has been nominated by an employer in respect of an approved appointment and that the appointment will provide full-time work for at least two years in regional or rural Australia. This requires a two-year contract of employment between the visa applicant and the nominating employer. The purpose of the amendments before the House is to safeguard against any potential misuse of the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme and to discourage persons who do not have any genuine intention of settling in regional or rural Australia.The amendment is supported not only by this side of the House but also by the Business Advisory Panel which provides expert advice on the government's business entry programs. The proposed new visa cancellation scheme will, subject to certain requirements, enable the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to cancel a person's Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa if the minister is satisfied that either the person has not commenced the employment referred to in the relevant employer nomination within a period prescribed in the regulations or the person commenced the employment referred to in the relevant employer nomination and the employment terminated within the required employment period of two years. Likewise, cancellation may occur if the person does not satisfy the minister that either he or she made a genuine effort to commence that employment within that period or he or she has made a genuine effort to be engaged in that employment for the required employment period—and rightly so.The scheme will not affect existing Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa holders or a person who is granted a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa as a result of a visa application made before the amendments to the act commence. Rather, it will apply only to Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visas granted after the amendments to the act. The shadow minister's request of the minister at the table is indeed worthy of consideration, particularly where an investigation can show that the employee really was not responsible for the termination of that employment. That is only sensible.In terms of my home state of Tasmania, I think it is of little news to people that Tasmania is certainly experiencing population decline—certainly since 1996—and is undertaking serious consideration of programs to arrest this. I know the Tasmanian government has had communication with the minister and his department and is undertaking certain arrangements to best tackle some of the issues which I will refer to a bit later on. Tasmania's population exhibited continuous growth for all of the past century—except for 1941—until December 1996. The decline since 1996, as I have mentioned, has made population a major policy issue for successive Tasmanian governments. It is clear that a growing population is very important for ensuring that Tasmanians continue to enjoy a high standard of living and is indeed important for a vibrant Tasmanian economy and community into the future. I point out that population decline in Tasmania has not been a cause, but rather a consequence, of Tasmania's poor economic performance for most of the 1990s. While population issues are indeed complex, it is clear that the overwhelming cause of Tasmania's population decline has been the increased outflow of working age Tasmanians as a result of the decline of job opportunities, as I mentioned, in the 1990s. It is expected that the population decline will cease and that within 18 months Tasmania's population will be growing as a result of the recent expansion in the economy, particularly with the number of new jobs created in Tasmania since February 1999. Since that time, total employment in Tasmania has risen by around 9,000, or 4.6 per cent. Tasmania's estimated total population at June 2000 was 470,376 persons and, according to ABS estimates, that represented a loss of about 4,000 people from when Tasmania's population peaked in September 1996 at 474,196.Increased job opportunities inevitably result in a reduced outflow of those people seeking employment opportunities elsewhere and in more people being attracted to live in Tasmania. It is already clear that the rate of population decline has slowed significantly from when employment growth was first restored in February 1999. The creation of new jobs and greater job opportunities for Tasmanians on a long-term sustainable basis has been the key policy objective of the Bacon government since taking office in September 1998.The link between jobs and population is well understood and has been clearly demonstrated in many developed countries, most notably Ireland, which achieved a reversal of population decline through improved economic performance and jobs growth. Government programs and strategies designed to address population issues in Tasmania include the following: industry development plan and financial strategy; skills response program; business migration and international business relocation program; investment attraction missions; competitiveness strategy; government marketing, promotion and publications; public sector job security initiatives; multicultural policy; arts development policy; and an international students program.The government also recognises that, if unchecked, the recent strong out-migration of young adults between the ages of 20 and 34 will reduce future fertility levels, which in turn will impact adversely on longer term population growth and, of course, this impacts on immigration. The availability of greater job opportunities for those in this age group will not only assist in achieving population growth in the short term but also help address longer term fertility issues by dealing with the underrepresentation of those in the child bearing age groups within the overall population. Tasmania's fertility rates and mortality rates are similar to the national trends. However, this will remain the case only if the underlying problem of population decline is addressed effectively. In Tasmania around 25,000 people, or over five per cent of the population, are moving to, or leaving, the state annually. However, from 1996 this has resulted in a net loss in population, primarily in the most fertile age group of 20- to 34-year-olds. Why is this so? The overwhelming reason why a significant increase in Tasmanians leaving the state occurred was that, throughout most of the 1990s, local job opportunities were limited relative to the rest of Australia. The experience for too many Tasmanians throughout that period was that job opportunities were so scarce for a prolonged period that job seekers left not only the labour market in increasing numbers—as evidenced by the declining participation rate—but also the state. Tasmania's population level will always be relative to its economic performance. Commonsense would indicate this correlation. If honourable members would like to do some detailed investigation of that, I recommend a parliamentary research paper written by Graeme Hugo titled `Regional development through immigration? The reality behind the rhetoric',research paper No. 9, 1999-2000. I found that very interesting and rewarding. I would like to make some comments a bit later on some of those conclusions. Although the government in Tasmania recognises that there will always be interstate departures, the important point is that sustained job growth prevents forced interstate departures. The Tasmanian economic recovery since the beginning of 1999 has already impacted on departures from Tasmania. As at January 2001, there was an all-time record of 202,200 Tasmanians employed, a declining unemployment rate of 9.1 per cent and a growing participation rate—that is, those in work or looking for work—of 59.8 per cent. Since the beginning of 1999 until January 2001, around 9,000 additional jobs have been created. Tassie's jobs growth after that same period—4.6 per cent—has been higher than the jobs growth in the nation as whole, at 4.4 per cent. Of the 9,000 jobs created, about half have been full time. One of the misconceptions in recent times has been that the Tasmanian economic recovery has been diminished because of part-time jobs. This clearly is not the case. At the same time that job numbers have grown strongly, the average number of hours worked by those same people has remained steady, at around 33 hours.In terms of international migration, the Tasmanian government has been working actively with the Commonwealth and initiating new state based programs and policies to increase international migration to Tasmania. For example, the government has set out to strengthen its cooperation with the Commonwealth. Minister, I believe government representatives met with you in February and in November 2000 with very positive outcomes, such as greater flexibility in assisting Tassie to establish more business migrants in the state. Tasmania's industry development plan is very important for this purpose. Business migration applications are to be processed in Hobart rather than in Sydney and I believe there will be direct contact between state and Commonwealth officers. This relationship will lead to greater efficiencies and understanding. The Department of State Development is an active participant in Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs working parties. Also in my state non-government service providers are extensively used and valued. We have also developed a multicultural policy and have worked on international migrant missions, particularly to South Africa—on a number of occasions—Korea and the UK.The skills response unit and skills database programs in conjunction with the Commonwealth Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme are very important in that the skills database is able to identify skill shortages and make recommendations about the entry of international migrants to the state. In 1999-2000, 83 international migrants were assisted through this program. The skills response unit and skills database are used to target individuals—and their accompanying families should that be relevant—outside of the state with specific skill sets to meet skill shortages in Tasmania. During 1999-2000, 22 intending business migrants made exploratory visits to the state. The number of skilled migrants who now reside in Tasmania through the assistance of regional sponsored migration schemes are, in 1998-99, 71; in 1999-2000, 83; in 2000-01, 54, until January 2001. Most of the positions filled by international migrants utilising the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme are highly skilled and well paid—for example, doctors, power system engineers and geologists. The Tasmanian government is confident that the number of exploratory visits by business migrants in 1999-2000, coupled with the current target of programs and resources, will deliver record numbers of business migrants in 2000-01 and in 2001-02.Finally, Graeme Hugo, in his report that I mentioned earlier, does in fact question the efforts and expenditure to try to attract newly arrived immigrants to regional areas in Australia, particularly one like my own. He believes in fact that perhaps more emphasis should be placed on those people already living in Australia and seeking relocation.(Time expired)17:38:0025622Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—in reply—I thank those members who have participated in this debate on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Integrity of Regional Migration Schemes) Bill 2000. I thank particularly the shadow minister, the member for Bowman, and the members for Oxley, Dawson, Lowe, Riverina, Calwell, McPherson and Braddon. Can I say how much I welcome the support that has been foreshadowed by honourable members for this bill. This is an important bill because it is designed to ensure the integrity of the schemes that we have put in place to encourage people to disperse if they come to Australia as migrants. The reasons are very clear. You have a disproportionate number of new arrivals settling in Sydney—not in New South Wales but primarily in Sydney—and really about half of those who are left settling elsewhere in Australia. When it gets to 43 or 44 per cent of new arrivals all settling in New South Wales, and mostly in Sydney, it is a disproportionate outcome. If you look at the internal migration that occurs—and some internal migration does occur and people do leave Sydney—you see that the overall impact has been that Sydney's growth has continued unabated with all of the problems that an urban centre of that size experiences. That has been reflected in the comments that you hear from the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Carr, about the impact upon the environment and upon the urban amenity of Sydney, and it is why, if you look at a whole range of issues, the New South Wales government is doing less than most other governments around Australia to attract new migrants. It is quite interesting. This government has done more to try to achieve a dispersal of migrants than any of its predecessors; yet, if you look at the number of people whose decisions we were able to influence, it is still a very small portion of the whole—but it is not for the want of trying. We have more initiatives in place than there have ever been. They operate in relation to family reunion, they operate in relation to skilled migration and they operate in relation to business migrants. We have endeavoured to give people incentives to settle outside of Sydney and, to a lesser extent, Melbourne, and yet it does not change as many decisions as you would like it to.I have endeavoured to shift the outcome through other decisions. I have made a number of decisions in relation to the refugee and humanitarian program to get people to look at Tasmania, Queensland, South Australia and the Northern Territory. I have tried to use the community refugee support schemes as a way of getting people to those places with appropriate support mechanisms in place. I started with the temporary protection visa holders by determining that nobody—unless they arrived unlawfully and were held at Villawood in Sydney—was to be released into New South Wales. About 4,600 people have been released on temporary protection visas. If I remember the figures correctly, about 3,400 or so are on social security benefits. We can monitor what those people on social security benefits do. A thousand people released elsewhere in Australia on social security benefits have moved to New South Wales, to Sydney. No special provisions have been put in place by the New South Wales government in the same way that governments in other parts of Australia have put in place provisions to try to ameliorate the impact of the temporary protection visas, but 1,000 people have picked up stakes and moved to Sydney—and they are only the ones who are on social security benefits whose movements we have been able to monitor.We have asked many to go to Tasmania. I have to tell the honourable member for Braddon that, while it disappoints me, significant numbers of the people who were relocated to Tasmania saw Tasmania as a way—unless they were going to Perth—to get closer to Melbourne. If they were in Launceston, they disappeared fairly shortly and went to Melbourne. When we were shifting one group of people to Launceston, once they had reached Melbourne they refused to get on the plane to go on to Tasmania. 849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—I don't understand.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—I find it hard to understand as well. I do appreciate your comments about the high level of cooperation that exists between me, as minister, and the ministry in relation to getting better outcomes on dispersal, because I can assure you that it is a genuine effort on our part. It is not political; I am not trying to gain any points with it. I happen to think, and the government thinks, that it is in the national interest to get that shift. I have to say that one of the reasons that I can hold up the numbers of people in some of our regional offices is that we have shifted some of the case loads. It has been done with Indonesian case loads, which have gone to South Australia, and we are looking at doing the same with South Africa, probably going to Perth, in the next little while. We have made a number of changes which have enabled particular regional offices to develop a capacity to help with some of our offshore processing where that can be done with integrity. It means that you can keep your departmental staff in those regional locations without having to look at downsizing those operations, which you might have to do in other circumstances.I appreciate that the honourable member for Lowe has come into the chamber. I do want to thank him for his contributions, not so much in relation to regional migration but more in relation to matters that might otherwise have been outside the ambit of this bill, and I do want to take up these matters before I proceed to deal with the substantive issues. The member for Lowe made much of the issue of parent migration, which I understand. I have heard Deputy Speaker Crosio, as the member for Prospect, speaking about these matters at other times, so I am conscious of the debate that has been occurring in relation to family migration. I am not unresponsive to those issues either, because I do recognise the desire of families to be reunited in Australia. But, with one in every four Australians having been born overseas, just ponder on the number of people who would be able to come to Australia if we said that family reunion was essentially unrestricted. When most people think about family reunion they think about it in terms of nephews and nieces, uncles and aunts and adult brothers and sisters. They assume that almost automatically. The possibilities are just so large that they cannot be accommodated.We still have a very significant family reunion program in world terms, and we remain committed to it. Australia's family reunion program is still more generous and flexible than that of many other comparable countries. It may surprise you to know that. For example, Canada only recently allowed onshore applications from spouses and children. Until then, people had not been able to apply onshore in Canada in the way that those who are lawful can here in Australia. Australia recognises de facto marital relations in its immigration program. In the United States, you have to be in a marriage relationship. De facto relationships are not acknowledged for migration purposes.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MP0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—Nobody sought to change it. People argue very strongly that there is a need for children to have their parents here in Australia, often to help support the bringing up of children and grandchildren. But of course the greatest beneficiaries of parent migration are the parents themselves and the family they come to join. I hear the argument that it has a wider social purpose; but the greatest beneficiary is the family that wants to be reunited. It is in that context that the government have said over a period of time that we have to look at balancing the benefits that people, as families, see in terms of their being able to get a migration outcome against the significant health and welfare costs that the whole community has to bear if you allow people to come with full access over time to health and welfare support. This was one of the reasons that last year we proposed a bill which I thought was a reasonable balance. The parliament came to another view. I am still looking at ways in which we might be able to respond, particularly through enhanced temporary entry arrangements. But let me just say that there are very significant budget consequences if you make changes to numbers in the migration program. Whoever is going to advocate those sorts of changes is going to have to be conscious of the impact they will have. I can give you the budget impact per thousand for parents and I can give you the budget impact for additional refugees. If you want to accommodate all asylum seekers plus the existing migration program, I can give you the budget impact of that. I have to deal with those issues in a budget context each year, and whoever is in the position that I am in has to be prepared to look at those sorts of questions. And you have to advocate. Maybe the member for Lowe is advocating that the tens, nay, hundreds of millions of dollars required for the large numbers of parents who would seek to come to Australia is an additional budget impost that a Labor Party government would accept. But you have to be honest enough to make that judgment and to go out and argue the case. What I do not hear at the moment is people going out honestly to argue the case that there is a budget burden that will be incurred and that they are willing to accept it as part of the Charter of Budget Honesty.I hear the honourable member for Lowe suggesting that we cap off skilled migration—a program which has a positive benefit for the budget—so that we can lift the cap on parent migration. That may be fine in your constituency. If your party is going to advocate it—I assume you are advocating it to your colleagues, not to the parliament—if you are going to get that argument up, get it up and do it honestly and put the numbers on it. That is the only political point I want to make in the debate—that issue having been raised. I want to thank all of the members who have participated in this debate. The legislation does introduce a new visa cancellation scheme for regional sponsored migration. The Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa may be cancelled if the visa holder does not fulfil a two-year employment contract with his or her nominating employer. The aim of the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme is to place skilled migrants into regional and rural Australia where traditionally the skilled migrant intake has been low while demand for skilled people generally has been high. The new visa cancellation power is essential to the continued integrity of that Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme. It will provide a safeguard against any future abuse and will also ensure that only a person with a genuine intention of settling in rural or regional Australia will apply for and hold a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa. The member for Oxley strongly urged the government to change the definition of `rural and regional Australia' because Melbourne qualifies as `rural and regional Australia' but Ipswich does not. Let me just say that this is not correct. Neither Melbourne nor Ipswich constitute `regional or rural Australia' for the purposes of the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme. The member may have been confusing another visa program to be known as the Skilled Designated Area Sponsorship Scheme, which relies on a relative living in a designated area to sponsor the applicant. For the purpose of this latter visa, I take advice from the state Premiers as to what parts of their jurisdiction should be designated. With regard to Ipswich, I would be happy to receive such advice from Premier Beattie. I have written to him, inviting him to give me that advice.6J4Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca—Do you want me to go and see him for you?0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK—The member for Oxley might like to go with the member for Bowman. I guess they could then say that it was as a result of their interventions that I got the positive advice. The government is prepared to consider the areas included or excluded under the regional sponsored scheme proposed by a state or territory government. The member for Calwell suggested that the criterion for a Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme visa requiring a diploma or higher level qualification is too restrictive. Although the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme applicants are required to have qualifications equivalent to at least an Australian diploma level, this requirement may be waived in exceptional cases. For example, exceptional appointments may be considered in cases where a person with specific skills is required and there is a particular skill shortage in an area. The member for Calwell has also suggested that the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme needs to be more broadly advertised. We are currently working with regional certifying bodies and state and territory governments to raise awareness of the scheme, and this will ensure that the scheme is promoted to potential sponsors. But I think there are limits on the extent to which the Commonwealth can be seen to be advertising for measures that operate in particular parts of Australia. We are expected to operate nationally. What I would say to the states—and I say this deliberately—is that there is a capacity for the states to be involved in promoting this scheme. If you look at the outcome that South Australia has achieved—it has been very proactive—you see a disproportionately larger shift in decisions than any other government because it has been so proactive. The member for Calwell also suggested that skilled migrants do not want to come to Australia because there are no concessions to allow for their family reunion. Again, the truth is that our skilled migration program is attracting sufficient demand from highly qualified young people who are doing very well in the labour market soon after arrival. In fact, as I understand it, we have seen that, while these harsh measures that I am operating have been in place, each year there has been an increase in interest in skilled migration. This year I expect we are going to see also a significant increase in the pipeline, which would suggest that people are not being deterred because of those matters. Finally, the member for Bowman asked me for an assurance that, where an employee's employment is terminated or has otherwise ceased due to reasons beyond the employee's control, they would be protected from cancellation and that, in particular, any investigation conducted by the department around cancellation should provide for the applicant, the employee, and his representative to be able to give some advice about the circumstances in which the matter arose. In my second reading speech I outlined the circumstances in which cancellation would be viewed. I made it very clear there that we were looking at specific provisions where we believed some manipulation might be occurring—where, in other words, the spirit of the provisions was not being observed. I expect that my officials would be looking at these matters in the spirit of the legislation, consistent with the matters that I mentioned in my second reading speech. Let me make that very clear.Section 137R of the legislation provides that the minister must give the person written notice that the minister proposes to cancel the visa and inviting the person to make representations concerning the proposed cancellation. The section also requires that the minister must consider the representations. I can assure the member for Bowman that statements from visa holders will be sought when considering any decision to cancel. If the visa holder wishes, they can include any supporting statements from other parties as they see appropriate to their case and their representations, and it would be appropriate for visa holders to obtain these statements.This is an issue about dealing with abuse; it is not about finding ways of knocking people off. I just make the point that, if people are making a reasonable effort, and this is the point that was made in the second reading speech, and if their employment has been terminated because of circumstances beyond their control—they come here in good faith and they are out there seeking another job in the area; they do not even have to have lined the other job up; all they have got to do is satisfy us that they are seeking that employment—that is a factor that is going to be taken into account. I made that clear in the second reading speech, and I will issue appropriate instructions to ensure that the spirit of that is met. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.25626Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock) read a third time.Bills25626R120825626Debate resumed from 8 March, on motion by Mr Hockey:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr Crean moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) failing to listen to the community concerning the GST impact on excise levels,(2) opposing Labor's private member's bill giving a fuel excise cut to motorists yet allowing a Government backbencher to introduce his own private member's bill that would tear up the Intergovernmental Agreement signed with the States;(3) belatedly reducing only a portion of its GST fuel excise windfall merely because it is in a state of panic because of the upcoming Ryan by-election, and (4) its poor administration of the excise regime.17:58:0025626Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Australia is a large, geographically expansive country that relies heavily on petrol for transport. Access to transport is critical for an equitable distribution to jobs, families and social circles. Transport fuel is not a commodity to be lightly tampered with, let alone double taxed thanks to the government's GST. Yet this government, with full knowledge, systematically imposed a double tax regime on transport fuel—it taxes fuel both directly and indirectly. Further, these two taxes compound each other, causing a multiplier effect on the absolute price—a price which consumers of petrol, whether wealthy or poor, whether high or low income earners, must foot the bill for. That is why I say it is indiscriminate.It is a tax regime that is heartless. It is also uncharitable in the true sense of the word. Charity is defined as `bearing another's burden'. A tax regime's social impact must balance efficiency of revenue collection with ultimate burden impacts. The government learnt this lessen recently in one of the most humiliating backdowns seen by the Australian public over the contemptible regime of business activity statements. The BAS in its original form represented the extremes this government will go in the utilitarian ethic of compelling self-assessment and self-reporting to substitute taxation officer assessments to such an extent that it was a crushing burden that the vast majority of Australian taxpayers simply could not cope with. The BAS is a living example of what happens when the government goes too far in its driven categorical imperative of utilitarianism. It has again done so today. The government seeks to cut costs by the divestment of Customs responsibilities in the collection of excise to the ATO. It further seeks to impose double taxation effects in the GST excise spiral. As the Hon. Simon Crean has noted, this government makes fanfare about the money they give to the Australian public whilst not disclosing how much money they are taking from us. In this case, the fuel tax GST excise regime is taking more money from us but paying for less. Gap analysis shows we are getting a diminished standard of public service accountability in the critical area of border protection by conveniently redefining excise collection as merely a revenue collection function of a government agency, which it is not. The bill itself is uncontentious enough in isolation. The issue is what broader policy and other administrative changes have been made to create a new regime which is providing less service, taxing Australians more, and in an indiscriminate way, and causing exposure to future public revenue and border protection violations in the future. On the subject of the GST, since the Western Australian and Queensland state elections and the federal by-election in Ryan the government has gone into denial mode about the impact of the GST on ordinary Australians. The government is so relaxed and comfortable, all it can offer by way of explanation of the horrendous result for the government in Ryan is to crow that Newspoll got it wrong. Of course I am referring to Newspoll's prediction that there would be a 16 per cent swing to Labor when it turned out to be 9.7 per cent. I remind the government that the 9.7 per cent swing to Labor, nine days ago, comes on top of a 7.4 per cent swing to Labor in Ryan just 2½ years ago in the 1998 federal election. That is what the people in Ryan—indeed Australia—think of the GST.The government are so relaxed and comfortable that last week they were taking comfort in the recent BRW survey of the big end of town that the big end of town prefers a coalition government—surprise, surprise! Senator Nick Minchin is so relaxed and comfortable that in his interview with Laurie Oakes on the Sunday program yesterday he said that Labor had had an ordinary week. If we have had an ordinary week, I put it to the House tonight that the government has had a shocker. It is sobering for the government, if they read Glenn Milne's column in the `Opinion' section on page 13 of the Australian of Monday, 19 March, where he concludes:But the Prime Minister hasn't yet heard the worst news out of Ryan. That's because it's contained in Labor confidential internal polling. That showed that voters in Ryan still supported the GST.Normally that might be good news. But if Ryan voters still back the GST and can give the government 10 per cent kicking imagine what they're going to do in a marginal seat where voters hate the GST.We know what people think of the GST in seats outside of Ryan, which was once the safest Liberal seat in Queensland, where they are kicking the coalition to death and they are not even listening. If they are still relaxed and comfortable, they could turn to Laura Tingle's article on page 2 of Saturday's Sydney Morning Herald where she says:In a speech in Tokyo yesterday, the Reserve's deputy governor, Dr Stephen Grenville, aggressively rebutted the Prime Minister's suggestion that the central bank was partly to blame for the downturn in the December quarter through its decision to raise interest rates in May and August last year. ... ... ...... Dr Grenville said the bank believed the GST not only hurt the construction sector but also business confidence.Quite plainly, he was referring to the slowdown in the economy and the forecasts of many economic pundits who are foreshadowing a recession in this country. Yet once again the government is in denial mode, not accepting the impact, particularly on small business, of the GST. It gets better. Yesterday in the Sun-Herald there was a terrific article entitled `$7 basket case'. I notice the member for Dickson is sitting at the table. She would be very interested in this because she has spoken to me on many occasions about the impact of the GST on small business people, pensioners, and particularly self-funded retirees and people on lower incomes, in her electorate. I will read out what the researchers—namely, Fia Cumming and Daniel Dasey—came up with. They said, inter alia:Recent election results in Ryan, Western Australia and Queensland and opinion polls show that voters do not like the GST. Many hate it.And if any of Howard's advisers want to know why, they only have to pop around to their local supermarket.The price of a trolley of groceries has risen sharply under the GST.While prices initially dropped, a typical family shopping trip is about $7 more expensive than a year ago. And taxpayers predict the bill will continue to grow. We compiled a trolley-load of about 60 items based on the same categories used to calculate the consumer price index and featuring the country's top-selling brands.The survey showed that last March, groceries including meat, vegetables, cereal products, dairy goods, snacks, household products and personal care items cost $178.07.The same goods purchased in September—when the GST had just come into effect—would have cost $173.16, a cut of almost $5. But by last week a new trend was emerging.The same goods had shot up to $185.46, more than $11 dearer than in September and nearly $7 more than a year ago.A significant portion of the rise reflected flood-affected vegetable prices, but many other consumer goods had risen as well.Ray Regan from peak taxation group the National Tax & Accountants Association ... said he believed the rise in supermarket prices was nationwide.He said major supermarkets had initially absorbed GST price rises to avoid losing customers and were gradually recouping their losses.Clearly, the GST is not accepted by the people of Australia. The government will be flogged at the next election. (Time expired)18:07:0025628Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—The Taxation Laws Amendment (Excise Arrangements) Bill 2000 implements a series of broken promises on the part of the government in relation to the GST. In particular, it implements broken promises in respect of petrol and it implements broken promises in respect of beer. I will deal with those in turn. In relation to petrol, it was unambiguously stated by the Prime Minister before the last election—not in an obscure radio station interview but in an address to the nation—that the GST would not increase the price of petrol for the ordinary motorist. The Prime Minister told every Australian viewing that address to the nation that the GST would not increase the price of petrol for the ordinary motorist. That commitment was repeated by the Treasurer, also before the last election, when he said in a media release on 7 September 1998:The Government's proposed New Tax System will not lead to any increase in petrol prices.Just to reaffirm that commitment, after the election the Prime Minister said, `Yeah, the price of petrol will not go up as a result of the GST.' He said that in an interview with Philip Clarke on Radio 2BL on 28 March 2000. After the GST came into force, the Prime Minister denied in this parliament that he had ever made a promise in his pre-election address to the nation. He said:The commitment made before the election was that the price of petrol need not rise as a result of the GST.He said that in this parliament on 15 August 2000. There is the pattern. Before the election the Prime Minister and the Treasurer wanted to maximise the vote by saying to the people of Australia, `The GST will not increase the price of petrol for the ordinary motorist.' Then, after the GST comes in, the Prime Minister says, `I never ever said that.' Where have we heard that phrase before? He denied he ever said that the GST would not increase the price of petrol.This legislation has the effect of reducing excise by 6.7c a litre and it also gives effect to the government's belated backflip of not proceeding with—in fact, abandoning—the 1.5c per litre excise increase that came in on 1 February. Dealing with the first one—that is, the reduction in excise of 6.7c a litre—that is given effect as of 1 July 2000 by this legislation. The problem is that the reduction in the excise was insufficient to counter the imposition of the GST. At a strike price of 90c per litre, the GST added 8.2c per litre to the price of petrol. The reduction in excise provided for in this legislation was 6.7c. The gap is 1.5c per litre. The government said, `Oh, well, we can explain that. There are industry cost savings as a result of the abolition of the wholesale sales tax and other taxes, for example, the bed tax in the Northern Territory.' Of course, the abolition of that bed tax would have a profound effect on the price of petrol in Sydney! It turns out that very few taxes are being abolished by the government, so these mythical savings from the abolition of these various taxes are not going to eventuate. The government promised before the last election that it would abolish 10 taxes with the implementation of the GST. In fact, it is abolishing only four: the wholesale sales tax; the bed tax in the Northern Territory and in some hotels in New South Wales; financial institutions duty from 1 July; and another minor tax. But it is retaining six of the 10 taxes that it said before the last election it was going to abolish as a result of the deal with the Democrats to bring in the GST. Where would this 1.5c per litre saving occur? The government said it would occur from 1 July as a result of the abolition of taxes. But many of these are not being abolished at all, and the ones that are being abolished are being abolished from 1 July this year, not 1 July last year. Those mythical tax savings either are not going to occur at all or, to the extent that they do occur, will occur much later. So there is the 1.5c. The government said to industry, `You absorb that because you are going to get all these savings.' Industry said, `We are not going to get these savings. Why? Because on 1 July with the implementation of the GST we are not going to replace the entire tanker fleet; we are not going to replace all the bowsers, the underground tanks and so on. So there will not be any savings as a result of the abolition of the wholesale sales tax.' The government said, `We think there will be. We think these things will happen on 1 July 2000.' Of course, they were never going to happen, and because they were never going to happen that 1.5c a litre saving never occurred. As a result, from 1 July, the government broke its promise that the GST would not increase the price of petrol for ordinary motorists.To compound the felony, with the February excise increase there would have been four increases in fuel taxes since 1 July last year. The first occurred with the implementation of the GST on 1 July. The second was an excise indexation adjustment in August of last year, which, to some extent, reflected price rises ahead of the GST. The third occurred when, to the extent that the price of petrol exceeded the 90c per litre strike price, which it did when world oil prices increased, the GST automatically collected another 10 per cent of the excess over 90c. The fourth took effect on 1 February 2001. So there were four increases in fuel taxes in just seven months. The government said, `No, no, the GST will not increase the price of petrol.' It has clearly broken that promise. It was only after sustained pressure from the community, and in particular from the Labor Party, including through the Labor Party's petrol price inquiry, that the government finally realised that it had to do something about its broken promise. What it has done about its broken promise is provided for in this legislation. It has abandoned the February fuel excise increase of 1.5c per litre. But it did not take that back to 1 February; it abandoned it as of the date of announcement. That does not take us back to 1 July 2000. That does not remove the felony. We had the 1.5c increase on 1 July and further GST related increases since that time. The promise is still broken. This legislation, by reducing excise by only 6.7c a litre, continues the broken promise of the Prime Minister that the GST would not increase the price of petrol for ordinary motorists.It was quite clear in the Ryan by-election that the price of petrol was an issue that affected the way people thought about the government and the way they voted. Many of the suburbs of Ryan are outer urban suburbs. People have long distances to travel. There are quite a lot of four-wheel drives in the outer suburbs of Ryan, where you get into bush suburbs. There has been no relief on diesel. We know now that in recent months diesel has been up to 10c a litre more expensive than petrol, which is the first time in Australia's history that that has occurred. The combination of high petrol prices and high diesel prices adversely affected the view of voters of Ryan towards this government. If it has adversely affected the views of the voters of Ryan, the 12th most affluent electorate in Australia, I can assure members of this place that it has certainly adversely affected the views of voters in other outer urban seats, including in Brisbane the seats of Longman and Forde, both of which are held by the government. People are very angry about this government's wilful breaking of its promise that the GST would not increase the price of petrol for ordinary motorists. When we go to even more distant locations, when we go to rural and regional Australia, there is another broken promise. That promise was in a document released by the Liberal Party before the last election on 6 September 1998. It says: Nor will there be any increase in the price differential between city and country areas. In fact, petrol prices should fall and the differential should decrease as a result of the reduced cost of transporting petrol.The Liberal Party told the voters of Australia before the last election that the price of petrol in the bush would fall as a result of a GST. The GST adds 10 per cent to the base price of petrol. We know that the price of petrol in rural and regional Australia is higher than it is in the cities, because of higher transport costs and also, very significantly, a lack of competition in a lot of those locations. So, to the extent that the price of petrol ordinarily is higher, the GST adds 10 per cent to that, increasing the penalty, increasing the city-country price differential. The government said, `We're going to resolve that. We're going to solve that problem by having a 1c and 2c per litre petrol grants scheme that will offset the increases in the price of petrol caused by the GST,' but of course they have not. The most recent data released by the Australian Automobile Association demonstrates quite clearly that the city-country price differential has widened under the GST, under the so-called streamlined new tax system for a new century.So, given that the Liberal Party told people before the last election that petrol prices should fall and the differential should decrease as a result of the reduced cost of transporting petrol, it is pretty easy to understand why the people of Australia are so angry with this government: wilful misrepresentations before the election, no intention of keeping those commitments after the election—and the government wonder why people do not trust them. They wonder why the Prime Minister has a reputation for breaking his promises. It is a well-deserved reputation.Another aspect of this legislation relates to the administration of the diesel fuel rebate scheme. As a member of the petrol price inquiry, I have been going around Australia. We have conducted more than 35 hearings, most of them in rural and regional Australia. We were told time and time again, by people who took the time and made the effort to give evidence to that inquiry, that the diesel fuel rebate scheme and the other grant schemes that were supposed to cut the price of diesel and give a huge competitive advantage to businesses operating in rural and regional Australia have not had that result. They produced invoices which showed us quite clearly that diesel prices are now much higher than they were before the GST came in and before these various grants schemes came in. When we said to them, `Look, there are offsetting grant schemes,' they said, `We do not seem to receive the benefit of those because we can tell you that diesel prices are much higher.'World oil prices have had an impact on diesel prices. We have never said that the only impact on fuel prices is the GST and other related taxes. We have also said that the increased world price of oil is one factor and the other is the ever diminishing value of the Australian dollar. The government does not seem capable of arresting the decline in the value of the Australian dollar because it hit a new low in the last 12 hours. It certainly is capable of controlling the level of taxation of fuel, but it has not done that. As a result, fuel taxation has increased under this government since the GST came in—breaking those promises and making the people in rural and regional Australia, and in outer urban areas in particular, very angry with the Prime Minister. It has certainly destroyed any reputation he had of being honest John Howard. The people of Australia do not trust him, and with very good reason.I now turn to alcohol—to another series of broken promises. The government said before the last election that the price of ordinary beer would not rise by more than the rise in the general price level forecast at that time, which was 1.9 per cent. The ANTS package itself referred only to packaged beer, not to draught beer, but the Prime Minister made the general comment about beer—referring to all beer—several times during the election campaign. For example, he said on the John Laws program on 23 September 1998: There'll be no more than a 1.9% rise in ordinary beer.And then he said, `No, no, no, I was referring only to packaged beer when I was talking about that; not to draught beer.' I cannot see `packaged' or `draught' in that statement. He is being very economical with the truth—and that is being generous to him. He also said on the Alan Jones program on 14 August 1998:Across the board there is virtually no change in relation to alcohol. A tiny CPI equivalent rise in relation to ordinary beer. Again, the Prime Minister said, `Well, I wasn't referring to draught beer.' The reality is that the price of draught beer has gone up dramatically as a result of a decision that is coming into effect today with the passage of this legislation. The Prime Minister clearly broke his promise. We continue to receive representations from hotels, small pubs and clubs that they have been adversely affected by this broken promise of the Prime Minister, because the price of draught beer has increased very substantially. Therefore, the Prime Minister has broken his promise yet again.Rochedale Rovers—near my electorate in the electorate of Fadden—are a small club that put a lot back into the community and they are now struggling. They are under severe stress as a result of the increase in the price of draught beer. They are experiencing what is, according to the Australian Hotels Association, being experienced all around Australia—a very substantial drop off in patronage because of the increases in beer excise that are contained in this legislation. Rochedale Rovers have asked me as an opposition member to do what I can to give them some relief and some hope that they may be able to survive this drop off in patronage. I ask the government, sincerely, to reconsider these measures—to give effect to their promise that the price of draught beer would not increase beyond the 1.9 per cent promised by the Prime Minister before the last election. I hope that the government will listen to that plea from Rochedale Rovers and from all the other small pubs and clubs around Australia that are struggling under the weight of this broken promise by the Prime Minister.It does not stop there. In the area of pensions, the government have broken their promise given before the last election that pensions would go up by four per cent. Pensions are not going up by four per cent; they are going up by two per cent, because two per cent of it has just been clawed back in the latest automatic indexation increase. The Prime Minister says, `Oh no, pensioners didn't read the fine print in our document. The fine print in the document said that there would be an initial four per cent increase but that half of that would be taken back in the indexation adjustment of March 2001.' I do not know how many pensioners he genuinely expects would have obtained the document produced by the government, referred to the fine print at the back and said, `Oh, when the Prime Minister said that the pension would go up by four per cent, he didn't really mean that because I found footnote 33 and here in the fine print it is clear to me, as a pensioner, that that is just not going to happen. We are only going to get two per cent.' The government were fast and loose with the truth and now they are paying the price. And they are very angry at Labor for saying, `Well, you're clawing back some of that pension rise.' They say, `No, we always said it was only going to be two per cent.' They did not. In all their publications they said it was going to be four per cent. The clawback was hidden in the fine print—just as it was in relation to the pension bonus: they diddled the pensioners of Australia on that because it turned out that many pensioners received no pensioner bonus at all and some of them received as little as $1. Yet, before the last election, the Prime Minister on Perth radio on 25 August 1998 said that all people over the age of 60 would get a $1,000 savings bonus. Again, on Brisbane radio on 18 August 1998, he said that for every person aged 60 and over there would be a savings bonus—a one-off tax-free payment of $1,000 in relation to any investment income that they might have. Clearly, he was telling the people of Australia that they were going to get a $1,000 pensioner bonus. After the election he said, `You didn't read the fine print—got you there. We're not going to give you a thousand bucks. We may give you nothing. We may give you $1, if you're lucky.' That is the problem that this government faces—a problem of credibility; a problem of broken promises; a problem of a Prime Minister and a Treasurer who simply cannot be trusted. That whole lack of trust must be compounded by recent statements by the government in relation to the integrity of the income tax system because, remember, the burden of the GST falls most heavily on pensioners and low income earners. The government said, `Oh, yes, but we're going to reform the income tax system, too. We're going to put some integrity back into the income tax system. We're going to cut out the tax avoidance, cut out the rorts by the big end of town.'The Treasurer's press release of late last week refers to a business tax reform implementation timetable. That is a euphemism for `We are deferring, either for a year or indefinitely, on the never-never, just about every measure that we promised at the last election that we would implement in relation to fixing up the base of the income tax system and making sure that the big end of town pays its fair share of tax.' I will just draw your attention to one particular measure that has been deferred indefinitely and that is the general anti-avoidance rule where the government said, `We're going to toughen up the general anti-avoidance rule.' That has turned out to be too tough for the government, because the big end of town said, `We like the general anti-avoidance rule just like it is, and we don't want it any tougher.' The government have tugged their forelock to the big end of town and said, `Okay, that's fine; we'll defer that indefinitely, because we know we are getting plenty of revenue out of the pensioners and low and middle income earners of Australia.' The burden of taxation has been shifted by this government onto the shoulders of those people and off the shoulders of big business. (Time expired)Sitting suspended from 6.27 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0025632Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—In commencement I would like to thank all honourable members for participating in this debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment (Excise Arrangements) Bill 2000, although when one listens to the contributions of those opposite one would think that they were discussing another bill. We all know that that is not something that is uncommon in this place—at least on the part of the Labor Party.As I just indicated, the debate has been wide ranging. But the real issue here is simply an administrative one. All this bill does is to give effect to the transfer of administrative responsibility for excise and diesel fuel rebates from the Chief Executive Officer of Customs to the Commissioner of Taxation. Excise is a tax and it is appropriate that excise administration be integrated into general tax administration. It is also appropriate that administration of the diesel fuel rebate scheme, which allows excise rebates, follow excise administration to the Taxation Office.The changes to excise administration flowing from this bill will be small. In fact, the Commissioner of Taxation already administers excise under a delegation from the Chief Executive Officer of Customs, but the delegation arrangements create some problems. Also, it is preferable that the law reflects what is actually happening. The opportunity has also been taken to repeal redundant provisions and make some technical drafting changes. We all listened to the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Hotham, which raised a number of issues. The government will not be accepting this amendment. The shadow Treasurer suggests that this government does not listen to the community. However, I think the recent decision—RH4Kerr, Duncan, MP0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The government does listen to the community, as the member for Denison would, if he were honest, recognise. I think that the recent decision to reduce fuel excise by 1½c per litre shows that the government is responsive to community concerns.On 1 March the Treasurer moved the tariff proposal to reduce excise and pass this on to the public immediately. The bill to formalise this proposal will be debated in this House shortly. The government also announced that further indexation of petroleum excise will be abolished, and the Prime Minister announced a detailed review of fuel taxation. This review will provide the opportunity for the views of the community to be considered. The government has to balance the concern of the community about the price of petrol with the need to signal to the community the strong commitment of the government to responsible economic management.The changes to the business activity statement, in which the Minister for Small Business was involved, are another indication that as a government we are listening to our constituency and to the entire Australian community. The shadow Treasurer and the shadow Assistant Treasurer both claimed that the government's poor administration particularly in dealing with fuel substitution was in fact something that the government ought not to be proud of. But the fact is that the government and the Australian Taxation Office have both acted decisively to deal with the matter of fuel substitution. The government implemented revised excise tariff arrangements on 15 November 1999 which, together with concerted action from the Australian Taxation Office, were very effective in dealing with fuel substitution. There has also been a considerable reduction in the number of evasion cases being revealed by the Taxation Office testing program.Accordingly, the government also legislated to provide a better framework for prosecuting those excise evaders utilising low excise products, such as heating oil containing the chemical marker, to extend products paid at full excise rates. The petroleum industry is well aware of the unfair competition that can arise from excise evasion and has responded very positively to this approach by the government. Unfortunately, there will always be some in the community who will deliberately evade their excise and taxation obligations and in these cases prosecution may well be the appropriate response. The Australian Taxation Office has recently had some successes with jail sentences being imposed for excise evasion. There are currently several cases involving fuel substitution before the courts, and others are under investigation.The government has also legislated to improve the fight against the illegal tobacco industry, and the Excise Amendment (Compliance Improvement) Act 2000 came into effect in September last year. The Australian Taxation Office is taking action using the new powers provided in this act, and over 100 tonnes of illicit tobacco have been seized. Already a number of custodial sentences have been imposed and 38 prosecutions are under way. It is clear that, despite what the Labor Party says, the government is paying attention. We have given priority to amending the excise laws to deal with evasion. This bill is another part of the package and essentially deals with the machinery of government changes and, consequently, has been of lower priority.I would also like to remind all honourable members that excise legislation does not purport to deliver fuel quality outcomes. The Fuel Quality Standards Act 2000 to be administered by the Environment and Heritage portfolio provides for mandatory fuel standards to commence on 1 January next year. State consumer protection agencies should be ensuring that consumers are not affected by fuel substitution. There can be a problem for consumers when petrol is blended with more than 10 per cent ethanol. The Minister for Finance and Administration has referred this issue to the ACCC for an examination of whether this represents false or misleading conduct. The honourable member for Rankin brought out this furphy about the government in some way allegedly short-changing pensioners. There has been a lot of misinformation in recent weeks directed at pensioners by the Labor Party. I think it is fairly despicable, it is dishonest, it is disreputable and it will be rejected by the Australian people. The Labor Party has been acting in a completely inappropriate way, seeking to score cheap political points by scaring people on pensions. The government recognises that people on age pensions have made a tremendous contribution to the quality of life in this nation and they are deserving of our respect. The truth is that, under the Howard government, there has, firstly, been no cut to the age pension. On 1 July 2000 pensions were increased by four per cent. This four per cent, as the Labor Party well knows, comprised a two per cent real increase and a two per cent advance of the March 2001 increase. Pensions are indexed—that is, increased as prices increase—every March and September, not in July. The advance of the March two per cent increase protected pensioners during the transition to the new tax system. This was outlined in various government publications. Pensioners also received a 1.7 per cent increase in their payments in September last year. Pensioners got an indexation increase of two per cent this month. There was a two per cent adjustment to the CPI indexation amount at this time to allow for the July-last-year advance. Beyond this adjustment, pensioners will continue to receive the same pension amount that they would have received regardless of tax reform, plus any increase necessary to maintain a single pension at at least 25 per cent of male average weekly earnings, plus a real and permanent increase of two per cent. In addition to this, the government increased the income and assets test free areas by 2.5 per cent, making more Australians eligible for the pension. The pension income test was also eased so that the pension was not withdrawn at a rate of 50 per cent for additional income over that increased free area but only at 40 per cent. Age pensioners and other retirees with income from savings and investments became eligible for up to $1,000 in a one-off non-taxable savings bonus. So far, more than two million older Australians have received an average of $732 under the aged persons savings bonus. The honourable member for Rankin came in here and sought to mislead the House by referring to some people who got no bonuses or some people who got small bonuses. The average is $732; so it is about time the member for Rankin came clean and tried to stop scaring pensioners at a stage in their lives when they are particularly vulnerable.Labor claim there has been a cut to pensions. The Prime Minister has challenged Labor, asking them if they would pay back this so-called cut if they got into government. Labor failed to answer this challenge, because they know there was no cut. They just want to scare pensioners to score cheap political points. Since 1996, when we were elected to office, pensions have increased by more than $1,500 a year—that is $58 per fortnight. Under Labor's 13 years of government, pensioners received only two knee-jerk increases in the pension: one before the 1990 federal election and one before the 1993 federal election. The Labor Party were guilty of cheap political opportunism, yet today the Labor Party try to persuade pensioners that they will actually be better off under Labor. They just want to scare pensioners to score cheap political points. When Labor increased the hidden wholesale sales tax on numerous occasions they did not compensate pensioners once. If Labor's method of adjusting pensions had remained in place since 1996, the single age pension would be $22.61 per fortnight less than it is now, yet they try to tell pensioners that Labor will look after them. What a sick joke. They just want to scare pensioners to score more cheap political points. Various members opposite contributed in a way, and some claimed that excise rates are too high. I just want to reiterate for the benefit of those honourable members from the Labor Party who are listening—there are very few of them in the House—that this government announced reductions in petrol and diesel excise, and this was good news for all Australian motorists. The Labor Party increased petrol excise for 13 years. We did not create the problem, but we were prepared to accept the responsibility for fixing up the mess that Labor left in this area. It was this government that reduced the petrol excise, and the good news will continue when this government abolishes the indexation of petroleum excise. This is particularly good news for people in rural and regional Australia. In addition to indexation, the Labor Party increased the petrol excise in a discretionary way in 1993.The honourable member for Lowe came in with a most curious claim, suggesting that the move from customs to excise referred to in this bill is a cost-cutting exercise that threatens community safety. That is bizarre. The move of the excise function is not aimed at saving money. Indeed, since the move to the Australian Taxation Office, additional funding has been provided for 40 extra investigation staff to deal with excise evasion. All excise investigation staff are trained to the same level as Customs staff, and many are undertaking higher level training.The honourable member for Charlton expressed concern that search and seizure powers to be used by ATO officers for excise purposes may be transferred to those who are not suitably trained or experienced. I want to reiterate and reassure the honourable member that the Taxation Office will authorise only those officers who have completed a rigorous course of training to exercise those powers in the investigative function. Authorised officers undergo careful selection and are obliged to abide by comprehensive guidelines in carrying out their duties.In summing up, this is a basic bill. It is a machinery bill. It is a bill that ought not to be controversial, yet through the sham mechanism of moving a pious second reading amendment the Labor Party talked about everything other than the provisions contained in the bill. I commend the bill to the House and, on behalf of the government, formally indicate to the chamber that we reject the second reading amendment moved by the honourable member for Hotham.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.25635Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Bills25635R1251Consideration resumed from 6 March.2563520:16:0025635Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This is a bill to ensure police enforcing federal criminal offences can use the latest technology to solve crime. Developments in DNA technology promise to transform the criminal investigation landscape. Indeed, some commentators have suggested that the advent of DNA technology is the most significant change to crime detection since the invention of the fingerprint classification system by Sir Edward Henry in 1897.This government recognised the necessity of maximising the benefits of new technology in criminal investigations when in 1998 it announced the establishment of CrimTrac and provided $50 million in funding to assist CrimTrac in establishing a world-class national DNA database system and other investigative tools, such as the new national fingerprint system. During the same year new part 1D of the Crimes Act 1914 was enacted. It provides for comprehensive powers and procedures for the taking and use of forensic material from anyone suspected of having committed a Commonwealth offence. The question of comprehensive procedures in relation to the taking of forensic material from convicted offenders and volunteers and placing DNA information derived from that material on a database system was deferred until more work had been done on the establishment of the national DNA database system. Part 1D does not preclude the taking of forensic material from convicted offenders, but only allows it to be done in very restricted circumstances. It does not form the basis for the creation of the type of comprehensive national database system that has been so successful in other countries. In particular, it only provides for the inclusion of DNA information from those convicted since the commencement of the legislation. This is inadequate. Australians deserve greater protection from the activities of criminals. It is not unreasonable for the community to expect that the national DNA database system should have DNA information from serious offenders who are still in prison or otherwise under sentence. The consequences of any of these people reoffending are too significant for the rest of the community not to expect the protection afforded by such a system. I think this is true regardless of whether the crime involved is one where reoffending is very common. However, I would note that it is the case that a small proportion of the community commits the vast majority of crime. I am advised that it has been reported that some overseas studies indicate that less than 10 per cent of the community commit more than 90 per cent of crime. The matching of DNA information will not only give law enforcement the capacity to catch those who reoffend but also add to efficiency and reduce inconvenience for those who are eliminated as potential suspects. The amendments to part 1D proposed in this bill will provide the framework for providing this additional protection, along with appropriate safeguards to ensure there is adequate accountability on the part of those who administer the system.Part 1D also does not preclude the taking of forensic material from volunteers for investigative purposes and placement on the national DNA database system. However, there are no procedures for the taking and use of that material. I think it is very important that those who care enough about their community to volunteer samples should be afforded the type of safeguards concerning informed consent and the use of such material that is afforded to suspects and offenders. This bill provides for such procedures. The bill has not been drawn up in haste. It is the result of consultations throughout Australia and a concerted effort to get consistent legislation by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The standing committee, in cooperation with the Australasian Police Ministers Council, tasked the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, which is composed of criminal law advisers from Commonwealth state and territory jurisdictions, to produce a model bill.After consultation on an initial draft developed in 1995 (which is the basis of the existing procedures in part 1D) and a May 1999 discussion paper proposing the type of modifications I have outlined above, a final draft of the Model Forensic Procedures Bill was completed in February 2000. The 2000 model bill reflects the consideration given to comprehensive submissions received from a variety of groups, including the federal and New South Wales privacy commissioners, law enforcement agencies, forensic experts, defence lawyers, prosecutors, judges, bar councils, academics, law societies, civil liberties groups, human rights organisations, victims groups, legal aid organisations and government departments.The government is very supportive of the 2000 model bill because it provides a carefully balanced legislative regime, which when implemented in each jurisdiction will allow Commonwealth, state and territory law enforcement agencies to better utilise DNA technology but at the same time will safeguard individual liberty and ensure there is adequate accountability on the part of those who administer the system. Accordingly, this bill updates part 1D of the Crimes Act 1914 to implement the 2000 model bill. A national DNA database system is not a new concept to criminal investigation. The United Kingdom pioneered the national DNA database and have been using DNA technology as an investigative tool since 1986. Interestingly, the first use of DNA technology in the United Kingdom prevented an innocent man, who had confessed to a crime he did not do, from being tried and wrongly convicted on the strength of his false confession. DNA database systems are also being used as an investigative tool in other European countries, the United States of America, Canada, New Zealand and elsewhere, with considerable success. It is anticipated that the national DNA database system established and administered by Crim Trac, and monitored by the Federal Privacy Commissioner, will be state of the art, not only in its technology but also in the accountability mechanisms contained in the bill and the protocols for administering the system.The substantive changes to existing part 1D can be separated into three major categories.The first is the carrying out of forensic procedures on convicted offenders; second, the carrying out of forensic procedures on volunteers; and, third, the rules regulating the use of forensic material taken and stored on the national DNA database system.The bill complements the existing provisions in part 1D of the Crimes Act 1914, which carefully balances the rights of suspects against the public interest in gathering evidence of offences by ensuring similar procedures and safeguards apply to convicted offenders and volunteers—for example, the special procedures for taking forensic material from a child or incapable person. The rules as to admissibility of evidence obtained from a forensic procedure that are contained in existing division 7 of part 1D will be extended to cover the offender and volunteer contexts. These safeguards are supplemented by criminal offences which provide for substantial penalties for those who misuse information derived from forensic procedures.Forensic procedures on convicted offendersProposed division 6A will regulate the carrying out of forensic procedures for law enforcement purposes on certain convicted offenders `under sentence'.There are two categories of convicted offenders: serious offenders and prescribed offenders. A serious offender is a person convicted of an offence punishable by life or five or more years imprisonment; in other words, a person convicted of a crime which is generally recognised to be a serious crime. Included in this classification would be homicide, sexual offences (which are crimes where the Commonwealth has a limited jurisdiction), theft, fraud, burglary and serious drug offences. Consistent with longstanding practice, under division 6A, only fingerprints can be obtained from prescribed offenders. A prescribed offender is a person convicted of a wider range of offences, that is punishable by two or more years imprisonment. In contrast, hair samples, saliva or blood samples may also be obtained from serious offenders, and forensic information obtained from that material can be placed on the national DNA database system. This recognises that the proposed procedures are more intrusive and that resources should be focused on the more serious offences.If a serious offender does not give informed consent to the carrying out of an intimate forensic procedure (saliva or blood samples), then the procedure can only be carried out with the approval of a magistrate. This is an important safeguard. It provides some reassurance that serious offenders will not be subjected to the inappropriate carrying out of such procedures. Further, the independent arbitration of a magistrate in these situations will play a role in defusing any tension which might otherwise exist in the performance of such procedures. The qualification that the convicted offender must be `under sentence' is also important. It means that only offenders who are serving terms of imprisonment, or who are subject to certain release orders under part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914—for example, on parole—can undergo a forensic procedure under the bill. A distinction should not be made between offenders still in prison and offenders released on parole—a paroled offender may have committed a heinous crime for which the Australian community could rightfully expect the provision of forensic material. However, for practical purposes, the overwhelming majority of offenders convicted prior to enactment of the bill, who will be required to undergo a forensic procedure, will still be in prison. Further, in the longer term, forensic material will usually be obtained from offenders at the time of sentencing.Forensic procedures on volunteersThere is one recent example of most residents in a New South Wales country town volunteering to provide law enforcement authorities with forensic material in the investigation of a specific offence. Indeed, such investigations have also proven to be very effective in the United Kingdom. However, in the majority of cases, the police are only likely to need the assistance of a small number of volunteers and the circumstances will vary markedly from case to case. Proposed division 6B of the bill provides a secure legislative basis for carrying out forensic procedures on volunteers and ensures that volunteers, as well as the law enforcement authorities, can be certain of the way in which forensic material can be taken and how it can be used. They will also benefit from safeguards which ensure that forensic material obtained from volunteers is used only as intended. Subject to special procedures for children and incapable persons, forensic procedures can only be conducted on volunteers if there is informed consent. A volunteer can withdraw consent to the carrying out of a forensic procedure or the retention of the forensic material taken at any time. In limited circumstances, and in the investigation for a serious offence, a magistrate can authorise the retention of forensic material notwithstanding the withdrawal of consent. For example, where the volunteer withdraws consent because they conclude that suspicion has turned in his or her direction.National DNA law enforcement databaseProposed division 8A deals with the establishment and operation of the national DNA law enforcement database by CrimTrac. Because of the federal nature of Australia's criminal justice system, it is desirable that equivalent legislation in the various jurisdictions adequately describe the national DNA database system and the way in which different information may be stored and matched. This aspect of the bill is to some extent based on the equivalent Canadian legislation which describes that country's DNA database and was developed after close consultation with the Federal Privacy Commissioner and those who would be administering the system.The database is broken up into a series of indexes. For example, there is a suspects index, an offenders index, a crime scene index, a volunteers (limited purposes) index, a volunteers (unlimited purposes) index and some others. The DNA profiles are stored on these separate indexes and can be matched with profiles in another index according to a set of tabulated matching rules. Matching according to these rules will be enforced by criminal offences carrying a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment. Normal police disciplinary procedures are not adequate to regulate the matching of DNA profiles on the national DNA law enforcement database. Specific offences prohibiting impermissible matching is considered necessary to ensure the community can have confidence in the integrity of the DNA profiles stored on the system.It is important that we all appreciate the nature of the forensic information that will be stored on the national law enforcement database as a DNA profile. The analysis of the DNA samples will only reveal the sex of the person from whom it is taken. It does not reveal any other personal characteristics. The privacy interests of Australian citizens are safeguarded because each step in dealing with forensic material obtained from a forensic procedure, either through the national DNA law enforcement database or otherwise, is regulated and reinforced by a series of criminal offences targeting the supply of forensic material, the use of information stored on the national DNA law enforcement database, the destruction of forensic material and the recording, the retention and the removal of DNA profiles on the national DNA law enforcement database. All these offences carry maximum penalties of two years imprisonment.The Office of the Federal Privacy Commissioner has been engaged in discussions concerning the CrimTrac Agency's administration of the national DNA database system. This was acknowledged by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee when it reported on the bill on 5 December 2000. In response to one of the committee's recommendations, the government decided to incorporate into the bill some legislative measures aimed to bring about effective, independent oversight and accountability mechanisms of the national DNA database. These measures were developed by the Minister for Justice and Customs in close consultation with the Federal Privacy Commissioner and were endorsed by the Senate. The government agreed to amendments moved by Senator Greig in the Senate to clarify the scope of an independent review of the operation of the legislation which under the bill must occur 12 months after the commencement of the proposed provisions. The government also adopted the committee's other three recommendations.Many of the changes contained in this bill are directly related to the insertion of proposed divisions 6A (offenders), 6B (volunteers) and 8A (national DNA database system). For example, the provisions relating to the permitted disclosure of information derived from a forensic procedure are strengthened to take into account the fact that information can now be stored on a database. Proposed division 11 recognises that the Commonwealth, the states and the territories will cooperate in using the national DNA database system. Orders for the carrying out of forensic procedures obtained in one jurisdiction will be able to be enforced in another jurisdiction provided they are recorded on a register of orders. Pursuant to appropriate ministerial arrangements entered into with participating jurisdictions, information contained on the national DNA database system can be shared between the jurisdictions for the purpose of criminal investigations.Other changes which do not relate to proposed divisions 6A, 6B or 8A seek to improve the existing provisions of part 1D. For example, proposed subsection 23XM(4) clarifies that a person is able to take a saliva sample or buccal sample from themselves. This will allow a person to self-administer a relatively simple forensic procedure, provided the procedure is supervised by an appropriately qualified person. This approach avoids any unnecessary invasion of a person's privacy.The opportunity has been taken in the bill to clarify that state and territory judges, magistrates or court employed officers who issue orders in relation to criminal matters under a law of the Commonwealth do so in a personal and voluntary capacity. Although some of these orders may relate to forensic procedures, most will relate to other criminal matters. Accordingly, it is proposed that these provisions be inserted into the general part 1A of the Crimes Act 1914.The bill also includes a minor amendment to the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987 to ensure that Australia can fulfil its international obligations in assisting other countries seeking to enforce orders which are intended to preserve the suspected proceeds of crime.In conclusion, I stress that the national DNA database system and the use of DNA technology is but one investigative tool law enforcement agencies will be able to rely on to build a case against a suspect. In the vast majority of cases, DNA evidence alone will not convict. In fact, DNA technology is likely to be at its most useful in eliminating suspects and focusing police investigations, whereupon the more traditional methods of policing will come into play. I am therefore strongly of the view that this bill is best characterised as an initiative which will give the police an additional tool to do their job properly. The bill is very much part of this government's commitment to making Australia a safer place to live. I commend the bill to the House and I present the revised explanatory memorandum to the bill. 20:35:0025640Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—Now it is the turn of the opposition. As is often the case in these things where there has been extensive consultation and the government has worked with all affected interest groups, the opposition is happy to support the thrust of the Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill 2001. Indeed, now the government has accepted the recommendations of the parliamentary committee which examined the detail of that legislation also. It is not to say that this legislation is not complex and likely to be regarded as groundbreaking and, indeed, resented and resisted by some in the community who believe that it might threaten hitherto important civil rights that people have held dear for a considerable period of time. But I think it would be naïve to say anything other than that both the opposition and the government have sought to find an effective and appropriate balance with respect to all the arguments that have been advanced and believe that this legislation in its current form is a framework which will in practice not give rise to the kind of concerns that some in its early days feared it would. By way of background, I will indicate also that the gestation period of this legislation is somewhat similar to that of the elephant—not a speedy birth. Its genesis is from the period in which I served as Minister for Justice in the former Keating government. We started a process which involved dialogue with the states and with various community groups that we knew would be significantly affected in relation to this legislation to see whether a common approach could be addressed.As the Attorney-General correctly identifies, we have tools available to us which really are revolutionary in their capacity to identify criminals but also to eliminate suspects. The Attorney touched on an instance, that occurred I think in Britain, where the first use of this procedure saw a person hitherto in gaol—as a result of allegations that had been proceeded against them and a conviction obtained—but, as a result of DNA evidence that was found to be unsatisfactory, the conviction was quashed. I also understand that DNA evidence has had a similar effect in the United States. Indeed, a number of people on death row have had their convictions reviewed and quashed as a result of DNA testing which was sufficient to prove that they could not have been the person that was alleged to have committed the crimes for which they had been sentenced to death. So plainly this is a powerful forensic tool. It is a powerful forensic tool that can be used by the police to identify those suspected of crime, but it can also be important to those within the community who are entirely innocent of it to ensure that their innocence is affirmed if in fact forensic evidence of the kind that this bill covers is available.With that in mind, I simply indicate that the opposition believes that this legislation is well-crafted. A number of procedural safeguards are included for the taking of forensic materials, in particular to ensure that the destruction of material is provided for in a way which would not infringe the rights of a person's privacy and to ensure that samples which are intrusive and involve procedures which the ordinary citizen might resist can only be undertaken with a judicial order and that the Privacy Commissioner is given full and proper remit to ensure that the system is not abused. The forensic material that is drawn from the testing that will be allowed under the scheme will be used to establish a national DNA database, with the following indexes of DNA profiles: a crime scene index; a missing persons index; a serious offenders index; a statistical index; an unknown deceased persons index; a suspects index; a volunteers limited purposes index; and a volunteers unlimited purposes index. The DNA profiles in the indexes will be able to be matched with other profiles in other indexes according to a set of tabulated matching rules, and the rules are accompanied by criminal penalties of two years imprisonment for any breaches of those procedures. The bill stipulates procedures about how the material is to be stored on the database, how the database can be interrogated, who can have access to the databases and when the information in the database may be disclosed. Each step in dealing with forensic material obtained from a forensic procedure is regulated and reinforced by a series of criminal offences targeting the supply of forensic material, the use of information stored on the national DNA database, the destruction of forensic material and the recording, retention and removal of DNA profiles on the national DNA database. To ensure that privacy concerns are properly recognised, all offences against those provisions carry maximum penalties of two years imprisonment.The legislation makes a distinction between intimate and non-intimate forensic procedures. Where the intimate procedures involve the genital or anal area in some way or the taking of blood, saliva or pubic hair, the bill allows for a non-intimate procedure to be carried out on an offender with the informed consent of the offender or by order of a constable. An intimate forensic procedure on an offender, on the other hand, can only be carried out with informed consent or by order of a magistrate. That is a very important safeguard because I think that one of the principal concerns that many in the community had was that there would be a loss of dignity and some abuse were requests to be made for intimate samples and pursued without the requirement of an order of a magistrate if that consent were not forthcoming.A forensic procedure can be carried out on a volunteer with the informed consent of that person or the parent or guardian of a volunteer who is a child or an incapable person. A magistrate can order the carrying out of a forensic procedure on a child or incapable person if consent cannot be reasonably obtained from the parent or guardian or if the parent or guardian is a suspect. Forensic material which is obtained by a warrant has to be destroyed as soon as the period for retention specified in the warrant expires, and all other forensic material must be destroyed within 12 months of its being collected, unless a warrant for apprehension of the suspect has been issued.The form of the bill closely mirrors the February 2000 Model Criminal Code Officers Committee report on the Model Forensic Procedures Bill and the proposed national DNA database. That model was developed following a review of similar legislation in Canada, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, New Zealand and various European countries. It is a product of the model criminal code process commenced when Labor was in government. We regard this as a piece of legislation which has been drafted in good faith and with wide consultation. We commend the Attorney and the Minister for Justice and Customs and their officers for the wide consultation that did occur, as it was imperative that the bill contain provisions to address the real concerns that many in the community would have had had proper account not been taken of civil liberties concerns—concerns which naturally were raised in relation to the taking, use and storage of forensic material. We do not blind ourselves to the fact that there are real concerns in the community relating to the concept of taking and storing forensic material, to the uses to which a DNA database may be put and to the adequacy of the protections. While we recognise that this is an invaluable investigative tool and its application and utilisation are necessary in the development of an effective modern law enforcement regime, it was imperative in introducing such a tool that we ensured that as much as possible was done to minimise the possibility of any abuse and to protect basic civil liberties. There have been a number of changes, which the government has conceded, which are a result of opposition suggestions that were made in the process of the bill being examined by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. The fact that the bill went to that committee and was the subject of quite extensive submissions allowed all concerned groups to raise their concerns with the committee and for detailed scrutiny of the drafting of the bill. The committee produced a unanimous report which made a number of recommendations relating to drafting amendments and to strengthening of the oversight role of the federal Privacy Commissioner. The government accepted those recommendations and, with Labor's support, amended the bill in the Senate so as to address those recommendations. The most significant concern identified by the committee was the lack of uniform legislation governing the collection, use, storage and destruction of forensic material in participating state jurisdictions. This was identified as having the potential to undermine the safeguards which are included in the Commonwealth legislation and guaranteed in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. At the present time, the only jurisdictions which have legislation not consistent with the Commonwealth are Queensland and the Northern Territory.One of the key elements that has been included in the bill is provision for a review of the legislation after it is in operation. Part of that review will be to take into account the effect, if any, of the existence of state legislation which is not consistent with the Commonwealth's legislation. The bill will therefore mandate us to look at that. The opposition's basic view is that any significant deviation from the national code will undermine community acceptance of this legislation and may lead to calls for the national parliament to take a more proactive stand in relation to seeking to apply a more comprehensive national mandate, but we trust this will not be required. It is of no benefit to the Australian community if we continue to have diverging responses to the capacity to address the criminal law.Both the government and the opposition remain committed to the principle that there should be a common code of evidence that applies in courts across the whole of the Commonwealth's jurisdictions, the states and the territories. So too do we believe that, in these areas where the community is having to come to terms with new investigative procedures for which there is some degree of concern amongst not just a handful of people but a significant body within the community, it would be quite unthinkable if the Commonwealth were to allow a significant divergence to occur in ways which would suggest that there was a lack of concern about privacy, a lack of concern about the dignity of those persons who are subject to search or a lack of commonality about the destruction of records and the like. So those are important points or markers to lay down and the review will take those into account.The other point about the changes that were made in the Senate is that they increase the oversight role of the federal Privacy Commissioner and make certain, as those of us in the parliament believe, that this legislation has an appropriate degree of balance to ensure the protection of individual rights. It is one thing to say that, but it is important that there is an independent and external auditor of that process. The community must be assured that the common principles that have led to the government and to the opposition supporting this legislation will not be given a Nelson salute and the blind eye but will actually be followed in practice.I note, and I am particularly pleased by the fact, that the government has made commitments to continue to push for consistent legislation across the states. I think the Attorney indicated that also in his second reading speech, and I add what I can by way of moral suasion at this stage to urge those state governments that are not yet entirely in line with this approach to see whether it is within the capacity of their legislative agendas to bring forward legislation that will make certain that those kinds of potential difficulties are addressed as soon as possible. As the Attorney indicated, the bill also contains a number of minor procedural amendments to the Crimes Act which do not relate to the DNA database. They also have our support. In conclusion, the use of DNA in areas outside formal law enforcement is also of increasing community concern. I saw the other night a television program, whose name I regret I cannot recall, which was examining a service offered by a company of which I understand Dr Edelstein is a senior partner or at least a sponsor. That service offers the opportunity of quick paternity checks being done for those who might fear that a particular young person is not their child. I felt great discomfort, particularly when it was disclosed that some of the samples which were being supplied for analysis had apparently been obtained by deceit and that those who had obtained those samples had not sought consent to take a saliva swab or other sample of DNA, whatever the technique is, for its submission to the laboratories that are undertaking these practices. This is part of a larger agenda which ought to be addressed by this parliament. I certainly do not criticise the government for not addressing it in this legislation, because this legislation goes particularly to the criminal law.Not all investigative tasks are undertaken by formal law enforcement. A considerable number of private investigative agencies exist. We have seen the privatisation of much of what was hitherto regarded as central law enforcement activities—security services and the like. The idea that those kinds of techniques might be used by private institutions, operating without the kinds of constraints that apply to law enforcement officials employed by the state, raises some real concerns for people concerned about civil liberties and also about the kind of society we may evolve into if we do not find a proper and effective regulatory framework to deal with the use of DNA profiling beyond that of the criminal law.It was quite salutary for me to realise that these practices are now going on for commercial advantage in Australia and that they are plainly ones for which there is a market. We are moving away from a circumstance where almost all of these intrusive processes could only have been conceptualised as occurring within formal law enforcement to one where the private sector is increasingly being used in areas where the public sector was alone. We now have detention facilities operated by private sector organisations, we have large security firms providing private security for gated communities, we have large corporations that employ firms which offer perimeter security and also security services against internal crime.All of these things are relatively little regulated because, in the past, people have not given much thought to the need for that kind of regulation. This bill is a timely reminder that, whilst we focus on those things which the law enforcement officials can undertake under the authority of the state, we may be letting the stable door stand wide open while the private sector horse bolts. One can be equally damaged by abuse of these processes at the hands of a company run by Dr Edelsten as by the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police. We should bear such thoughts in mind as we move towards our consideration of other agendas in the future.For this piece of legislation, the opposition are content with the amendments that the government has itself incorporated within the bill. We think it is worth giving it a fair go. It is very important that we urge all states to find common ground with the Commonwealth to have this uniform scheme. We very much look forward to the review that will be conducted. This will ensure that all of those issues which were canvassed as requiring a second and hindsight examination once this is in practice will be considered. Then we can assure the community that they will have better law enforcement and also proper respect for their individual rights and for the principles that we as citizens would expect by way of regard for our dignity and our civil liberties in our dealings with the state. 20:58:0025644Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise to support the Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill 2001 and to congratulate the Attorney-General and the Minister for Justice and Customs on preparing and bringing forward the bill. I also congratulate the previous Minister for Justice and Customs, Amanda Vanstone. Having listened to the shadow minister, I am very glad to see the bipartisan nature of consent towards the development of this bill, understanding the complexities that surround it. If those in the outside world recognised that there are many bills like this where we do take a bipartisan approach, I am sure they would be encouraged.As the shadow minister indicated, the aspect of the bill that we would support is the fact that it is aimed at improving our collection of data related to criminal activities and criminals themselves. It does provide worthwhile safeguards in terms of the destruction of material when it is collected. It provides guidelines on where it can be used—for serious criminal offences and for those who volunteer to offer DNA samples. The questions of privacy that were involved are also most significant. I believe that this represents a very worthwhile attempt to come up to all of the parameters that were required to bring this bill forward.I note that the New South Wales police commissioner, Peter Ryan, has been calling for some time for the ability to use DNA samples to pursue criminals in Australia and for an appropriate database which is highly accurate. So I am sure that with the Labor government in New South Wales, or wherever, there is a bipartisan approach to seeing these recommendations come forward. There has been a considerable amount of interest in this bill in the public arena, and, as a member of the government's backbench Attorney-General, Justice and Customs Policy Committee, I can say there was a lot of interest when the bill was brought before us.The bill does allow access to the latest forensic technology to ensure that criminal investigations are conducted more expeditiously and efficiently. DNA technology is used extensively in the UK, Canada and the United States, and without doubt it is the most significant development in the investigation of criminal activity for over 100 years. The government is anxious that the benefits of this technology can be used in the tracking of criminals. In solving crimes more quickly the bill has two clear benefits: firstly, the great savings in terms of cost to taxpayers and, secondly, a benefit to the community through ensuring criminals are brought to justice as quickly as possible, making our society safer.There is a widespread desire throughout Australia at present that law and order be maintained, particularly in view of recent trends in other countries. I know that in my own electorate there have been instances of violent crimes, street gangs and street fights in which guns have been involved. Previously, the quiet backwaters of Cronulla have been a fairly pleasant and easy place to live. That has changed with the dimensions of drugs and gangs, and it is now the number one issue in my electorate. I am sure that, if we did testing in every electorate throughout Australia, concerns about law and order would be right up there on the agenda, as people are concerned about their own personal safety. Only a week ago there was a law and order rally held in Cronulla. It was held at 11 o'clock in the morning, yet there were 500 people there who came to express their concern about the level of crime in Cronulla in particular, but I know that this goes across the whole of Sydney and the whole of Australia.This bill has been developed over a significant period of time. Back in 1994 the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee first produced a draft model forensic procedures bill for public discussion. Then there was brought forward a Crimes Amendment Bill, and I understand that the shadow minister was involved in its preparation. This expired after the 1996 election, and the Howard government enacted the Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Act, which set up a limited framework for the legislation we are discussing today. In particular, this act inserted a new clause 1D, which outlined the proper procedures for the taking of forensic material from a person suspected of committing a serious Commonwealth offence. These offences would include drug trafficking or any offence which carried a sentence of life or five or more years imprisonment. The government also announced the expenditure of $50 million towards the creation of Crim Trac, a database for DNA samples. The new legislation did not, however, detail the transfer of collected material onto the database. That issue was deferred until the government was in a better position to legislate for this. Obviously, there are significant privacy issues at stake, and the government wanted to be able to legislate for the appropriate safeguards. We are now in a better position than we were three years ago, so the bill was developed. I do congratulate the Attorney-General, the Minister for Justice and Customs and the public servants involved in this for their extensive consultation with the community and with the various privacy groups to ensure that there is significant protection for the data collected.The bill creates three events in particular: it allows for the carrying out of forensic procedures on certain convicted prisoners who are under sentence; it allows for the carrying out of forensic procedures on volunteers; and it sets out the rules under which the forensic information collected can be stored and used on the CrimTrac database. There are, of course, a number of minor technical amendments, as well. In relation to the forensic procedures on convicted offenders, samples can be collected only from serious offenders currently serving sentences. As has been outlined, a serious offence is a crime which is punishable by life or five or more years in jail. A prescribed offender, on the other hand, is someone convicted of a less serious offence punishable by two or more years in jail. Hair, saliva or blood samples can be taken from serious offenders to be stored on CrimTrac; however, only fingerprints will be allowed to be taken from prescribed offenders, as was the case previously. I am very pleased to note also that issues of human dignity are maintained and protected through this and, if samples are required to be taken, a magistrate can be involved in overruling any refusal to do so. I think the community would say that that is appropriate. Samples are taken at the time of sentencing.Secondly, there is the question of forensic procedures on volunteers. We saw a case of volunteers coming forward last year. The particular case that attracted a lot of media attention was when a large number of males from a country town in New South Wales allowed swabs to be taken from the inside of their mouths in order to assist the investigation of a terrible assault of a senior resident in the area. This bill allows for DNA samples to be used for forensic use so that individuals coming forward as volunteers can eliminate themselves from a criminal investigation, for instance. Also, that is meant to put focus on those individuals who could be subject to some suspicion. It could be argued that the large number of volunteers submitting themselves for DNA testing assisted a more rapid outcome in the particular case. We all watched it unfold. That is one of the very reasons this particular legislation has been brought forward. It was publicly accepted by the community. The considerable use that was made of DNA samples in eliminating people, possible suspects, and also in putting pressure on those who could be most under suspicion, was demonstrated.Of course, there are some dangers in this approach—you can develop a mob mentality. For those who refuse, for their own particular reasons, for their own questions of privacy, to take part in this volunteer program, the legislation provides various safeguards to ensure that the rights of those individuals are protected. That is appropriate, too. The volunteer can withdraw their consent for undergoing DNA testing, and that can be withdrawn at any time. That is the question of their consent to the retention of their forensic material. As well, it is only overruled where the individual concerned is the chief suspect. The normal process is that the individual can volunteer or they can decline to volunteer if they wish to decline, and their rights are protected; they can withdraw from the process at any time. Only in the case where they are the chief suspect is it overruled, and then it has to have a magistrate involved. The third aspect of the legislation is in relation to CrimTrac and the national DNA database. Proposed section 8A of this legislation deals with the establishment of the database itself by CrimTrac. The database will be broken up into several sections: the missing persons index, the unidentified deceased persons index, the serious offenders index, the volunteers index, as well as others. They will be crosschecked to see what information that provides. Strong penalties are provided—up to two years imprisonment—for the misuse of this material.One of the concerns in the Senate's debate on this legislation, particularly from the Democrats, was on the possibility of genetic discrimination arising from this database. I notice that the DNA profiling process selected for use in this database should not result in any problems and that, other than where there is a match to material gathered at a crime scene, the only information about a person that it will be possible to glean from the profiles on the database will be a person's sex.The reason for this is that the DNA profiling is different in tending to use parts of the genome that do not actually contain information that will affect an individual's appearance, intelligence or other characteristics. In terms of DNA testing, it is more reliable to use other parts of the genome that are not as susceptible to mutation. These provide a clear index. The chance that discrimination as a result of genetics could arise from this database is therefore minimised. That is appropriate, and I am glad to see these changes made.As far as concluding comments on the bill are concerned, first it is important to see that this legislation is complementary to legislation being brought forward in the various states. Obviously, this required a significant amount of work in bringing everyone together to reach agreement and to push this issue in every state and territory. That is a significant step forward, and not always easy, but most appropriate. Secondly, the legislation makes the most advanced technology available in prosecuting crime around Australia. It is increasing the protection of the community from serious crime, decreasing the length and cost of criminal investigations and decreasing the inconvenience to innocent people who may be being investigated for a crime. This bill has not been drawn up in haste. There have been extensive discussions with various people in the community—with the federal and New South Wales privacy commissioners, law enforcement agencies, forensic experts, civil liberties groups, victims groups, judges, academics and bar councils, just to name a few. It is good to see lengthy discussions with the community. I am also pleased to see the cooperation from the opposition parties that has been demonstrated here tonight. The minister has launched an independent inquiry into the issues surrounding this legislation, and this inquiry will monitor the effectiveness of the legislation as a safeguard to Australians' privacy. We look forward to hearing the outcome of this legislation by 30 June 2002.This bill is good news for the Australian community. It will lead to a safer environment. It will lead to the tracking down and prosecution of criminals throughout Australia. In some cases, it will lead, as we have seen in other jurisdictions overseas, to the release of people from prison who have been innocent of crimes for which they have been charged. This legislation addresses issues of fairness and of creating a safer environment in Australia. It provides safeguards for the collection of data from serious offenders only; it provides for volunteers to come forward and offer samples; it provides safeguards for those who do not wish to be part of a whole community taking part in this DNA sampling and for the preservation of dignity of individuals in terms of DNA testing and where DNA samples can be taken from. The legislation also deals with the question of destruction of data and makes sure that there is a differentiation of data used specifically for a particular case: volunteers can decide whether they are happy to have the DNA samples available generally or whether they want the sampling limited to just that case under investigation so that when the case has been solved the DNA material can be destroyed and privacy questions can be safeguarded. Overall, I believe that this is an excellent piece of legislation. It provides for a significant breakthrough in terms of criminal investigation throughout Australia. I congratulate the ministers involved and the public servants who have done so much to bring this together and to bring the states on board for probably one of the most far reaching pieces of legislation in terms of criminal pursuit that we have seen in Australia for a long time. 21:14:0025647Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—The Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill 2001 builds upon earlier legislation in relation to forensic procedures, particularly forensic procedures with respect to DNA, and the principal effect of the bill is to create a national DNA network. It is pleasing to hear the Attorney-General indicate that the government is accepting the recommendations of the appropriate Senate committee and the Senate's recommendations in relation to some important safeguard provisions in the legislation and, on that basis, as the member for Denison indicated, the opposition fully supports the legislation.Advances in forensic science over recent times have been very substantial. The challenge, I guess, in a public policy sense is to harvest the benefits of those advances without threatening fundamental societal values. Certainly, the community expects a vigorous response to serious crime, in particular, and there is no doubt that DNA evidence, as other speakers have indicated, can substantially help in identifying offenders and, equally importantly—or perhaps more importantly—in eliminating suspects from investigations.This question of getting the balance right was very amply illustrated in the July 2000 edition of a magazine called Australasian Science in an article written by Alastair Ross, who I think is still the Director of the National Institute of Forensic Science. He concluded his article by saying:It is essential that the DNA database enjoys the confidence of the general public in its equity and integrity. Only then will it provide maximum benefit to the community as a tool to reduce crime.I think this is very much the nub of the issue, because one can see scope for a number of problems if this science and the magnificent benefits it offers are not very carefully addressed. In the same edition of the Australasian Science periodical, Justice Kirby wrote an article called `DNA evidence: proceed with care'. I will quote a few sections from his article, but at this point perhaps the most pertinent one is as follows:Effective procedures must be put in place to guarantee that DNA samples do not become contaminated. The planting of evidence has been an existing problem for the criminal justice system in the past. Given the likely devastating power of DNA evidence, it becomes doubly important to ensure the integrity of samples collected and their transmission, storage, testing, reportage and preservation for the scrutiny of independent experts and the courts. Contamination or fabrication of evidence by officials is only part of the problem. The planting of false trails by criminals, in order to implicate other suspects, cannot be ignored.Forensic science, despite its considerable achievements, is not without its examples of significant muck-ups. The most notorious case, certainly in recent decades in Australia—not one that involves DNA, as such, but which nonetheless indicates some of the problems and why we need to adopt a cautionary approach—was undoubtedly the Chamberlain case, which led in 1987 to the Morling Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Chamberlain Convictions. It was found that the scientific evidence in that particular case was seriously flawed. According to Morling, a number of tests were done without the results being verified. It was found that there was a failure to use adequate controls, particularly in testing blood samples from the Chamberlain car. The commission also found that testing was done on articles from which a clear result could not be expected and that there was a failure to use a control or scientific methodology in such circumstances. The commission found a failure to take adequate account of the effects of heat in a car with the effluxion of time when interpreting test results. The Morling commission was indeed a damning indictment of the conduct of forensic science in that context, and that is certainly not the only example. I think it illustrates very starkly why it is fundamentally important, for the reasons that Alastair Ross indicates—the question of public confidence in forensic science—that this parliament proceed with substantial caution and care in relation to these matters.There is very much the question of the danger of the aura of science in criminal proceedings with juries. There may well be an argument that juries give exceptionally high weight to some of the mathematically fairly impressive-sounding ratios that can be given in relation to probability and the like without fully understanding all the implications of that, and that science and technology develop an aura which can, in some circumstances, potentially lead to miscarriages of justice. There is also a need to recognise that, in many criminal procedures, the question of identity—which is what DNA evidence is particularly useful in determining—is not really the issue. In a substantial number of serious crimes—murder, for example—the issue very much before the courts may not be a question of the identity of someone who has taken someone else's life; it may be a question of the intent and the circumstances surrounding that. In relation to sexual offences, very often the issue is not so much the identity of the person or the fact that some sexual relationship has occurred; it is the question of whether consent was involved. In those sorts of serious criminal cases, which are very typical, DNA—to the extent that it is relevant in determining identity—is, in many respects, substantially irrelevant.All of this probably just goes to illustrate that technological advances are really no substitute for good old-fashioned police work when crime is being dealt with, and that really means resources. One also has to be cautious of situations where governments—as this government is prone to do—talk up their law and order credentials but then substantially cut back on the resources available for good old-fashioned police work and law enforcement work. Other speakers have referred to the discrepancy of the laws of different jurisdictions in Australia. This is a particularly and increasingly important issue, given the mobility of the Australian population between jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions have already developed or put in place legislation—or they are in the process of doing so—to complement the Commonwealth's model, but others have not. We really need to take this opportunity to reinforce the importance of continuing to press for cross-jurisdictional agreements on rules to ensure the integrity of the database. This is a most critical aspect.But I come back to the point of confidence. If there is a significant stuff-up, to use a slightly crude expression, in one jurisdiction, that will adversely impact across the board on that fundamentally important issue of public confidence that Alastair Ross refers to; confidence will decline. There really is a fundamental need for the Commonwealth to provide a very serious leadership role in this respect.My colleague the member for Denison referred to a range of community concerns about DNA technology generally. Indeed, the article I referred to by Justice Kirby in the Australasian Science magazine dealt with some of these issues as well. Amongst other things, Justice Kirby said:Disproportionate investment of personnel and resources should not be devoted to DNA sampling and testing. The much publicised DNA testing of 500 people in the NSW bush town of Wee Waa may have been an illustration of this. Opponents suggested that it would have been a more effective expenditure of police funds to keep the police station open at night. In the same category may be the demands that DNA testing should be followed up by large-scale testing of employees at their workplace, in effect to see whether they are using illicit drugs. Care would have to be observed against extending testing for multiple causes given that, once started, the list has an inherent and professional tendency to expand. Justice Kirby obviously makes a number of points in that comment, but nonetheless the essential theme is an important one that I would echo—that is, one should be very cautious about using the sorts of advances that this legislation is indicating and authorising in terms of a more broad based expansion of DNA testing. There certainly can be significant adverse effects on the important societal values that I referred to earlier if, as a community, we allow that to occur.The member for Denison referred, amongst other things, to Dr Edelsten's initiatives in relation to private testing. One can also see significant risks occurring in relation to the insurability of people by expanding the range of options that are open for testing. One can see adverse effects on employment opportunities from the same sorts of things. Justice Kirby also says:None of us would wish for a society in which we could be stopped on the corner by an official with the demand: `Papers!'. Yet in the future the ambitious official will not demand a passport of the paper variety or even one with electronic coding. He or she will want the most indelible passport of all: one written with the subject's DNA. To the extent that we arm officials with the power to secure, collect, aggregate and match such data—and to build from it a universal database—we must be careful that we do not thereby reduce the measure of individual freedom and privacy that the law presently upholds. Our Constitution and criminal justice system accept that there are values to be served other than efficiency and clean-up rates.I do not wish to delay the House unduly, but I wanted to take this opportunity to quote extensively from a distinguished jurist such as Michael Kirby to indicate that each time these sorts of extensions occur, in this case we would all agree necessary infringements potentially on people's liberties, in the interests of another good—the good of law enforcement—we have to remind ourselves that we are going to have to be extraordinarily vigilant and renew our commitment to vigilance in relation to other values by ensuring that we take the opportunity to indicate that each extension of this type will be very vigorously scrutinised and that, if there is not an overwhelming and compelling case to do so, it will be opposed in the interests of other societal values. 21:27:0025649Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—Crime and the justice system required to deal with it are estimated to cost Australia at least $18 billion per annum, or around $1,000 a year for every man, woman and child in this country. Yet, when one quantifies the cost of crime, one is unlikely to be satisfied with the outcome. After all, what price is attached to the life of a man, the loss of a mother, a child or a friend? Indeed, beyond homicide, how do we calculate the cost of the loss of innocence from the violated home to the quickened steps on the dark street, the lingering distrust of someone close to us or even the ugliness of a defaced building? Any conclusion is likely to underestimate crime's cost. The protection afforded to the community by the law remains the first and foremost concern of the community. Our government recognises that priority and has paid much attention to ensuring that the Commonwealth does all it can to support the states and territories in their law enforcement and achieves its own goals in enforcing federal laws. The government's commitment is apparent from the $13 million provided to fund the National Crime Prevention Program, the further $21.4 million allocated to A Safer and Stronger Australia program, and the additional nearly $70 million provided to the Australian Customs Service through the Tough on Drugs initiative. The Commonwealth can also claim credit for the national firearms buyback and the uniform national firearms laws. Through reform legislation, the government has also targeted traffickers in people-smuggling and prostitution and those engaged in bribery overseas, to name a few. Yet perhaps the most important initiative on the part of the Commonwealth has been in the field of forensic science. For too many years, forensic science has been regarded as somewhat of a novelty—we are all Kay Scarpettas in our spare time—a sort of necessary auxiliary to criminal investigation, but an auxiliary nonetheless. In fact, in its June 2000 report, the Prime Minister's Science Engineering and Innovation Council noted: There is a need to change the dominant culture in law enforcement agencies, which view scientists and `'techos' as a curious ... adjunct to the main game of crime fighting. A more fulsome engagement with the science must be actively promoted from the top. I believe that the engagement described by PMSEC is now happening as our nation's law enforcement agencies work towards the creation of the CrimTrac national crime database. The Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill 2001 will facilitate CrimTrac's development, a commitment given by the government at the time of the last election, at the cutting edge of forensic investigation—the collection and analysis of genetic evidence. The government has already provided $50 million for the establishment of CrimTrac's database systems and investigative tools, such as the new national fingerprint and palm print system. CrimTrac's potential to connect police data across state and territory borders signals a real leap into the 21st century by Australia's police services and holds out the promise of significantly increasing the number of instances of identification and prosecution of criminals. This is particularly important when one considers that a very small percentage of people commit the vast majority of crimes in this country. I understand that recent British studies have suggested that, in that comparable nation, 90 per cent of crimes are committed by less than 10 per cent of the community. Furthermore, in case studies in the UK, where systematic DNA testing began in 1986, results have indicated that systematic rather than sporadic use of DNA testing has increased `hit rates' from around 25 per cent to 94 per cent, with dramatic cost savings and earlier elimination of suspects. The potential effectiveness of systematic DNA testing warrants an appropriate legislative response, and we should not forget that since Daubert et al v. Merrill Dow Pharmaceuticals in 1993 in the American courts the criterion that forensic evidence be objective and scientifically based rather than simply expert witness evidence has been increasingly applied. So courts generally are increasingly demanding the application of the Daubert criterion. In this changing judicial environment, it is necessary to give DNA evidence a solid legislative and scientific base. In essence, the bill before the House will amend the foundation of federal criminal law—the Crimes Act 1914—to provide for a national DNA database and, in turn, will put into place safeguards on the collection of forensic material from volunteers in the course of particular criminal investigations and the subsequent placement of this material on the database; create procedures for the matching and use of DNA information obtained from forensic in order to prevent misuse of that evidence; provide adequate procedures for the making of orders by state and territory judges and magistrates and other court officials in relation to these matters; and confirm the appropriate recognition of orders issued under the Commonwealth and state and territory laws across Australia's jurisdictions.CrimTrac and the nature of the technology it utilises necessitate the careful drafting of associated law. Clearly, existing administrative procedures and penalties associated with the handling of evidence and records by police do not adequately ensure the protection of forensic evidence, particularly where that evidence is volunteered. To balance the public and private interests in this regard, the amendments made by this bill will ensure that, where forensic procedures are carried out on convicted offenders, evidence such as hair samples, saliva and blood may be obtained and incorporated into that database only from serious offenders—that is, those convicted of offences punishable by sentences of five or more years imprisonment—prescribed offenders (those convicted of lesser offences) be required to submit to fingerprinting, a magistrate's approval be required where informed consent is not provided by an offender; and the requirements apply to both persons serving sentences and those on release. It should also be noted that, where appropriately supervised, a person undertaking an invasive procedure, such as the collection of saliva samples, may self-administer the test. Where forensic procedures are carried out on volunteers, informed consent is required and special arrangements exist for children and the incapable. A volunteer can withdraw consent for the taking or retention of evidence at any time, except where a magistrate agrees to intervene—for example, when a volunteer withdraws consent after suspicion is turned in their direction. As the use of such volunteers for the investigation of particular cases becomes more common—for example, the recent investigation in the town of Wee Waa—these changes to the law will ensure that those volunteers and authorities can be sure of how material will be collected, used and eventually destroyed. The database will consist of a series of indexes or indices—a suspects index, an offenders index, a crime scene index, a volunteers for limited purposes index and a volunteers for unlimited purposes index in which DNA profiles are stored. Those profiles can then be matched with others held in other indexes, but only in accordance with specific matching regulations, the contravention of which will carry a penalty of two years imprisonment.Privacy considerations, so important in the development of these regulations since 1995 by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, the Australasian Police Ministers Council and the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee, will be ensured through the limited nature of the DNA analysis which will reveal only the sex of the person from whom the material is taken rather than any other personal characteristics, to strict regulation of collection, analysis, storage, access, recording and destruction of material, and the involvement of the federal Privacy Commissioner in the monitoring of CrimTrac's administration of its databases. Similar privacy considerations will apply to any equivalent legislation enacted in the states and territories.As the member for Curtin, I have a particular interest in the potential of this bill, and of CrimTrac more generally, to aid in the investigation of crimes involving homicides or missing persons. Members of this House would be aware that it was only about four years that the western suburbs of Perth were witness to the disappearances and, in some cases, the murder of a number of young women. These cases remain unsolved, although officers of the Western Australian Police Services Macro Task Force continue their work daily in the pursuit of justice. It is my hope that initiatives such as CrimTrac will play a part, if not in the investigation of the Claremont cases then in the investigation and prevention of similar crimes. This is the very least that we as a government can do for the bereaved families. I would think that that is a belief commonly shared across Western Australia.There is a reasonable expectation within the community that government agencies will have the capacity to respond to crime, not just by increasing police patrols but with technology and in smarter ways—ways that maximise the return per dollar spent in seeking to control crime. I am heartened that the community's commitment to the application of forensic science is matched by its appreciation of the work undertaken by the Forensic Science Unit at the University of Western Australia, an institution located with the electorate of Curtin, with a fine reputation for rich research capability. In my capacity as a member of the advisory board of the forensic science program, I have had the privilege of observing the world-class educational and investigative work undertaken by sciences such as Dr Ian Dadour and Professor Win Bailey and many others. The program brings together staff from the departments of Zoology, Computer Science, Soil Science, Anatomy and Human Biology, Chemistry, Geography, Psychology and English, as well as the Faculty of Law, the PathCentre and the centres for Molecular Immunology and Instrumentation, and Microanalysis. It is a multidisciplinary program and it has just produced its second group of graduates in the Graduate Diploma in Forensic Science and also offers a masters course by research and course work. Students are exposed to a broad range of disciplines related to forensic science and gain hands-on experience in material analysis and the use of techniques such as scanning electron microscopy—all this to ensure that we have a better equipped group of investigators to solve crime.For many years, the Western Australian Police Service has relied on numerous scientists at the University of Western Australia for partnerships in solving crimes, so this course brings together a wealth of current forensic science practice in the state. The university is rich in advanced technology and research expertise and, by creating a degree in forensic science, it exposes these intellectual resources to the practice of criminal investigation. In commenting and commending the work of the program, I also commend the Attorney-General on the amendments to the Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill and commend the bill to the House.21:40:0025652Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—The Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill 2001 is good news for justice and law enforcement but it is bad news for those of criminal intent. It is good news for the community as it will also give an enormous boost to community safety and confidence, and it has my full support. Most of the amendments in this bill relate to the Crimes Act 1914 and other amendments to the Mutual Assistance In Criminal Matters Act 1987. The main purpose of this bill is to facilitate the establishment of the CrimTrac national DNA database system. It will do this by allowing the collection of forensic material from any serious convicted offender still under sentence, providing safeguards for taking forensic material from volunteers for use in criminal investigations and storing the information on the database. The DNA database will also store profiles of samples of material collected from the scene of unsolved crimes. Each time a new profile is added to the database it will be searched against all existing profiles. This will give the database the potential to link offenders and suspects to unsolved crimes, including multiple and seemingly unrelated offences.DNA is an abbreviation for an almost unpronounceable acid called deoxyribonucleic contained in human body material which has become known as the `little strand of life'. It is contained within the nucleus of body cells. Human DNA contains about three billion steps. It is found in every cell in the body except red blood cells. Apart from identical twins, no two people share the same sequence of information. DNA is highly discriminatory with the most common profile being found in approximately one person in 360 million matches. Therefore the chances of random matches within the Australian population are remote indeed. DNA can be taken from blood, skin, hair follicles or saliva samples. At crime scenes, it can be taken from a beer glass, a cigarette butt, a drug wrapping, smudgy fingerprints or broken fingernails. A DNA match is not usually proof of guilt, but it does show that a particular person was present at a crime scene.The bill represents a giant step forward in the fight against crime. As the Minister for Justice and Customs has said, it is a real springtime for the innocent and a winter for the guilty. It will provide an enormous asset to the police, helping them to carry out their investigations more quickly and efficiently by reducing the number of suspects. This blessing has come to us via advances in science and technology. It will help solve crimes, it will prevent crimes and it will clear innocent people from suspicion. By reducing the impact of investigations on innocent people and completely releasing them from suspicion, it will be a big step forward for civil liberties in Australia. The DNA database can also bring justice to innocent victims of false accusations and erroneous charges and free them from imprisonment. In the United States, DNA evidence has led to the freeing of 99 prisoners in California and 13 death row inmates in Illinois were cleared of their crimes following DNA testing. Each year in Australia, some 30,000 people are reported missing. Their families and friends are left devastated, not knowing where the person is or what has happened to them. At least 12 people are affected when someone goes missing. For some families, their lives will never be the same again. Fortunately, 99 per cent of the people reported missing are eventually located, but there are some who are not because they have become victims of crime. I have no doubt that the DNA database will be a useful tool in helping investigators solve some of the most baffling missing person cases and provide families with the answers that they so desperately crave. Detective Superintendent Robin Napper, who was on secondment to the New South Wales Police Service after helping to establish the British DNA database, has pointed out that in the United Kingdom more suspects are confessing to murders when confronted with DNA evidence—an unthinkable proposition even a few years ago when most sought to contest their way through the courts. So this development is also a huge saving in costs.This bill is one of the many benefits that have come to Australia from the election of the Howard government in 1996 and the election of a government that keeps its election promises. I note that in 1992 the Council of Europe passed recommendations on the use of DNA analysis in the context of the penal system. DNA databases have been operating successfully in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand and some European countries, among others. Information from the database in the United Kingdom which was established in 1995 shows that almost 90 per cent of sex offenders have previous convictions for lesser offences such as house burglary and two-thirds of the volume of crime is committed by eight per cent of the British population; and the United Kingdom database averages about 400 matches per week.In the United Kingdom the DNA database has been used to make over 10,000 matches between crime scenes and suspects. It has been used in clearing up, on average, over 300 crimes per month. There is a cold hit rate of 18 per cent of matches arising from comparing whole indexes—that is, by comparing the whole crime scene index against the whole of the serious offenders index. This is a better record than fingerprint matching, where the hit rate is 10 per cent. This must make DNA the greatest forensic breakthrough since Sir Edward Grey laid down fingerprint classification in 1897—over 100 years ago. In the United Kingdom more than 600,000 samples have been submitted for analysis. Of these, just over 500,000 have been profiled and included in the database. From April 1998 to the end of January 1999, there were 35 murder-manslaughter person to crime matches, 112 rapes, 41 sexual assaults, 40 grievous bodily harms and 88 serious robberies, 51 aggravated burglaries and 46 arson person to crime matches. These are very encouraging results, and they give us some idea of the benefits we can confidently expect will follow from the passing of this bill. There will be huge time and human resources savings that can be allocated to other policing tasks that will in turn bring even better crime clear-up rates. I know that there are some people who have reservations about a DNA database from a civil liberties and privacy point of view. It is similar to the opposition that fingerprinting faced when it was introduced as a crime detection tool in Australia in 1902. Today, no-one questions fingerprints being kept on a national register. It would be unthinkable to discard fingerprinting, and the same principles apply to DNA. This bill contains safeguards relating to the taking of forensic material from volunteers, procedures to ensure there is no misuse of information obtained and procedures for making orders by state and territory judges, magistrates and other court officers authorising the carrying out of forensic procedures. I understand that the Australian forensic laboratories have deliberately chosen a DNA profiling system that, apart from gender, reveals no information about a person in relation to physical or mental attributes and status. The system tests only sections of the DNA that have no function and are essentially irrelevant for other purposes. It will not be possible to test for a criminality gene or to determine sexual preference, which has worried some critics of the database. Profile matches by the database will be confirmed by tests of a second sample from the individual where there is an indication that an investigation will proceed. The result of the second test will be used for court purposes, not the results of the initial match. The profiling system that has been chosen has been described by Australasian Science magazine as being:... robust, commercially prepared and [has] been rigorously validated. It is a system that is recognised and used internationally so that results can be directly compared between Australian and overseas laboratories. It is a process in which all of the major government forensic science service providers are involved.Obtaining DNA samples from criminal suspects should accord with the basic principles of our legal system, and I believe this bill meets that requirement. There has been extensive consultation right across Australia, including between the federal and New South Wales privacy commissioners, CrimTrac and law enforcement agencies. I was reassured to see from an Interpol document that Australia participated in the first international DNA users conference in Lyons in November 1999. From the minutes, I noted that the following countries made limited contributions: Australia, Denmark, Netherlands, Argentina, Austria, the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, Germany, Finland, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Bulgaria, France, Council of Europe, United Arab Emirates, Tunisia, Canada, Venezuela, Jordan, New Zealand and Saudi Arabia. Some of the issues raised were DNA profiling, DNA databases and ensuring integrity from the scene of the crime to the laboratory, and the value of DNA evidence, including the education of people involved in prosecution in court procedures to avoid misunderstandings and the misinterpretation of evidence. Most discussions centred upon quality assurance along the entire evidence chain and the need for proper training. One of the recommendations was the establishment of competence tests for laboratories and personnel and their accreditation. I was interested to see that the Netherlands forensic institute aimed to spend 70 per cent of available time and resources for the year 2000 on forensic case investigations and 15 per cent on research and development.What this says to me is that the government is making the right in-principle decision to establish a national DNA database, and it is doing so on world best practice procedures and safeguards. This bill and the supporting state legislation contain adequate safeguards. Similar legislation has been debated in many countries with strong civil liberties and privacy advocacy bodies. The safeguards have been well argued and well established and are contained in this bill and in supporting state and territory legislation. This is one area where we must support the pendulum that points in favour of the victims of crime and leaves the guilty vulnerable to face the consequences of their crime. Rape victims have the right to have the perpetrator identified. The children, husband, wife or other relatives of a murder victim are left to suffer the grief that follows the murder of a loved one. It assists in the grieving process if the person who committed the crime is found, identified and convicted. Overseas experience shows DNA databases have an outstanding record in bringing to justice offenders in otherwise unsolvable major crimes.Earlier this year in the New South Wales town of Wee Waa, we saw DNA sampling and justice in action. In this town of 1,900 people, a 93-year-old woman had been brutally raped and bashed 15 months earlier. The offender had not been detected. In the police operation earlier this year, all men between the ages of 18 and 45 were invited to volunteer a DNA sample. There was an overwhelming and enthusiastic voluntary response. Within a week or so a local man presented himself to the police and was subsequently charged. It was a victory for DNA based law enforcement. I detect a growing discontent in the community amongst ordinary people about the fair enforcement of the law. There is a perception that the police are having to try to enforce the law with one hand tied behind their back. There is the view that the legal pendulum is swinging too far in favour of the offender. This bill is good news for justice and for law enforcement, and it is good news for the law abiding citizens of the community. It goes a long way to compensating for the shackles that have been placed upon policing. I fully support this bill, and I congratulate the Minister for Justice and Customs on its successful carriage through the parliament.21:53:0025655Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—The Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill 2001 has undergone a great deal of debate in the Senate, both within the chamber and through the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. So a fair degree of scrutiny has already been granted to this bill since it was introduced on 30 August last year. The reason it has been so closely scrutinised is that it is a very important bill. Previous speakers—and I commend them for their contributions—have outlined how this bill aims to provide the Commonwealth's front line law enforcement agency with some powerful new tools to combat crime. At the same time, we are all aware that with police power comes responsibility and the potential for some of the weaker, less influential, less educated and less financially empowered in our community to be subjected to undue pressures. So the challenge before us with this bill is to provide for that balance between power and responsibility when it comes to investigating criminal matters. This bill does this by aiming to ensure that our law enforcement agencies have access to the most advanced and most reliable investigative tools whilst they use these tools in a manner that is subject to controls with respect to privacy and dignity issues.This bill amends the existing forensic provisions of the Crimes Act 1914 based on the Model Forensic Procedures Bill. The amendments include the ability to facilitate the establishment of the CrimTrac national DNA database. The bill provides guidelines for collecting forensic material from volunteers, outlines the matching procedures to be used, addresses the issues of interjurisdictional recognition and provides a detailed code governing the taking of forensic material under various circumstances and for various classes of persons. The bill also maintains the balance between the rights of the individual against those of the public interest currently contained in the Crimes Act. It also addresses the full range of available forensic samples, as well as rules for authorising forensic procedures outlined within the bill, while also detailing provisions for how this data is to be included on the national DNA database. Clearly, these are some very significant amendments.There has been general support from all sides of politics in relation to the bill, as it is recognised that it is in the public interest that law enforcement agencies have available to them the best available technology and methods. There has been debate around the level of protection of civil liberties afforded by the bill. I note in particular the amendments proposed by the Democrats in the Senate. I will come back to these issues a little later. Suffice to say that at this point there has been heated agreement—a lot of action and a lot of activity but general consensus—on the fundamental elements of the bill. I am sure it is a bill that would also have the support of the law enforcement community whose job will be made just that little bit easier with the responsible access to the technology that is available.So why do we need this legislation? We know that law enforcement has always been a critical part of our democratic society. All students of secondary school politics and legal studies would well be familiar with the concept of executive, judiciary and legislative powers. Governments put up the legislation, the legislature votes to make it law and the courts end up upholding the law. Crucially, it is the law enforcement agencies around the country that ensure that people who choose to break the law are brought before the courts and that the available evidence is provided for the courts to decide cases. This is a fundamentally important role in our democracy. It is also a very difficult role, both in terms of the immediate personal danger which pursuing offenders can bring and in terms of satisfying the numerous conditions on evidence and procedure which legislatures rightly demand. Currently the forensic legislation in the Crimes Act 1914 takes no account of the situation where a person volunteers to provide a forensic sample for comparison purposes. This might happen in the case of an unidentified body where a number of potential relatives are prepared to provide a forensic sample in an effort to correctly identify the deceased person. Often investigators are confronted with a number of similar crimes. We have heard how 90 per cent of criminal activity is undertaken by about 10 per cent of the population. Over a period there can be a number of these examples from which they may be able to gain forensic evidence to emphasise the point that a single criminal is involved. If the offender in such a case has already been imprisoned, there is currently no way of getting a forensic sample to prove or disprove a particular person's involvement in those further offences. There are other cases where the circumstances suggest one offender, yet the only evidence available might be DNA. Without the ability to compel suspects to provide samples, or the existence of a database of DNA on which to compare these samples, solving that crime becomes particularly difficult.An example of the sensitivity of DNA technology in identifying offenders might be a syringe with a small amount of blood residue found at a crime scene. Traditionally, if there was enough blood present it could be typed to provide some circumstantial evidence. With the development of DNA technology, it is now possible to identify whose blood it is and also to swab the outside of the actual syringe and identify who depressed the plunger last. This is an example of a weapon. I hold up a syringe. Increasingly, it is a weapon that is being used in a number of crimes. I believe we should recognise that it is a weapon and take some action to reduce its availability, at the same time as ensuring that syringes are not reused by injecting drug users or become part of a crime scene. Once it is depressed, the needle is retracted. This example is not only evidence of how a weapon can be taken out of the hands of some criminals but also shows you how this technology can be used to swab the outside casing and to check any residue that is in it. This is a constructive measure that I am sure is entirely consistent with what we are discussing tonight. There are opportunities to look at syringes and the evidence available to help in the fight against crime. There is also the ability to look at the syringe itself and recognise that technology is currently available that not only reduces the risk of spreading disease through injecting drug users but also reduces the likelihood of one of these being used in a crime scene.As with technology in every field, there is constant development in the forensic field. Ninety-eight years ago fingerprints were first used in this country as a means of identification in the field of law enforcement. They are still used today and they are a valuable tool, and they are also recognised in this bill. Technology moves on and now science has provided us with the ability to identify individuals from very small amounts of biological material—even just a few cells. This bill ensures that our law enforcement agencies are able to make use of the technology that is available in the best and fairest way.The community in my electorate of Dunkley, and I dare to suggest in most electorates in Australia, are concerned with law and order issues. They are concerned that they be able to walk the streets safely without fear of harm or violence and that they do not have to put up with the inconvenience and trauma of being burgled or having their car stolen. CrimTrac is a major commitment by this government to do something positive to ensure that law enforcement agencies can do their job as well as it can be done and that our citizens can feel as safe as they can reasonably expect to feel. This bill is part of the commitment of this government to ensuring our law enforcement agencies are properly resourced. How does this bill deliver on these objectives? It will ensure that CrimTrac is a meaningful tool for law enforcement. It outlines the requirements for collecting forensic information, whether it be from capable adult suspects, child suspects, incapable suspects, offenders in these categories or people who want to volunteer forensic information of their own accord. As I suggested earlier, the protection of civil liberties is also an important aspect of this bill. It provides for periods of imprisonment for those who misuse the CrimTrac databases, include information on a database which rightly should not be included or disclose information in other than lawful circumstances. These are important safeguards. The bill has recognised the important distinction between suspects and convicted offenders. With suspects, there are a wider range of potential samples that can be taken. With previously convicted offenders, the need is to obtain a reference sample in the most efficient and painless way. During the debate on this bill concerns have been raised about the lack of uniformity of legislation across jurisdictions when it comes to forensic procedures. It is true to say that the model criminal code envisaged, as much as possible, uniformity—and this has not been the reality of the situation. The criticism is that, in some jurisdictions, forensic sample collection requirements are not as stringent as the Commonwealth's proposed legislation and that samples taken under these circumstances should not be used. This is a situation which has been faced before. Some here might remember the case of Raymond Edmunds, who was convicted of a number of rapes committed in the eastern suburbs of Melbourne in the 1970s, and two murders committed in Shepparton in the mid-1960s. If my memory serves me correctly, the police of Victoria at the time were aware that the same person had committed the murders and subsequent rapes because fingerprints belonging to the same person had been found at the scenes; however, they were not aware of the identity of the offender. At the time, the police in Victoria did not have the right to take fingerprints from suspects, except by consent. The offender was finally caught because he was arrested on an indecent exposure charge in Albury, New South Wales, where the police did have the power to take fingerprints. These fingerprints were subsequently identified as those from the Victorian offences. So we have some history with inconsistency in forensic collection legislation across jurisdictions. We have a federation of states forming our Commonwealth, and those states have the constitutional right to make legislation on specific issues, and crime is one of them. When dealing with national forensic databases it is important to ensure that the peculiarities of our Federation do not stand in the way of commonsense. In the case outlined above, nobody would suggest that, having identified the offender in New South Wales, the police should not be able to convey this information to their Victorian colleagues on the grounds that the fingerprints could not have been taken in Victoria. For a national database to be effective there must be the ability to freely but responsibly search suspects and crime scene samples against the database. If these searches reveal potential matches, they should be considered a genuine line of inquiry for the investigators. Individual safeguards are important and they are built into this legislation. As a result of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee, the government proposed some amendments to the original legislation, including the requirement that constables expressly inform volunteers of the choice they have as to which database their sample goes on. The Commonwealth has also taken steps to ensure that the Privacy Commissioner and the Commonwealth Ombudsman have a role in overseeing the operation of the national DNA database system. The minister has also said that he will encourage as much as possible, through the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, consistent legislation across the jurisdictions. As I and previous speakers have mentioned, it is an unfortunate reality of our society that a small number of people commit a large proportion of the crime. The reasons people commit crime are many and varied and are the subject of a great deal of interest from the broader community—from academics, politicians, law enforcement agencies and the public in general. It is generally agreed that a large proportion of crime is related to the illicit drug trade. My electorate of Dunkley is certainly not immune from this scourge of illicit drugs and it is interesting to note the response of some in our community. Some do not bother to take the time to inform themselves of the issues in the drug debate, yet they are happy to make a token gesture or engage in a stunt, in an effort to make it seem like they are doing something. This is a serious proposition that will make serious inroads into drug related crime. We know the complexity of the problem and we should not stand for cute, quick fixes which invariably do not deliver. The drug problem requires a multifaceted approach—a mixture of medical intervention for those who are addicts and for those who are at risk of becoming addicts, of education and parental intervention for younger people growing up in a society where drug use is often seen as a way out, and of law enforcement for those who seek to make financial gains out of the misery of others.This government has programs to address these different levels of this complex problem. They are national programs working at the community level. This government is providing $110 million to establish a national system of diverting illicit drug users into compulsory expert assessment and on to education and assessment. I have demonstrated by the use of this weapon—this syringe—that this legislation will help us deal with the enforcement side of the government's Tough on Drugs program by making new technology and new sources of investigation available to be pursued by law enforcement agencies. The Prime Minister has just launched the National Illicit Drug Strategy, which will provide $27.5 million for community education and information purposes under the Tough on Drugs strategy.Mr Deputy Speaker, I note that the Attorney-General is at the table. Through you, I commend to him this retractable syringe. I would like to be able to demonstrate to the Attorney how it works, but the beauty of it is that I cannot demonstrate it, because once it is used the needle is retracted. This weapon, which is what a syringe is, can quite easily be neutralised by the use of available retractable syringe technology. That technology is here; it is available and it will not only help stem the spread of drug related disease but also render useless a weapon of choice for many crimes. The Attorney would recognise not only the cell content that would be helpful in the DNA tools that we are making available now but also the capacity to swab the cylinders to see who actually injected last—an example of some of the things that are available to the government with an integrated multifacted attack on drugs and on law and order issues that concern our community.In my electorate of Dunkley the Victorian Forensic Science Centre has a small office which houses what is known as the Southern Metropolitan Fingerprint Branch. The staff who work there are involved in the collection of forensic evidence—mainly fingerprints but also DNA samples from crime scenes. One of the centre's finest people actually works with me now, a former fingerprint expert, Jeremy Johnson, and he assures me that the team on Nepean Highway at Seaford are very much looking forward to the CrimTrac system being available to assist them with their work. The staff there on the front line of the law enforcement effort will be able to do their job that little bit better because of the legislation we are discussing tonight. The upgrade of the national fingerprint database and the setting up of the national DNA database provided by this government with the support of $50 million is an investment in law enforcement techniques and technology. The establishment of CrimTrac means that samples collected by these guys in the electorate of Dunkley can be searched throughout Australia. This legislation also means that Commonwealth investigators can make use of the data collected by these fine officers who operate out of my electorate and their colleagues all around the country. As in the example before regarding the fingerprints taken in New South Wales which solved a number of serious offences in Victoria, it is sometimes the small cases that can provide the best leads in solving the big ones.This legislation tonight is another piece in the puzzle of how to address crime and illicit drug activity in our country, a puzzle that the government is committed to solving by working at it from all sides. In the few moments available to me I will not take the temptation of again highlighting why these retractable syringes should be part of every needle supply program in our country. But they would represent a further step in guarding against the transfer of blood borne diseases between injecting drug users and in rendering useless a weapon of choice being used far too often in criminal acts in our community. I commend the bill to the House, I commend this technology to the Attorney-General, who is at the table, and I thank you for your time tonight.22:10:0025659Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I would like to close the debate and, in doing so, I would like to thank the members who have spoken: the members for Denison, Cook, Maribyrnong, Curtin and Hughes and, last but not least, the member for Dunkley. The members have demonstrated a careful consideration of the bill, and their contribution to the debate is valuable. The Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Bill 2001 builds on existing forensic procedure provisions in the Crimes Act and contains important measures to ensure that police combating federal crime offences can use the latest technology to solve the crime. This bill was introduced into the Senate on 30 August 2000, and it was considered by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee. The committee reported on the bill on 5 December last year, and I take this opportunity to thank the Senate committee for its constructive review of the bill. The government developed careful and responsible legislative responses to the committee's four recommendations, all of which improve the bill and were accepted by the Senate on 5 March this year in its debate on the bill. The most important amendments to the bill that were made in the Senate concern the oversight of the national DNA database system. The legislation was extended to include the Privacy Commissioner in the statutory review of the Commonwealth forensic procedures. The Minister for Justice and Customs has also written to state and territory ministers with a view to getting agreement on cooperation between Commonwealth, state and territory oversight bodies to ensure that there is effective oversight of not only the operation of the DNA system within each jurisdiction but also the overall operation of the national system. This is best achieved by including formal independent monitoring mechanisms in the CrimTrac agreement with the states and territories so that the total scheme is properly audited and monitored. The Minister for Justice and Customs anticipates discussing oversight arrangements at the next meeting of the Australasian Police Ministers Council in June.There are just a few points raised in the debate on which I propose to comment. The first, of course, must be the suggestion from the member for Dunkley about the use of the retractable needle-syringe. I was not familiar with this invention, but, from his description of it— 2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr Brough—An Australian invention.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—and, from what the minister at the table has just told me, it sounds like it has a great future not only in Australia but internationally. If it does remove a weapon of choice from some miscreants, then I think it will be doing a lot of people a great service. I will certainly draw the attention of the Minister for Justice and Customs to this invention.The second matter on which I wish to comment is the concerns raised by the member for Denison and the member for Maribyrnong about the increasing use of DNA material outside the formal law enforcement context. I can assure both those members that the government is keenly aware, as is the community, of the importance of the protection of the privacy of genetic information. In order to ensure that there is an appropriate protection regime in force, the Minister for Health and Aged Care and I have commissioned a national inquiry on genetic privacy to be undertaken by the Australian Law Reform Commission and the Australian Health Ethics Committee. Part 1D of the Crimes Act 1914, including this bill, and the national DNA database established by the CrimTrac Agency will be subjects of the inquiry. However, the scope of the inquiry is much wider than the use of a national DNA database for law enforcement purposes. The two inquiring bodies are to report on 30 June 2002 regarding the legal and ethical issues surrounding protection of genetic information. They will consider whether laws are needed to protect the privacy of genetic samples and information, to provide protection from inappropriate discriminatory use of genetic samples and information, and to reflect the balance of ethical considerations relevant to the collection and use of such samples. The inquiry is timely and will ensure that a comprehensive review of the genetic privacy issues posed by this bill occurs. The inquiry will involve consultation with the Federal Privacy Commissioner and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Coincidentally, I today had a meeting with the President, Deputy President and a commissioner of the Australian Law Reform Commission, and they advised me that the inquiry is proceeding apace. The secretariat has been established within the Australian Law Reform Commission, and liaison arrangements with AHEC—the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council—have been established. In due course they will advertise publicly.The commission is in the process of establishing an advisory committee. It will be a body with numerous members, including people with particular expertise in the area of genetics. The terms of reference for the inquiry are quite extensive and require the two inquiring bodies to have regard to a number of matters including: the rapid advances in human genetic technology; the progress of research towards the mapping of the human genome; and the scientific and medical applications of human genetic information which are, or could be, of benefit to the Australian community. One of the key issues is whether it is appropriate that genetic information be utilised in commercial transactions, and in this respect insurance is of particular concern. Much of this will not be relevant to the concerns expressed by the two members I referred to, but it demonstrates that the government is keenly aware of the issues and that the community is very concerned to ensure that the privacy of personal information is appropriately protected.A third matter I wish to comment on was one raised by the member for Maribyrnong. In general terms, he made an assertion that, while the government is quick to respond to issues relating to law enforcement as they arise, it is not quick to provide adequate funding in order to ensure that appropriate measures are in place. I want to reject outright that assertion insofar as it relates to funding. We can demonstrate that the government has been quite conspicuous in ensuring that there is appropriate funding for law enforcement at the Commonwealth level. A number of agencies are funded: under the Howard government the National Crime Authority has obtained additional funding; Customs has obtained significant new funding; and in particular I want to mention the AFP. The Australian Federal Police did, between the years 1992-93 and 1995-96, receive net new funding from the Labor government—that is, in the last four years of the Labor government. It totalled, in 1999-2000 constant prices, an amount of $13 million over those four years. Net new funding provided to the AFP under the previous four years of the coalition government—that is, from 1997-98 to 2000-01—totals $314.6 million in 1999-2000 constant prices.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—You missed one year out, I thought.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—Yes, there was no additional new funding provided in that first year because the government was obliged to find more than $10 billion to fill the Beazley black hole that the Labor government left us with. This equates to an additional $301.6 million provided to the AFP during the past four years of the coalition government compared with that of the Labor government. I think that is enough to repudiate the member for Maribyrnong's claim.I stress that the national DNA database system and the use of DNA technology are but one investigative tool that law enforcement agencies will be able to rely on to build a case against a suspect. In the vast majority of cases, DNA evidence alone will not convict. In fact, DNA technology is likely to be at its most useful in eliminating suspects and focusing police investigations whereupon, as I said in the second reading speech, the more traditional methods of policing will come into play. The bill is best characterised as an initiative that will give the police an additional tool to do their job properly. The bill is very much part of this government's commitment to making Australia a safer place to live. I thank the opposition for their support of this bill, and I commend it to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.25661Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Williams) read a third time.Adjournment25661Motion (by Mr Williams) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.2566122:22:0025661Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—I regret to inform the House of the death of a former member for Banks, Vince Martin, who died on 10 March 2001. He was farewelled by his family and friends on 15 March this year at St John the Baptist Catholic Church, Woy Woy.Vincent Joseph Martin served the electors of Banks as their parliamentary representative between October 1969 and October 1980. Vince joined the ALP in July 1949, the same year the Banks electorate was established. He was the federal member when I joined the Labor Party in July 1974. I last saw Vince at the Banks FEC 50th anniversary dinner in October 2000 when we reminisced over the history of the electorate, which has continuously returned Labor members. It was a great night, and our special guests were Paul Keating and Gough Whitlam.Vince Martin was a man concerned for the people in his electorate. He was a diligent and sincere member of this parliament who gave his best during his period of service. It is indicative of the man that the memorial card for his funeral service included the words from John Curtin, `It shall be my daily gospel to speak for the poor and work for the wronged'.Prior to entering parliament, Vince worked as an officer in the Taxation Office, ending that part of his career as a senior investigation officer. He established a reputation of concern for the welfare of others even in the early stages of his career when, amongst other contributions, he helped set up a credit union in his workplace. Vince remained involved with the credit union movement right up until his last years. Later, and throughout his parliamentary career, Vince pursued an interest in tax reform. This was a theme of his maiden speech, where he referred to the `grossly inequitable' share of tax paid by lower and middle income earners. Nothing much has changed. With his professional background, Vince understood the intricacies of the tax system—not only the potential for rorting but the potential for unfairness. He believed in a fair and equitable system where the ordinary taxpayer, who had no option but to pay a legitimate taxation commitment, should not subsidise the wealthy taxpayer.Vince was committed to fairness in the workplace and believed strongly in the principles of the trade union movement. He joined a union, and then commenced his long association with the Australian Labor Party. He was secretary of the Panania branch from 1951 to 1969. He held to the adage `whoever controls the books controls the numbers'. I suppose that is why I have been secretary of the Panania branch since 1980 and have no intention of relinquishing that position. Vince was also either president or secretary of the East Hills State Electorate Council, and vice president of the Banks Federal Electorate Council. Vince was made a life member of the Labor Party in 1990.While Vince and I were of different factions and at times our opinions varied, I held Vince in great respect. Vince was `Labor to the bootstraps' and incredibly loyal to the party. Vince's son Tim in his eulogy spoke of a father who believed his purpose was to work to improve the lot of the working man and to help those who lacked the power to help themselves. His commitment to the working man was also demonstrated by his long involvement with the Revesby Workers Club. He was a foundation member and very proud of his association with the club. He joined on 1 September 1961, with a badge number of 181. He was also the club's patron from 1974.In the moving eulogy at Vince's funeral his son Tim spoke of his father's love for his family. Tim said that he remembered thinking, on learning his father was leaving parliament, that this is `the best news we have heard for many years,' because it would allow his father more time with his wife, children and grandchildren. Vince had more of that quality time when he and Jean moved to Woy Woy in 1987, where Vince, as always, actively participated in everything he was involved in. My condolences are extended to Vince's wife Jean; his children Anne, Denise, Timothy, Gregory, Michael and Stephen; his daughters-in-law; and his 14 grandchildren.2566222:27:0025662Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise tonight to speak about an incident that began with an organised demonstration by the Labor candidate for the seat of Petrie and ended with local residents fearing for their personal safety. Last Monday, 19 March, the Labor candidate organised a demonstration about the two per cent pension increase. The demonstration was a media stunt, with Channel 7 on hand and numbers swelled by Labor Party members. It was held outside my office in Redcliffe. At the demonstration I tried to speak and invited demonstrators into my office to discuss the issue. I was shouted down. The demonstration was vocal and included Ray Hollis, the Speaker of the Queensland parliament, who was aided by a portable microphone; and people who had a genuine need to visit my office felt intimidated and had to wait for the demonstration to end before feeling comfortable enough to leave my office.One of the most upsetting features of this media event came to light following the demonstration. My office received calls and visits from people who had been informed by the Margate-Clontarf-Woody Point Australian Superannuation and Pensioners League to assemble outside my office on the same day at the same time as the demonstration to discuss the proposed but fabricated closure of a hall. These people were unhappy that they had been used to swell numbers and had been deluded into attending the Labor candidate's protest. It is also distressing that they were used so blatantly for the Labor candidate's own political gain. On the evening of Monday, 19 March, around 100 people attended a pensioners' meeting held at Caboolture at a private home, and other meetings were held in Redcliffe. Pensioners were encouraged to attend and were charged $15 for couples and $10 for singles. The irony here is that the Labor Party was actually asking pensioners to pay $1.80 more for couples and $2.10 more for singles than the CPI indexation that they had demonstrated against earlier that day. The money went towards funding the Labor candidate's campaign, even though many who attended this meeting were not initially aware that it was a Labor organised event and campaign fundraiser. This is unbelievable: firstly, the Labor Party publicly accuses the Howard government of clawing back money from pensioners, and here they are doing it for their own gain!But that was not the only distressing feature of this meeting. At the meeting a microphone was offered to anyone who would like to comment on the pension issue. According to several reports from people who attended the meeting, it was quite heated and aggressive towards the Howard government. One man aged 88 and a Liberal voter not known to me got up to talk about how all pensioners had known about the advanced indexation. He was queried as being a Liberal voter and supporter of me. He said he was. He was then verbally abused. He refuted derogatory and insulting allegations of a sexual nature made against me and my staff from members of the Labor Party. He was shouted down and he had the microphone taken from him. He was physically assaulted; he had his shirt ripped. He defended himself but retreated when eight people surrounded him. It was fortunate for him and those who supported him that he was skilled in martial arts and was able to send a clear message to back off. Other people were punched and intimidated for supporting this man's views. When this man walked out of the meeting, he was accompanied by almost half of the meeting, and many of them were Labor voters who were disgusted at the actions of their own party members. Mr Speaker, this is unbelievable. We live in a democratic country and it is everyone's right to protest. It upsets me that false allegations were levelled at my staff and that innocent people were verbally and physically abused. What I cannot believe is how the politicking of this issue by the Labor Party candidate has resulted in a pensioner community that is fearful of its own safety from other pensioners. I have had numerous calls in the last week from pensioners supportive of the Howard government. I have had calls from people crying because they were fearful of being attacked when they went out because of their political beliefs. It is appalling that pensioners were used to swell numbers at a Labor Party organised demonstration. It is appalling that pensioners were encouraged to attend a Labor Party fundraising event on the premise that they would be discussing pensioner issues. It is appalling that the Labor Party peddled falsehoods with the intention of misinforming the community. But most of all it is appalling that pensioners in Redcliffe are suffering because the Labor Party is more concerned about gaining political mileage than ensuring the safety of the pensioner community in Redcliffe. When the safety of innocent people is threatened because their political beliefs are different to those of others, I cannot believe that we are living in Australia. The Labor candidate for Petrie and members of her party should be ashamed of themselves for using people so blatantly, with little respect for their freedom of belief or for their safety.2566322:32:0025663Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I want to tell the House tonight about how pleased I was to be at the Joan Sutherland Centre on Sunday to hear our state Premier, Bob Carr, in the fair city of Penrith, part of which I am proud to represent, give a mid-year report. I think it is fair to say that the Penrith City Council are very generous. They not only provided the Joan Sutherland Centre as a venue but I might say that they also generously provided $15,000 to ensure that the ADI protestors were there to protest about the ADI site development. Perhaps I should first talk about that. It is interesting that they are very concerned about the protection of the Cumberland Plain forest, and they want the whole ADI development to be turned into a park. I am an arborist and I love trees and parks. The Nurragingi Reserve when I was on council was not my idea, but no councillor pushed more for that than I did. That is a mere 90 hectares. The open space in the ADI site is 630 hectares. In relation to the Cumberland Plain forest, all the high value forest and all the medium value forest is being preserved. While the low-grade forest, including some bald spots, is not being preserved, when the development is finished whatever Cumberland Plain forest is there today will be there some time into the future. I guess you might be concerned, Mr Speaker, if a development was getting rid of old-growth forests, but all the forests on the ADI site are regrowth. The high value, the medium value and the low value are not original forest but regrowth. I think Defence is to be congratulated for allowing for this regrowth on its site. Some people say that the federal government has given the foreshores in Sydney Harbour back to the people of Sydney. I think that is a good thing. But that is only 60 hectares. The open space on the ADI site is 630 hectares, something like 10 times the amount of space that is being preserved on the foreshores of Sydney. If, at the beginning of this debate, people had said that the whole development should have been a park, I would have been there at the front of the march saying that is the way it should be. But that is not true. It was only later—midway through what has been about a nine-year process—that people have argued that it now should be all turned into park. It is only these people who are agitating that it all should be a park who somehow can turn the preservation of 630 hectares in a 1,600-hectare site into some sort of colossal failure—who say that 630 hectares of open space is somehow a terrible failure.As I was saying, Penrith City Council is to be congratulated. It is very generous to provide our Premier with the Joan Sutherland Centre and also very generous to have funded this group to the value of $15,000. Penrith is one of the most debt-ridden councils in the city of Sydney. And this so that the Premier could enjoy these protestors! I was very pleased that the Premier announced that more than $320 million would be going to rectify and improve Windsor Road. When it comes to the Sydney orbital, this federal government is spending only $300 million—and this in Western Sydney, when we already have three existing tolls. I believe that, if we are going to advance infrastructure projects, perhaps we should pay. But who is paying for the Pacific Highway? It is more than double the cost of the Western Sydney orbital. There is no toll on the Pacific Highway for all its improvements. Because we in Western Sydney have a tendency to vote Labor, the federal government says, `We'll just put $300 million in and the rest can be paid via a toll—a $5 toll.' (Time expired)2566422:37:0025664Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I want to speak on an issue that is related to the matter the member for Chifley spoke about. Perhaps he could help take up my cause with the New South Wales government. It would be very much appreciated. For many years now, I have had the opportunity to drive into Sydney and along Windsor Road, and have been shocked and stunned by the amount of clearing in the interests of urban development in that area. At the same time, the New South Wales government prevents hardworking farmers who are working out in Nyngan, Tottenham and Hermidale from clearing parts of their land to produce cash crops, which benefits Australia. You can imagine my surprise when I read the Sydney Morning Herald today and found that it talks about the same site—1,500 hectares of former Australian Defence Industries land at St Marys—and about the protesters confronting the Premier, opposing the construction of 8,000 houses and a regional park on this land. I do not often have cause to share a platform with the greenies, but on this, based on the issues that I have spoken about in this place to do with my electorate, I do have some sympathy with them. I understand they handed out 20,000 protest leaflets at that protest on Sunday. They talk about having a population of kangaroos and emus, our national emblems, running around in plain bushland and say that we have a fantastic opportunity to save this area for posterity.In my part of the world, farmers have been encouraged by the community—more than encouraged; the community has demanded it—to go out into the country and clear land to produce crops to feed our citizens and to produce export income. When I say it has been `demanded', there was even a stage where there was a bounty for clearing the land; if the farmers did not clear the land at an adequate rate, the land was actually taken from them. The community encouraged that in the past; they demanded that this clearing take place. The community now has, quite rightly, realised that that was a mistake. We have too much demand on our environment. We have cleared too much country. We suffer from environmental damage.If the community caused the problem originally—and the community has now recognised the problem—why should the farmers who have invested capital in these areas have to pay, almost solely, for the mistake of the community? These farmers have told me on many occasions that they would be quite prepared to leave 15 per cent or 20 per cent of their land uncleared. The situation in New South Wales is such that, because we have allowed clearing over such a wide area of the state—and that problem is now recognised—the fellows out in the slightly uncleared country almost have a blanket ban on what they are able to do. That is the easy solution for the New South Wales government. The hard solution, the fair solution, would be to put in resources for reafforestation of some of the areas that have been overcleared and allow some sensible clearing and planting of crops in the Western Division.These people, mostly young farmers, spent money in the early 1990s. They borrowed money from the bank with the intention of clearing some of their country, in sensible patches, to produce an income that will pay off their loans. In the middle of that situation, the state government has said, `You may no longer do that.' That has effectively put beyond the realms of possibility the chance of any of our young farmers to develop their country and make a living and support their families. In many cases, they are unable to repay the loans and have had to walk off the land, taking their debt with them in the hope of paying it back at some time in the future through some other means. The New South Wales Premier has said over and over again that the Sydney Basin has reached its population potential and that it cannot cope with greater population. All of the infrastructure that he talks about—the drainage and so on—cannot cope with a greater population. Yet here we have him allowing—and I take on board what the member for Chifley says—8,000 more houses and a regional park on the ADI land. The areas I am talking about—Nyngan, Hermidale and Nymagee—are largely regrowth areas. They are not native forests. They are not original stands of trees. In fact, when explorers went through the country they reported undulating grasslands with occasional wooded areas. You could once ride a bike through many of these areas and now you cannot even get through on foot. I ask that the same rules be applied to country New South Wales as apply to the city. (Time expired)2566622:42:0025666Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—This evening I wish to address a topic that a number of my colleagues and I believe is crucial to improving the lives of poor people around the world: access of the poorest people to credit. Currently, 1.3 billion people around the world live on less than $A2 a day, and two-thirds of these people are women. It is these very poor women who often miss out when it comes to benefiting from many of the normal aid delivery programs. Yet, as any mother would know, it is these same women who are crucial to the wellbeing of their families and communities. Microcredit—the provision of small loans for self-employment and income generation—is proving to be a most effective way for these women to help lift themselves out of the cycle of poverty. In a time of various domestic demands for increased expenditure and pressures on the aid budget, microcredit represents excellent use of our aid dollars.The outcomes of the international Microcredit Summit in 1997 have been instrumental in creating the momentum and expertise for the proliferation of quality microcredit programs. This summit launched a goal to reach 100 million of the world's poorest families, especially the women of these families, with microcredit and other business and financial services by the year 2005. Already, 23 million people worldwide are obtaining credit and other services through more than 1,000 programs already up and running throughout the world. Achieving the summit's broad objective is not simply a matter of extending loans to many more people. The Microcredit Summit also set the following specific goals: targeting the poorest people, concentrating on lending to women, building microcredit institutions that are self-sustaining financially and having a measurable, positive impact on the lives of the poor.These additional goals represent the true innovation of the Microcredit Summit, as lending to poor people through microcredit programs was growing before the summit took place. However, the maximum benefit of extending loans to many more people will only be achieved if the people obtaining loans are the poorest and the impact of the loans on their lives is obvious and positive. The Australian government, like other governments of both donor and developing countries, has recognised the value of microcredit in reducing poverty. Over the last 10 years, successive governments of both political persuasions have increased support for microcredit through our aid program from $250,000 to almost $10 million in the years 2000-01. The next challenge for the Australian government is to continue to increase its level of support for microcredit and to ensure that the support that Australia provides is serving the specific goals of the Microcredit Summit. Individual members of parliament can play a key role by ensuring that present and future Australian governments meet these challenges. Members of parliament from more than 20 countries, including 17 members of the Australian Commonwealth parliament from different parties in both houses, are members of the Microcredit Summit Council of Parliamentarians. Each member of the council has pledged to take action to ensure that the summit goals are achieved.Earlier today, I chaired a meeting of members of the Council of Australian Parliamentarians. We reaffirmed our commitment to take action to ensure that Australian aid for microcredit contributes to achieving the Microcredit Summit goals, including raising the issue in person with the Minister for Foreign Affairs upon his return to Australia. We are also seeking to have microcredit as a key issue on the agenda for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meeting to be held in Canberra in September later this year. Microcredit is fostering enterprise rather than aid dependency. I would urge colleagues on both sides of the House to join with the Council of Australian Parliamentarians to ensure that we and our constituents are aware of this good news story about the impact of development assistance through the implementation of microcredit. 2566722:47:0025667Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10—I rise tonight to speak about zone allowances which is something that is in the air once again, and should be in the air. With the introduction of a GST, we pay tax on all goods, with the exception of food. Regarding my old state electorate—the mid-west area of North Queensland—almost all of that area has to suffer a cost of living 23 per cent higher than Brisbane's. I refer to the work done by Dr Sohn at James Cook University. The Queensland year book says that the gulf country towns of Burketown, Normanton and Karumba have a 40 per cent higher cost of living than Brisbane, so that means that people in those areas pay 23 per cent more tax or 40 per cent more tax than a person who lives in Brisbane. On top of this gross unfairness, all of these people in the mid-west, in the Gulf Country, have to travel enormous distances to see a dentist—almost one in two times that they want to see a dentist—similarly with their accountants, lawyers and any other specialist in the medical field as well.In addition to that, many of these towns do not have a top high school, so to get a secondary education one has to go away to the big boarding schools in Charters Towers. Of course, with the state government today and the federal government, the amount given to these people to go away to have a secondary education is about half of the cost of going away. The annual cost of boarding at these schools is about $10,000. It is a complex formula but I think it is a fair thing to say that they get about $5,000 to go away. If a student then decides to have a tertiary education at a university, there is another $10,000 a year to be added to the cost of going to the university above what is paid by a person who, for example, lives in Brisbane and can live at home and go to the university from home.In addition to that, if you have a person in this area on average weekly earnings with a wife—and it is very hard for wives to get jobs out in these areas; jobs are very scarce and, as often as not, they are very specialised—and two children, and if you add a 23 per cent cost of living index and you take off the tax that is applied at the present moment, then as often as not these people are quite literally on or below the poverty line. So we have a person on average weekly earnings and, if you take into account their cost of living, they are actually on the poverty line because they pay exactly the same taxation as a person living in Brisbane. There are some allowances but they are so small now as to be almost invisible.I can remember as a very young man going to Mount Isa. One of the things that made Mount Isa so attractive was not only the huge money that one earned there, which was $120 week—it was a long time ago—but also the tax you paid, which was only $10 a week. At that time we were paying a tax rate of below 10 per cent. Now we are paying a tax rate, even allowing for the small zone allowance that is available at present, of about 30 per cent. The attractiveness of going to Mount Isa has been removed because that huge zone allowance that existed before has been whittled away with the rise in the value of the dollar.I commend the current government for removing the fringe benefits tax on board and accommodation, because another one of the very attractive features of going to Mount Isa was the BSD barracks. There was a negligible charge for food and lodgings at the old barracks site. Whilst the conditions may not have been all that salubrious, most certainly the amount of money that one could earn and save by going to those areas made it well worth going that great distance and living in fairly harsh conditions. The return is not there now on account of taxation. We have seen 39 per cent of our population from the inland northern half of Queensland—and I am certain the same figure would apply to the southern half of western Queensland—vanish in just 2½ decades. (Time expired)2566822:52:0025668Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—As members are aware, Australia is involved in the ongoing development of appropriate policies to meet the threat of greenhouse gas induced climate change. Unfortunately, the world is not particularly sympathetic to the Howard government's stance and neither increasingly are the Australian people. Climate science is an ever growing field and I believe that the results of recent investigations into the greenhouse phenomena have severely damaged the premises that underlie the government's position. In particular, the government has argued that tree planting should be used to offset increased carbon dioxide emissions and therefore enable Australia to emit even larger quantities of carbon dioxide. Other governments, such as the United States government, have tried similar arguments, but a new study published recently in the prestigious journal Science found that tree planting will only make up for the trees that were chopped down in the first place—in other words, the claims that tree planting will compensate for fossil fuel emissions are simply false. The recent Tasmanian scandal where native forests were to have been cleared to make way for plantations to soak up carbon dioxide emissions from Japan plainly demonstrates the weakness of the government's position. The government has repeatedly tried to minimise the warnings about global warming but the evidence continues to grow. In a recent study of Antarctic ice cores published in Nature, American, French and Russian scientists have concluded that the concentration of greenhouse gases and atmospheric temperature is very closely and positively correlated. This is an important discovery because it proves that the greenhouse effect and not some other phenomena such as sunspots or changes in the earth's orbit around the sun is largely responsible for the current warming of the earth.In yet another document, this time from NASA, the greenhouse evidence is clearly explained and comes with a statement that the chance that scientists have got it wrong is less than one per cent. In other words, scientists are now 99 per cent certain that carbon dioxide emissions by humans are responsible for the measurable increase in global temperatures. On this matter and on many others it is quite apparent that the policy advice that the government is receiving is seriously flawed. Although I previously had anecdotal evidence for declining standards within the government's policy producing staff, a recent report on technical contract management by the ACT government offers some concrete evidence on the damaging effects of downsizing and outsourcing. I quote from the report by the ACT Select Committee on Government Contracting and Procurement Processes. Mr Ken Purves, past President of the Airconditioning and Mechanical Contractors Association of the ACT, told the committee:Broadly speaking, you find that the people you are dealing with now in government are of a clerical background and have absolutely no idea of what they are asking you to do ... They do not have the skills or experience to know what they are asking in the first place. They can only do it on what they know, which is price. It is the only thing they can read.I think the findings of this report would also apply in general to the federal government and to its greenhouse policy in particular. There has to be some such reason for the numerous incompetent policy decisions that are being made in regard to the greenhouse issue by this government. The government continues to argue that reducing emissions would be too expensive or too disruptive, yet it ignores the voluminous evidence that shows that saving energy by improving the efficiency of energy consuming equipment is actually of benefit to the economy as a whole. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, a source of much of the data the government uses in its arguments, showed in a survey that energy consumption in Australia could be cut by 20 to 40 per cent at no net cost. The government's claim that CO2 emission reductions would cost Australia as much as $44 per tonne is just not borne out by the evidence. Reducing CO2 emissions from land clearing, for instance, could cost as little as $2 per tonne, but, because the government has adopted such a dogmatic position on this issue, these sorts of possibilities are just ignored. Last year, the Prime Minister concluded a meeting of the Pacific Islands Forum and managed to get the conference to produce a statement that seemed to diminish concerns about climate change, in particular rising sea levels. Despite this apparent success, the Samoan UN Ambassador, Tuiloma Neroni Slade, has since told the UN conference on global warming at the Hague:We are now suffering and expect to suffer in the most direct way the full range of climate impacts—increased cyclones, typhoons, hurricanes and coral bleaching among them.Tonight I ask: when will this government realise that Australia faces the same peril and adopt policies that will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions? (Time expired)2566922:57:0025669Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Saturday, 10 March saw the unveiling of a piece of Queanbeyan's history. On this fine day the Minister for Arts and the Centenary of Federation, the Hon. Peter McGauran, joined me, the state member, Peter Webb, current and former mayors and a massive crowd of local residents in unveiling a bronze, 1.25 times life-size commemorative sculpture of John Gale, the man who is widely known as `the Father of Canberra' and who was also instrumental in the growth of Queanbeyan. It was fitting that almost 50 descendants of Gale, including his great, great, great, great grandson—one-month-old Christopher Donald Brown—were also present to honour Gale's contribution to the region.In 1860 John Gale started Queanbeyan's first newspaper the Golden Age. In 1862 the name was changed to the QueanbeyanAge and it remains so today. The Queanbeyan Age is at least 50 years older than its Canberra neighbour. Gale also established other local papers: the Braidwood Independent, the Gunning Leader, the Cooma Express and the Bungendore Mirror. He held many key positions within the Queanbeyan community, among them alderman of the first council, magistrate, coroner and hospital secretary. He also served one term as the Member for Murrumbidgee in the New South Wales parliament from 1887 to 1889 at a time when there was no payment for members.In 1899 Gale was elected to the Queanbeyan Federal City Committee, which had the aim of selecting suitable sites for the federal capital. He wrote about the `Canberra Plains' as the site for the federal capital and continued to strongly advocate this site even after a majority of both houses of parliament endorsed Dalgety as the site for the capital in 1904. In 1907 Gale sponsored a move urging the legislature to `consider the merits of Canberra'. The manuscript Gale read from was Dalgety or Canberra, which he had written with William Farrer. A little later this was published and distributed to every member of the Commonwealth's seven parliaments and to other prominent members of the community. It was two years later that the national capital site was selected—in total 10 years of lobbying on Gale's behalf before Canberra was chosen as Australia's national capital and Gale's wishes became a reality.The Heritage Cultural Arts Promotions Inc. organisation in Queanbeyan, headed by Connee Colleen, worked tirelessly to get this sculpture done. Peter Corlett of Melbourne, the famous artist who sculptured Weary Dunlop and Simpson and his donkey, did this sculpture. Thirty-five thousand dollars came from the federal government's Federation project fund, $15,000 from the Queanbeyan City Council and other donations came from the general public. It is a fantastic sculpture in front of the law courts in Queanbeyan and I would encourage everybody to go out and see `the Father of Canberra'.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:0025669House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Miscellaneous2567025670LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—To ask the Speaker:(1) With respect to the arrangements to provide the FOX SPORTS service to the Parliament House television service, is the service provided free of charge, or is there a cost to the Government; if so, what is the cost.(2) Who made the decision to make the service available.(3) Did the Prime Minister, or any other Minister make representations to him or his office, about making the FOX SPORTS service available.Notices25670The following notices were given:OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr Charles to present a bill for an Act to amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995, and for related purposes.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr Charles to present a bill for an Act about Commonwealth revenue on certain petroleum products, and for related purposes.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr Charles to present a bill for an Act to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921, and for related purposes. Answers to Questions in Writing25671The following answers to questions were circulated:25671(Question No. 1519)151925671McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 May 2000:(1) Have any claims for compensation for defective administration made to the Australian Tax Office over the period of 1996 to 2000 been paid out either improperly or incorrectly to the wrong person; if so, (a) how many were paid and (b) what sum was paid.(2) Is compensation still owed to another party with respect to these claims.25671Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) As at 31 December 1999, 13 claims for compensation for defective administration totaling $5215.50 were paid to a tax agent directly in circumstances where the tax agent's client, rather than the tax agent, ought to have brought the claim. In all 13 claims, compensation was paid to the one tax agent. The ATO has taken action internally to ensure that in the future claims of this kind are made by or on behalf of taxpayers.(2) No.25671(Question No. 1520)152025671McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 May 2000:In cases where a tax agent corrects an item of defective administration of the Australian Tax Office (ATO) on behalf of a client, can the tax agent directly claim compensation from the ATO for that professional time used to deal with an item of defective administration; if not, why not.25671Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:The taxpayer may claim compensation for any fees paid to the tax agent for work performed by the tax agent which is directly attributable to rectifying defective administration on the taxpayer's behalf with respect to the taxpayer's affairs. 25671(Question No. 1521)152125671McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 10 May 2000:(1) What were the administrative costs to process claims for compensation for defective administration made to the Australian Tax Office (ATO) in each year since 1996-97.(2) How many claims ended being heard in court in year.(3) What were the legal costs for defending any court action in each year.(4) How many hours were spent by the ATO's legal section working on these claims in each year.25671Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The Assistant Treasurer has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The information sought is not immediately ascertainable and would involve an undue diversion of resources to collect.(2) Claims concerning defective administration are dealt with through the ATO complaints system rather than the court system.(3) See (2) above.(4) See (1) above.25672(Question No. 1777)177725672Hatton, Michael, MPMr HattonLN6BlaxlandALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 14 August 2000:(1) Is the Minister's Department and agencies within the Minister's portfolio compliant in respect of the Goods and Services Tax.(2) What action did the Minister's Department and agencies within the Minister's portfolio take to ensure that they were GST ready by 1 July 2000.(3) Is the Minister able to guarantee that no agency within the Minister's portfolio will suffer negative impacts on its budget or services due to the GST; if not, or if the guarantee was subsequently proved incorrect, would the Minister be prepared to resign.25672Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) In June 2000, the chief executives of all agencies within my portfolio were asked to provide me with written confirmation that they would be able to comply with The New Tax System from 1 July 2000. I received such assurances from each agency.(2) The Department and agencies within my portfolio participated in the DOFA GST Implementation Unit's ongoing assessment of GST preparedness. This process involved the completion of a series of six questionnaires, one at each of the following stages: baseline scoping and analysis; preparation and design; development and testing; implementation; and post implementation, to aid the assessment and monitoring process. The questionnaires focussed on six specific areas, ie. project management, information technology, finance, tax, people (training), and process. The Department and individual agencies, depending on the complexity and extent of the Goods and Services Tax on their operations, used a variety of approaches to ensure compliance by the target date.(3) The implementation and ongoing management of tax reform by agencies is the responsibility of their respective chief executive officers or boards of management (as applicable). While the Government will continue to monitor the impact of the implementation of A New Tax System, the reforms are not expected to reduce the level of funding of agencies in this portfolio in real terms.25672(Question No. 1890)189025672Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford3J4Port AdelaideALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 30 August 2000:(1) Will he amend the levy arrangement for each stevedore's liability so that the levy payment will terminate upon repayment of the amount received from MIFCO funding, plus accrued interest and related costs.(2) If not, will he implement an alternative remedy for Sea-land in South Australia so that levy payments made by Sea-Land that exceed the aggregate of MIFCO funding received by Sea-Land plus accrued interest and administrative costs are rebated by the Commonwealth Government to South Australia for the specific purpose of re-investment in new technology and equipment to improve the productivity of the Adelaide Container Terminal; if not, why not.25672Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:(1) No.Under the provision of the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Act 1998 the levy is applied on a universal basis until all costs have been recovered. (2) No. There is no specific provision in the Stevedoring Levy (Collection) Act 1998 as amended for such payments.25672(Question No. 2077)207725673Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 12 October 2000: (1) Does the Government support the proposal for the Sydney West Orbital. (2) Did the Minister recently meet with the Sydney West Orbital Taskforce in Canberra.(3) Is he aware of reports that the population of Western Sydney, which will benefit the most by the construction of the orbital, will grow from 1.2 million to 1.4 million, an increase of over 266,000 over the next twenty years.(4) Is he aware that by the year 2006, 55,000 tonnes of freight will be moved along the route proposed for the West Sydney Orbital and that this is a 40 per cent increase over 1996.(5) What consideration, if any, has the Government given to the immediate start of construction on the Sydney West Orbital.(6) Has land been acquired by the Government to be used for the construction of the orbital.(7) Will the Government use any funds from the recent increase in petrol excise to allocate funds towards the building of the Sydney West Orbital.(8) Has the Government considered a full cost analysis of the Sydney West Orbital.(9) Is he able to say whether the Government will make a decision on the Sydney West Orbital by 31 December 2000.25673Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Federal Government supports the construction of the Western Sydney Orbital.(2) Yes.(3) I am aware the current population of Western Sydney is 1.2 million, based on current Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. The NSW Department of State and Regional Development expects the population in western Sydney to increase by approximately 20 percent over the next 20 years, based on current population projections.(4) Yes.(5) Construction can only start when all the planning and environmental clearance processes have been satisfactorily completed.(6) The Commonwealth has been working with NSW since the mid-1990s on the development of a route for the Sydney West Orbital. To date $56m has been provided mainly for land acquisition to ensure the route was not lost to urban and industrial development.(7) No. Fuel excise is general revenue and is not allocated to specific programmes or projects.(8) Yes.(9) The Government made the announcement for the Sydney West Orbital on 4 January 2000.25673(Question No. 2197)219725673Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Employment Services, upon notice, on 30 November 2000:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 1658 (Hansard, 27 November 2000, page 20073), based on the DEWRSB Small Area Labour Markets, June Quarter 2000 figures, what were the unemployment rates for the Sydney SLAs.(2) How many Job Network sites are located in each of the SLAs referred to in part (1).25673Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The unemployment rates for the Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) in Sydney for the June quarter 2000 are included in the table below.Unemployment Rates for the Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) in Sydney, June quarter 2000SLAUnemployment RateSLAUnemployment RateAshfield (A)4.7Leichhardt (A)2.1Auburn (A)6.9Liverpool (C)5.5Bankstown (C)6.9Manly (A)3.2Baulkham Hills (A)2.1Marrickville (A)4.3Blacktown (C)6.7Mosman (A)1.7Blue Mountains (C) 5.4North Sydney (A)2.6Botany (A)2.8Parramatta (C)3.1Burwood (A)4.3Penrith (C)5.1Camden (A)4.9Pittwater (A)3.0Campbelltown (C)9.0Randwick (C)3.2Canterbury (C)6.3Rockdale (C)5.2Concord (A)2.2Ryde (C)4.2Drummoyne (A)2.1South Sydney (C)4.3Fairfield (C)8.7Strathfield (A)4.4Gosford (C)5.6Sutherland Shire (A)2.3Hawkesbury (C)3.5Sydney (C) - Inner3.7Holroyd (C)3.5Sydney (C) - Remainder3.1Hornsby (A)2.1Warringah (A)3.0Hunter's Hill (A)3.0Waverley (A)3.7Hurstville (C)4.3Willoughby (C)2.9Kogarah (A)3.9Wollondilly (A)4.9Ku-rin-gai (A)1.1Woollahra (A)2.0Lane Cove (A)2.2Wyong (A)9.0(2) As at 11 December 2000, there were 233 Job Network member sites located in Sydney's Statistical Local Areas. Job Network sites information is not held with reference to SLAs. This reply has been developed based on postcodes in which Job Network member sites are located and does not relate to the areas which they service.The following table shows the number of sites by each of the SLAs. Number of Job Network Sites for Statistical Local Areas (SLAs) in Sydney, 11 December 2000SLAJob Network SitesSLAJob Network SitesAshfield1Leichhardt4Auburn6Liverpool12Bankstown10Manly0Baulkham Hills1Marrickville5Blacktown15Mosman0Blue Mountains6North Sydney0Botany3Parramatta14Burwood3Penrith10Camden3Pittwater0Campbelltown12Randwick4Canterbury12Rockdale3Concord0Ryde4Drummoyne0South Sydney7Fairfield25Strathfield4Gosford 11Sutherland Shire5Hawkesbury4Sydney - Inner4Holroyd0Sydney - Remainder2Hornsby4Warringah6Hunter's Hill0Waverley8Hurstville8Willoughby0Kogarah0Wollondilly1Ku-ring-gai0Woollahra0Lane Cove7Wyong925675(Question No. 2235)223525675Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 December 2000:Further to the answer to question No. 1196, (Hansard, 3 April 2000, page 15103) how many (a) passenger and (b) freight trains are expected to run each day on the federally funded Alice Springs to Darwin railway at the (i) commencement and (ii) forecast peak of the line's operation.25675Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Commonwealth has been advised by the AustralAsia Railway Corporation (AARC), set up by the South Australian and Northern Territory Governments to manage delivery of the project, that: (a) the preferred tenderer for the line, the Asia Pacific Transport Consortium, has not advised of plans for the running of passenger trains at this stage; (b)(i) 1 freight train each way;(ii) 2 freight trains each way.25675(Question No. 2251)225125675Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 7 December 2000:(1) Is it a fact that around 200,000 tonnes of fabricated steel is expected to land on Australia's docks in 2000 and such imports will result in the loss of more than five million direct man-hours for the Australian steel fabrication industry, with the consequent loss in skills and industry capability, as well as state and federal taxes, including revenues from the Goods and Services Tax.(2) What support can be provided to assist this industry to adapt to this massive increase in imports.(3) In light of the Queensland Government's Local Industry Policy, which includes commitment to local industry being given full, fair and reasonable opportunity to tender for major project work, (a) is the Minister aware that, on a number of major resource and infrastructure projects, proponents frame their contract specifications to effectively exclude local industries, such as the steel fabrication industry, from even having the chance to put in for work and (b) when will Government address this situation by introducing (i) a national local industry policy and (ii) Mandatory Project Impact Assessments for major steel projects.(4) Is the Minister aware that work undertaken by Australian steel fabricators must comply with the Australian Standards and inspection codes, whilst steel imported from overseas is not required to comply with these standards; if so, how does the Minister propose to address the issue of imported steel not needing to comply with such standards.(5) Is the Minister aware that a survey of the top seven fabrication firms in Australia found that almost eight out of ten jobs at those factories would cease to exist by June 2001.(6) Is the Minister able to say whether three of the top four steel fabrication firms in Western Australia have closed.(7) Is it a fact that the bulk of steel fabrication work on projects including the Visy project at Tumut, NSW, the Callide C. Millmerran and Tarong power stations in Queensland, and the Kwinana Fertiliser Plant in Western Australia, will be imported from overseas. (8) Has the Minister's attention been drawn to a report in the (a) Townsville Bulletin on 15 August 2000, in which Pacific Coast Engineering Sales Manager stated that the fifteen-year-old company that employed 126 people six months ago now employs only half that number due to foreign imports of steel and will reduce the number of apprentices from 12 to two and (b) Bundaberg News Mail of 24 August 2000 stating that Stewart and Sons reports the loss of a quarter of its steel fabrication workforce as a result of foreign imports.(9) Is the Minister aware of estimates by the Australian Institute of Steel Construction that the level of steel fabrication imports increased six-fold between 1992 and 1998 and that around two hundred thousand tonnes of fabricated steel is due to be imported.25676Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's questions:(1) Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics indicate that imports of structural steel products in the ten months to 31 October 2000 totalled 50,798 tonnes. (2) The Government is currently working with industry to address issues of industry competitiveness through the Heavy Engineering and Infrastructure Action Agenda. (3) The Government expects project developers to provide full, fair and reasonable opportunity to Australian firms to participate in the supply of goods and services. This commitment is shared by all Australian Governments, and was reaffirmed by all Industry Ministers in February last year.(4) In general engineering standards are determined by the project designer. Government encourages the internationalisation of Australian standards so that Australian firms will be increasingly competitive in global markets.(5) The Government is aware that the ownership and level of operation of some of the largest Australian fabricators have changed and that these changes reflect commercial decisions. However, latest ABS data indicates that employment in structural steel fabrication has remained relatively constant: 17,327 in 1995-96 to 20 634 in 1998-99.(6) I understand that one firm has closed and its plant taken over by another company; two other fabrication shops have reduced their staff as a result of a downturn in the Western Australian resources sector but that they are still bidding for new contracts.(7) See response to question 3.(8) The newspaper articles reflect the publicity material provided under the AISC/SIA campaign to promote the use of local steel fabrication.(9) See response to question 1.25676(Question No. 2267)226725676Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 1994 (Hansard, 6 February 2001, page 23980) concerning the preparation of reports on all projects, grants and funding programs in a number of electoral divisions since March 1996, who requested preparation of the reports for the electoral divisions of Bass, Eden-Monaro, Gippsland, Hindmarsh, Kalgoorlie, Makin and Warringah.(2) Who authorised the preparation of the reports and what was the cost of preparation of each report.(3) Did consultations take place between his office and officials of the Liberal or National parties about the preparation of the reports. (4) To whom and how were the reports distributed.(5) What are the details of the responses prepared by his Department for each of the electoral divisions of Bass, Eden-Monaro, Gippsland, Hindmarsh, Kalgoorlie, Makin and Warringah.(6) When and how were Members of Parliament and Senators advised that it is standard practice for such detailed reports to be prepared for elected representatives of both Government and non-Government parties.25677Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The preparation of reports for electoral divisions was requested as follows: BassSenator Kerry O'BrienEden-MonaroSenator Kerry O'BrienGippslandSenator Kerry O'BrienHindmarshThe Hon Chris Gallus MPKalgoorlieSenator Kerry O'BrienMakinMs Trish Draper MPWarringahThe Hon Tony Abbott MP(2) Mr Stephen Oxley, my former Principal Adviser, authorised the preparation of the reports.Costing of the preparation of each response would require significant resources. However, the cost of preparation of the response referred to in Question No.1994 provides a reasonable indication of the cost of preparing similar reports.(3) There was no consultation between my office and any political party on the preparation of the aforementioned reports. (4) The reports were distributed according to the context in which they were requested. Responses to the Questions on Notice were tabled in Parliament, and replies were provided to the Ministerial correspondence.(5) Copies of the responses for each electoral division are attached for the information of the Members.(6) No formal notification has been provided to Members and Senators, other than as part of the answer to Question No.1994.25677(Question No. 2269)226925677Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Did the Government announce on 4 January 2001 that a toll, at an expected rate of $4 to $5, will be charged on the Western Sydney Orbital; if so, will a toll apply on the proposed new route of the National Highway between the M2 and F3.(2) Whilst the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority will manage the planning study of the proposed link between the M2 and F3, what is the expected cost of the link and at what stage are negotiations between the NSW and Commonwealth Governments as to who will meet the cost of the link.25677Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The toll on the Western Sydney Orbital (WSO) is expected to be in the range of $4 to $5 for a car travelling the full 39km length of the WSO. No decision has been taken on the funding method for the M2-F3 link.(2) Estimates of the cost of the M2-F3 link will be developed in conjunction with the route selection process announced in January. The M2-F3 link will form part of the National Highway and hence is a Federal funding responsibility.25677(Question No. 2287)228725678Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forestry, upon notice, on 20 February 2001:Will any decision on the importation of apples and pears from New Zealand be taken only after the Senate inquiry into this matter has concluded.25678Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:My Department is cooperating fully with the Committee's inquiry. However, the import risk analysis (IRA) on apples from New Zealand is being carried out in accordance with a science-based administrative process that is politically independent and was developed in consultation with stakeholders. The process is consistent with both government policy and Australia's international obligations.Importation of pears is not being considered.The draft IRA on New Zealand's application was released on 11 October 2000 and was open for public comment until the end of February 2001. Before finalising its risk analysis, Biosecurity Australia will consider all comments received during this comment period and prepare a technical document for further discussion with key stakeholders. Due to the volume of submissions already received, a final IRA is not expected at least in the first half of 2001. My department has advised the Committee accordingly.The report of the Committee is due by the end of March 2001. This timing will enable Biosecurity Australia to consider the report before finalising its IRA.25678(Question No. 2288)228825678Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs Livermore83ACapricorniaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) What performance criteria does the ABC have for measuring the quality of service from the transmission providers responsible for ABC television transmission sites in Australia.(2) What records does the ABC collect in relation to (a) maintenance and (b) emergency repairs carried out on its television transmission sites.(3) What records does the ABC collect in relation to breaks in television transmission.(4) What was the performance against the ABC's prescribed criteria referred to in part (1) for the transmission site at Mount Hopeful in Central Queensland in (a) 1995, (b) 1996, (c) 1997, (d) 1998, (e) 1999 and (f) 2000.25678McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The ABC has advised the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts that it has several prescribed performance measures for measuring the quality of the service its transmission service providers (NTL, Optus and Telstra) provide in relation to the full range of ABC radio and television services. Each service is required to comply with the key elements and equipment performance standards of the Transmission Services Agreement between the ABC and relevant service provider. These represent a comprehensive set of service performance requirements and include availability targets (the time a service is on air) that NTL must achieve or exceed, failing which it is required to pay a financial penalty for not providing a service in accordance with its agreement with the ABC. NTL is, for example, required to test each service in relation to these criteria on an annual basis, or when the ABC requests.Each transmission service is also required to be provided at or above the ITU-R (International Telecommunications Union Radio-Communications Section) Grade of Four (4) on the ITU-R Five Grade Quality and Impairment Scale. The ABC has agreed a procedure with NTL by which the audience provides the ABC with this information.Where a service was operating below the criteria set out above at the commencement of the agreement between the ABC and NTL, NTL is required to repair the service and restore performance to meet these criteria. To this end, NTL has undertaken major repairs at, for example, Port Hedland, Newcastle, Gordonvale (Cairns) and Mount Hopeful. Mount Hopeful (Qld) and Mount Dundas (Vic) both remain under close scrutiny by the ABC and NTL, due to ongoing concerns regarding their performance. (2) The ABC has advised that it requires NTL to provide annual, quarterly and daily (or as requested at other times by the ABC) reports in relation to maintenance and other planned outages. These reports contain information on the reasons for the planned outage, its expected duration, the expected audience impact and alternative service arrangements that will be provided whilst the outage occurs.Emergency maintenance, unplanned outages and faults are reported by NTL's National Operations Centre to the ABC Master Control Rooms for Radio and Television in each State immediately NTL becomes aware of the problem or the ABC audience reports a problem with a service. This notification includes the impact of the fault on the audience, duration of the fault (or expected time to repair) and the alternative network configuration implemented to minimise the disruption to services. NTL is required to provide detailed fault reports to the ABC following major faults or as requested. These reports provide information on the current incident, including how and when the problem was detected, efforts made to repair the service, alternative configuration details, fault history, maintenance history for the transmitter, actual availability of the service for the previous six months and the dates of the last and next Proof of Performance Tests.(3) The ABC collects records in relation to all interruptions to television transmission including: failure to transmit a television signal; failure of a commercial or standby power supply; ABC program input failure; impact of the fault upon provision of the transmission service; time, duration and reason for the fault; restoration plans for the service; operation of the service below the minimum performance level; and interruptions due to planned maintenance, emergency maintenance and broadcast of Emergency Announcements.The information above is aggregated into daily, monthly, quarterly and half yearly and annual performance reports.(4) The ABC has only been responsible for the transmission of its services from 1 May 1999, when the Transmission Services Agreement commenced between the ABC and NTL. This followed the sale by the Commonwealth of the National Transmission Network (NTN) to NTL. Thus, the criteria outlined above only apply progressively from that date.The Mount Hopeful service is one that has been identified by the ABC and NTL as requiring major repairs, following NTL's purchase of the NTN, as per the Transmission Services Agreement. NTL has, to date, undertaken major feed cable repairs, transmitter repairs and stand by power supply repairs. Both the ABC and NTL agree the service will require further close monitoring and possibly further repairs or inclusion in the NTL capital replacement program.25679(Question No. 2293)229325679Lawrence, Dr Carmen, MPDr LawrenceXS4FremantleALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Has there been a request from anyone for terms of the lease to Christian Voice of the Cox Peninsula Transmitter; if so, (a) when was it made and (b) what was its disposition.(2) Has the Government instigated, or is it aware of, an inquiry into the nature of Christian Voice; if so, what is known about the organisation.(3) Were there other organisations who wished to use the transmitter; if so (a) who were they and (b) what processes denied them use of the transmitter.(4) Has there been a social impact study on the possible effects of broadcasts by this Christian group to Indonesia during a period of conflict between Christians and Muslims.(5) Has the Indonesian Government or other governments in the range of the transmitter been invited to comment on the Christian Voice presence.25679McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Property Group within the Department of Finance and Administration that conducted the Cox tender process has advised that it provided the terms of the property licence to the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade both prior to and after its execution. No other party has sought such details from the Department of Finance and Administration. (2) The Department of Finance and Administration has not instigated any inquiry into Christian Voice Australia, nor is it aware of any such inquiry. However, Christian Voice has provided the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts with the following summary of its broadcasting activities.Christian Voice (Australia) Ltd is a charity and wholly owned subsidiary of Christian Vision, a charity founded by Mr Bob Edmiston in the United Kingdom in December 1988. Christian Vision's headquarters are located in West Bromwich, near Birmingham, in England.Christian Vision broadcasts programmes in major languages incorporating music, entertainment, news, health, education and general interest alongside Christian teaching and training. It owns broadcasting facilities in the following countries:United KingdomChristian Voice International (CVI) studios, based in West Bromwich, provide 24-hour per day English programming, via satellite, to Africa. This service can be heard in Central and Southern Africa through a combination of shortwave and FM stations. AfricaIn 1994 Christian Vision established shortwave and FM radio stations near Lusaka in Zambia. 'Radio Christian Voice' broadcasts in English on 106.2FM to Lusaka and on 105.8FM to the Copperbelt. The short-wave station broadcasts 'Christian Voice International' to Central and Southern Africa.As mentioned above, Christian Voice International's English radio service is also rebroadcast in some other African cities.The AmericasChristian Vision USA has studios located in Miami Lakes producing 24-hour per day Spanish and Portuguese radio programming that is available via satellite to the whole of Latin America and the Caribbean via radio station affiliates in some 30 Latin American cities. The service is also broadcast across Central and Southern America from Christian Vision's own shortwave station, “Voz Cristiana”, near Santiago, Chile and world-wide via internet radio.AustraliaChristian Voice (Australia) intends to broadcast to South East Asia, China and India in English, Mandarin and Hindi from the shortwave transmitters it purchased from the Commonwealth at Cox Peninsula, near Darwin. In addition, Christian Voice has purchased 2 acres of land at Maroochydore in Queensland where it plans to build studio facilities for the production of all of its services to be aired from Cox Peninsula.(3) The Department of Finance and Administration has advised that the sale of the movable plant and equipment at Cox Peninsula and the granting of a property licence over the site was conducted via a two stage international tender process. The two other parties who participated in the process were Merlin Communications International Ltd and the International Broadcasting Bureau. Christian Voice was the successful tenderer for both the property licence and the moveable plant and equipment at the site.(4) No.As part of the tender process for the shortwave broadcasting facility on Cox Peninsula, the Government determined that the granting of a property licence to Christian Voice was not contrary to the national interest.Christian Voice's services are licensed under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has the power, under that Act, to direct a licence be cancelled if the Minister is of the opinion that the service provided under the licence is contrary to Australia's national interest.(5) No. 25681(Question No. 2294)229425681Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Has the Office of Government Online or any other agency within the Minister's portfolio attempted to determine the number of Commonwealth transactions conducted online; if so, with what results. (2) If available, what are the number of transactions expected in (a) 2000-2001, (b) 2001-2002, (c) 2002-2003 and (d) 2003-2004.(3) What whole-of-government research or investigation has been undertaken by the Minister's Department, or other Departments where known, of expected savings from the growth of Government online services. (4) Can details be provided, including savings expected and realised by portfolio, for (a) 2000-2001, (b) 2001-2002, (c) 2002-2003 and (d) 2003-2004. 25681McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The National Office for the Information Economy (formerly the Office for Government Online) undertakes regular Government Online surveys of Government agencies as part of the Government Online Strategy to assess levels of online service provision. The survey does not measure the number of “transactions” provided by agencies. However, it does measure the number of “services” provided online. Based on that information, agencies have indicated (as at 30 September 2000) that a total of 1131 services are provided online by Commonwealth agencies. It is emphasised, however, that there is no widely accepted definition used domestically or indeed internationally as to what constitutes an “online service”. The National Office for the Information Economy will continue to work with agencies to ensure a consistent whole-of-government approach for measuring online service provision. (2) Refer response (1) above. The Government Online Survey also asked agencies to identify future services that will be provided online in order to meet the Government's commitment that all appropriate services be provided online by the end of 2001. Based on this information, agencies have indicated that a further 690 services will be provided online by the end of 2001. The same caveats apply to this estimate as to (1). The survey does not collect information for out years. The National Office for the Information Economy is presently examining options for measuring progress in future years.(3) A building block of the Government's Online strategy is that the Internet will continue to be embraced by agencies as a mainstream environment when providing information and services. It is the responsibility of each agency to develop further its understanding of the online environment, what the online needs of clients are, what the possibilities are and how best to deliver services. This agency based approach is consistent with the manner in which the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 or the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997 places the responsibility for the efficient and effective operations with the agency CEO. Under the Government's Online strategy, agencies are accountable for online service delivery through their respective Online Action Plans. Neither the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts nor the National Office for the Information Economy has compiled information on expected savings from Commonwealth agencies.(4) See (3) above.25681(Question No. 2295)229525681Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TannerYU5MelbourneALP00 asked the Minister for Finance and Administration, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Has his Department attempted to determine the number of Commonwealth transactions conducted online; if so, with what results. (2) If available, what are the numbers of transactions expected in (a) 2000-20001, (b) 2001-2002, (c) 2002-2003 and (d) 2003-2004. (3) What whole-of-government research or investigation has been undertaken by his Department, or other Departments where known, of expected savings from the growth of Government online services.(4) Can details be provided, including savings expected and realised by portfolio, for (a) 2000-2001, (b) 2001-2002, (c) 2002-2003 and (d) 2003-2004.(5) What negotiations have occurred with States and local governments to secure more effective utilisation of public assets such as government shop fronts and services centres.(6) Can details be provided of savings expected and realised for the Commonwealth by portfolio, for each State and for each local government are for (a) 2000-2001, (b) 2001-2002, (c) 2002-2003 and (d) 2003-2004.25682Fahey, John, MPMr FaheyHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No(2) N/A.(3) Under the Government's Online strategy, agencies are accountable for online service delivery through their respective Online Action Plans. The Department of Finance and Administration has not compiled information on expected savings from Commonwealth agencies.(4) N/A.(5) The Department of Finance and Administration has not been involved in any negotiations with State or local governments.(6) N/A.25682(Question No. 2301)230125682Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) In light of the Migration Review Tribunal's lack of power to review decisions made at overseas embassies for refugee and humanitarian claimants, does he have the power of review.(2) If not, how can justice be guaranteed to any claimants who may receive an incorrect or unsatisfactory decision, especially when many such decisions are based on a subjective judgment by a single official.(3) Will he make a Regulation to provide him with a power of review.25682Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) There is no provision under the Migration Act 1958 for merits or ministerial review of decisions made at overseas missions to refuse to grant visas for humanitarian entry.(2) Each application for humanitarian entry is decided individually on its merits by an Australian immigration officer.Applicants who are dissatisfied with decisions may:· ask the local office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to assist with their case;· lodge a new application, particularly if they have new information in support of their claims; or· ask the Ombudsman to investigate their complaint.(3) No.25682(Question No. 2321)232125683Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001: (1) Under what circumstances and with what legal authority is Centrelink able to take action to recover overpayments from minors. (2) With regard to recovery action for overpaid youth allowances, is it Centrelink's practice to (a) seek repayments from minors who have neither savings nor current incomes and (b) seek repayments directly from minors, even in cases where a parent elected to receive the allowance on behalf of the minor; if so, on what grounds is Centrelink able to take this action.(3) Will he direct Centrelink to ensure that unemployed minors who are the subject of recovery action for overpaid allowances (a) are given high priority for job placement or job training and (b) have their repayments deferred until they are employed or in receipt of jobsearch or another appropriate allowance; if not, why not.(4) Will he direct Centrelink to ensure that, when benefits are granted, beneficiaries are notified in writing of the actions, including possible court proceedings, that may be taken in order to recover overpayments.25683Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Centrelink takes action to recover overpayments from minors:where the minor owes money according to legislative provisions Centrelink administers (eg. Chapter 5 of the Social Security Act 1991, Part 6 of the Student Assistance Act 1973 etc); andin accordance with the policies of the Commonwealth Agencies on whose behalf the legislation is administered (eg Department of Family and Community Services and Department of Employment, Training and Youth Affairs). (2) (a) It is Centrelink's approach to recover debts as quickly as possible without causing customers real financial hardship. Customers are invited to contact Centrelink if they cannot pay by the due date. Decisions about recovery (or non recovery) are made having regard to any information that is held about the person's financial circumstances, including any ability to pay in full. All customers, including minors, can choose to have a third party deal with Centrelink on their behalf or be present during discussions about repayment(b) From a legal perspective, where Centrelink pays Youth Allowance to a parent on behalf of a young person, the payment has in fact been made to the young person because the parent was only acting as their agent. Section 45(1) of the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 provides for payment to the parent of an under 18 year old dependent Youth Allowee and Section 60(1) gives additional protection of Social Security payments.(3) (a) The role of job placements is undertaken by Job Network, and presence of debts does not influence the referral process to job training.(b) Any decision about deferring recovery is based on Centrelink's knowledge about the individual customer's capacity to repay. (See response to 2a)(4) Customers are advised of their entitlement obligations when a payment is first granted and reminded of those obligations from time to time during the life of the payment. Customers are advised of possible recovery actions if and when such actions may affect them. This progressive approach to recovery action is in response to strong feedback from customers and welfare organisations who found the inclusion of advice about possible court proceedings intimidating in initial recovery notices. 25683(Question No. 2327)232725683Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) When was HMAS Westralia commissioned.(2) At the time of commissioning, (a) did HMAS Westralia meet the relevant civilian Occupational, Health and Safety requirements for oil tankers; if not, why not and in what way was it deficient, (b) what was provided for the sailors to escape in in the event of an emergency and (c) would the sailors have survived in the case of fire surrounding the ship. (3) At the time of the fire on board HMAS Westralia, (a) did HMAS Westralia meet the relevant civilian Occupational, Health and Safety requirements for oil tankers; if not, why not and in what way was it deficient, (b) what was provided for the sailors to escape in in the event of an emergency and (c) would the sailors have survived in the case of fire surrounding the ship. (4) If changes were made between the commissioning and the fire, who authorised them and when.(5) How are Navy Occupational Health and Safety Standards determined and how are they reviewed.25684Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) HMAS WESTRALIA was commissioned into the Royal Australian Navy on 9 October 1989.(2) (a) Yes. At the time of commissioning, HMAS WESTRALIA was fully compliant with civilian Occupational Health and Safety requirements for merchant vessels of her type. The ship was certified against Lloyds Register of Shipping Rules (known as being “in class”) and complied with international merchant Safety Of Life At Sea (SOLAS) regulations.(b) Assuming this question addresses the issue of escape from the ship itself this could be effected using lifeboats, life jackets, and lifebuoys. It would also have been possible to winch personnel from the ship by helicopter, should one have been available.(c) The variables associated with this question defy a definitive answer. Factors such as sea state, wind, swell, the availability of other assets such as ships, helicopters and shore support, plus the nature and intensity of the fire are all variables that would each dramatically alter the situation, and therefore the dangers posed. (3) (a) No. HMAS WESTRALIA has been maintained “in class” against Lloyds Register of Shipping Rules, and is still “in class” today. However, upon commissioning, the ship transferred from the civilian SOLAS requirements to the requirements of the RAN's safety regulations. Warships are exempted from compliance with SOLAS regulations, for the very reason of their intended employment; the SOLAS provisions were therefore no longer applicable to the vessel and the ship was not deficient against them. However, a number of safety enhancements were made. The ship's emergency fire pump was upgraded, and the firefighting system enhanced to allow the use of Aqueous Film Forming Foam. A cargo pump emergency stop facility was resited to a safer position. The ship's navigation and communication suite was superior to SOLAS requirements. A helicopter stores and personnel transfer platform (vertical replenishment platform) was added adjacent to the accommodation area, which provided a significantly improved capability for evacuation of personnel, and transfer to the ship of safety and firefighting equipment and personnel.(b) Escape from the ship could be effected by Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat, by liferaft, by life jackets and by liferings. Helicopter rescue access was enhanced by the construction of a helicopter stores and personnel transfer platform (Vertical Replenishment Platform) adjacent the crew accommodation area.(c) In answering question 2(c) it was stated that the variables associated with this question defy a definitive answer. The same answer is the appropriate response to this question. Factors such as sea state, wind, swell, the availability of other assets such as ships, helicopters and shore support, plus the nature and intensity of the fire are all variables that would each dramatically alter the situation, and therefore the dangers posed. (4) Forty nine changes to the ship were approved by the appropriate RAN authority, or project teams within the Department of Defence, between commissioning and the fire. Configuration changes affecting safety were as follows: Item NumberDescription of Changes1400/05/90Relocation of Cargo Pump Emergency Stop (1990)A safety improvement designed to expedite stopping pumping in an emergency.1400/08/90Aqueous Film forming Foam (AFFF) Conversion(1990)A safety improvement designed to improve the ship's ability to extinguish fires by the introduction of Aqueous Film Forming Foam1400/13/90Relocate Forward Inflatable Liferaft(1990)Relocation of the forward inflatable liferaft to improve accessability1400/20/90Main Galley Power Isolation(1990)An improvement to safety by the installation of a remote electrical isolation switch so that power can be isolated from the galley in the event of fire.1400/24/90SATNAV Global Positioning System (GPS) upgrade(1990)Navigational capability upgrade90/11164Vertical Replenishment platform installation(1990)Installation of a helicopter stores and personnel transfer platform1400/01/92Replace 3CM Radar with KH 1007 Radar(1992)Navigational capability upgrade1400/14/92Removal of Lifeboats and Davits(1992)Replacement of lifeboats with inflatable liferafts.1400/04/93Port Davit and Rigid Hull Inflatable Boat (RHIB)(1993)Installation of a second RHIB capability1400/24/94Upgrade Emergency Fire Pump(1994)An upgrade to the emergency firefighting pump to enhance firefighting capability.(5) The Navy Occupational Health and Safety Standards are determined by the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employees) Act 1991, and associated regulations. This policy is enforced by orders and instructions at the Defence-wide level, Navy corporate level, and by individual ships. Naval safety policy is reviewed by the Naval Certification Safety and Acceptance Agency, and approved by the Chief of Navy. The regulatory body for the OHS(CE) Act 1991 is COMCARE, which reviews Navy performance. The naval materiel safety standards for each class of ship are set by the Chief Naval Engineer, based on the operational requirements of the vessels.25685(Question No. 2329)232925685Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Further to the answer to question No 1782 (Hansard, 12 October 2000, page 21551), have any of the families written to the Chief of Navy concerning the awarding of bravery medals and awards arising from the WESTRALIA tragedy; if so, how many.(2) Who were awarded bravery medals and awards for the WESTRALIA tragedy and what was the citation.(3) Did Navy make a submission for an award or medal associated with the WESTRALIA tragedy that was not granted.25685Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Only Mr Meek has written to the Chief of Navy concerning the award of bravery medals and awards arising from the HMAS WESTRALIA tragedy. (2) The recipients of bravery awards and medals and citations are as follows:CONSPICUOUS SERVICE AWARDSAwarded the Conspicuous Service Cross:Warrant Officer Colin BottomleyFor outstanding achievement as the Deputy Marine Engineer Officer conducting fire fighting operations and damage control on HMAS WESTRALIA during a major fire in the Main Machinery Space on 5 May 1998.Warrant Officer Bottomley played a crucial role in the fire fighting effort that saved the ship following a major fire in the Main Machinery Space. He displayed high levels of professional knowledge and exceptional leadership to support the technical aspects of fire fighting operations. After the onset of the fire, he assisted to safety another crew member who had collapsed from smoke inhalation before reaching the door of the engineer's workshop. Warrant Officer Bottomley's initiative and calmness under pressure undoubtedly saved his colleague's life.Commander Alan JohnstonFor outstanding achievement as the Commanding officer of HMAS STIRLING during the emergency response and shore-based support following a fire aboard HMAS WESTRALIA on 5 May 1998.Commander Johnston achieved consistently outstanding results throughout a most testing and challenging period. He made himself a focal point for support and contributed significantly to the Navy's ability to recover the situation and to minimise further harm to the people affected by the disaster.AUSTRALIAN BRAVERY DECORATIONSAwarded the Bravery Medal:The late Able Seaman Phillip CarrollFor bravery in hazardous circumstances, thereby losing his life, following the outbreak of fire in the Main Machinery Space aboard HMAS WESTRALIA on 5 May 1998.When the fire erupted, Able Seaman Carroll, who was on duty as a watchkeeper in the engine room, immediately began fighting the fire with an extinguisher. As the fire intensified, Able Seaman Carroll, who was closest to the exit, told other personnel to evacuate and assisted the escape of his shipmates. Despite the intense heat, fumes and poor visibility, he elected to remain behind to attempt to locate missing colleagues. Able Seaman Carroll was eventually overcome by the thick smoke and perished in the fire.By his actions, Able Seaman Carroll displayed considerable bravery. (Received by his father, John Carroll)Chief Petty Officer Graeme HollisFor bravery in hazardous circumstances following the outbreak of fire in the Main Machinery Space aboard HMAS WESTRALIA on 5 May 1998.Chief Petty Officer Hollis was on duty as a watchkeeper when he detected a fuel leak from one of the ship's engines. He immediately reported the leak and began attending to the problem when a fireball erupted, extending sideways through the Main Machinery Space. Chief Petty Officer Hollis ran aft down the starboard side of the middle plates to fetch the trolley-mounted fire extinguisher, returned to the source of fire and attempted to extinguish the flames. Chief Petty Officer Hollis was fighting the fire when a second fireball erupted, followed by further fireballs. With the fire extinguisher nearly empty and the blaze out of control, Chief Petty Officer Hollis attempted to evacuate by the port side ladder which was by now his only means of escape. As he climbed the ladder, the heat of the rails caused the skin on his hands to melt. Visibility was zero and Chief Petty Officer Hollis could not see the exit door. At this point, overcome by fumes, he collapsed and was pulled to safety by a colleague.By his actions, Chief Petty Officer Hollis displayed considerable bravery. The late Petty Officer Shaun SmithFor bravery in hazardous circumstances, thereby losing his life, following the outbreak of fire in the Main Machinery Space aboard HMAS WESTRALIA on 5 May 1998.Immediately the fire erupted, Petty Officer Smith, on duty as assistant engineer in the engine room, went to the middle plates to assist in fighting the fire. As the fire intensified with concomitant extreme heat, overwhelming fumes and poor visibility, rather than escaping himself, Petty Officer Smith remained behind to assist in the evacuation of others, a decision that was ultimately to cost him his life.By his actions, Petty Officer Smith displayed considerable bravery. (Received by his father, Brian Smith)Awarded the Group Citation for Bravery:Hose Team 1Leading Seaman Jonathan DalyLieutenant Sue JohnsonAble Seaman Jay LindleyAble Seaman Luke MiskiewiczAble Seaman Michael SmithFor their group actions following the outbreak of fire in the Main Machinery Space aboard HMAS WESTRALIA on 5 May 1998.When Hose Team 1, who were aware that personnel were still unaccounted for, entered the fire via the fridge flat they confronted zero visibility and intense heat. Despite wearing protective clothing and breathing apparatus, the heat in the metal plates melted the soles of their footwear and, in some cases, the plastic on their breathing apparatus. Carrying a thermal-imaging camera to locate the main sources of fire, the team first fought the fire from the top of the fridge flat. One of the team descended the ladder and attempted to establish a waterwall but was forced back by the flames and intense heat. The team continued to fight the fire but were eventually forced to retreat to safety. When automatic drenching with carbon dioxide failed to quench the fire and after another hose team had been forced to exit, Hose Team 1 re-entered the Main Machinery Space. They then fought the fire from the top plates area, trying to avoid tripping over the hoses in poor visibility. Progressing down the ladder, they discovered the body of a shipmate on the middle plates and, shortly afterwards, discovered two more bodies.Hose Team 1 re-entered the Main Machinery Space after the fire was extinguished to ensure the fire did not re-ignite.Hose Team 2Leading Seaman Cindy DurnanAble Seaman Darrin HunterLeading Seaman Trevor MitchellAble Seaman Chad MorrisAble Seaman Warwick NolesFor their group actions following the outbreak of fire in the Main Machinery Space aboard HMAS WESTRALIA on 5 May 1998.Aware that personnel were still unaccounted for and that temperatures inside the engine room were continuing to increase, Hose Team 2 entered the Main Machinery Space via the fridge flat. The team encountered zero visibility and intense heat. Despite indications that they were surrounded by hot spots, the team chose to descend the ladder to the top plates area. They were forced to untangle hoses and then began cooling oil drums and directing foam over the main engines. As the team fought the fire, their boots stuck to the hot metal plates and melting plastic from light fittings dripped down upon them. Despite wearing protective clothing, the intense heat forced them to hose each other repeatedly to reduce their body temperatures in order for them to continue to fight the fire. Hose Team 2 only retreated from the Main Machinery Space after their air supplies became too low to continue.Hose Team 3Leading Seaman James CainLeading Seaman Clem CroasdaleLeading Seaman Chris ElliottPetty Officer Craig MackinnonAble Seaman Nicole WilliamsFor their group actions following the outbreak of fire in the Main Machinery Space aboard HMAS WESTRALIA on 5 May 1998.Hose Team 3, aware that personnel were unaccounted for, entered the Main Machinery Space via the fridge flat. Prior to entering, the team had been informed of the dangerous conditions they would confront. As the team descended to the top plates area they discovered the body of a shipmate. The team, in poor visibility, followed the hoses until they located the nozzles and then commenced fighting the fire. Hose Team 3 remained in the treacherous conditions to fight the fire until their air supplies became too low and they were then relieved by another team.Hose Team 3 re-entered the Main Machinery Space after the fire was extinguished to ensure that the fire did not re-ignite.Main Machinery SpaceThe late Able Seaman Phillip Carroll(Received by his father, John Carroll) Petty Officer Raymond FrancisChief Petty Officer Graeme HollisThe late Leading Seaman Bradley Meek (Received by his father, Vic Meek) The Late Midshipman Megan Pelly(Received by her father, Lyndon Pelly)Leading Seaman Lee SmithThe late Petty Officer Shaun Smith(Received by his father, Brian Smith) Lieutenant Dale WaltersFor their group actions following the outbreak of fire in the Main Machinery Space aboard HMAS WESTRALIA on 5 May 1998.This group of personnel, who were in the Main Machinery Space when the fire began, immediately seized fire fighting equipment and began laying out hoses in an attempt to fight the fire. By doing so, they placed the safety of their fellow shipmates above their own. As the fire intensified, conditions rapidly deteriorated with repeated fireballs, extreme heat and billowing black smoke. Despite visibility being reduced to zero, individuals within the group attempted to locate missing colleagues and also assisted others to climb escape ladders to safety. Unfortunately, in doing so, four of the group were overcome by the smoke and perished in the fire.AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE FORCE COMMENDATIONSAwarded the Chief of Defence Force Commendation:Leading Seaman James CainAs the leader of Hose Team 3, Leading Seaman Cain entered the Main Machinery Space to fight the fire. Whilst in the area of the middle plates, he discovered the body of one of the deceased members. Despite the shock of this discovery, he continued to motivate his team and to provide reassurance. The actions of his team were inspirational and contributed significantly to reducing further damage to HMAS WESTRALIA. Leading Seaman Jonathan DalyAs the leader of Hose Team 1, Leading Seaman Daly entered the Main Machinery Space where the fire was raging. Although the initial courageous efforts of his team to extinguish the fire were unsuccessful, he later re-entered the area and continued to fight the fire. He subsequently located and recovered the bodies of three of the deceased members. His outstanding professionalism, bravery, dedication and determination deserve the highest praise and set a fine example for others.Chief Petty Officer Gary JenkinsAs the Officer-in-Charge of the After Damage Control Party, Chief Petty Officer Jenkins displayed high levels of professional knowledge and exceptional leadership to direct the hose teams fighting the fire and to sustain their efforts despite the extreme heat and poor visibility. His exceptional commitment and professional competence reflect great credit on himself and his actions are in the finest traditions of the Royal Australian Navy.The late Leading Seaman Bradley MeekLeading Seaman Bradley Meek is commended for his outstanding actions in responding to the fire aboard HMAS WESTRALIA on 5 May 1998, and assisting in the evacuation of personnel from the Main Machinery Space. Regrettably, Leading Seaman Meek perished in the fire.(Received by his father, Vic Meek)Leading Seaman Trevor MitchellAs the leader of Hose Team 2, Leading Seaman Mitchell led the team into the Main Machinery Space where intense smoke resulted in zero visibility. Using a thermal-imaging device he was able to confirm hot spots. Despite the threatening conditions in which boots were sticking to the metal plates and molten plastic was dripping from overhead lights, he led his team to the highest vantage point to direct foam over the hot spots. His outstanding professionalism, bravery and dedication reflect great credit on himself and the Royal Australian Navy.Awarded the Chief of Navy Commendation:Lieutenant Ailene EggerlingOn her transfer to HMAS WESTRALIA to assist with the medical treatment of personnel injured in the fire, Lieutenant Eggerling rapidly adapted to the complex and confused situation and integrated smoothly with the rescuers to provide comprehensive and effective care for the injured personnel. Once the fire had been extinguished, she displayed extreme determination and tenacity when required to enter the smoke-filled Main Machinery Space to aid with the identification of personnel overcome by smoke and assist in their removal. Her outstanding professionalism and dedication reflect the finest traditions of the Royal Australian Navy.Leading Seaman Andrea PageAs a member of the Emergency Team aboard HMAS WESTRALIA, Leading Seaman Page was responsible for the medical treatment of personnel injured when the fire occurred in the Main Machinery Space.Her initiative and professional knowledge enabled her to provide a high level of effective medical treatment and follow-on support. Her professionalism and dedication set a fine example and reflect great credit on herself and the Royal Australian Navy.Petty Officer Stephen PlantPetty Officer Plant's knowledge and exceptional leadership contributed significantly to the administration of medical treatment and direction of the Medical Emergency Teams to assist casualties injured in the fire. There was considerable potential for the number of casualties and fatalities to overwhelm the ship's medical organisation but his professionalism, decisive judgements and attention ensured that casualties were treated swiftly and in the appropriate priority. His outstanding dedication and commitment reflect the finest traditions of the Royal Australian Navy. (3) Based on the likely actions of Leading Seaman Meek, derived from glimpses by shipmates, the location of his body, and the favourable comment of the BOI, Navy submitted a nomination for a bravery award to the Australian Bravery Decorations Council.Subsequently, the Chief of the Defence Force recognised Leading Seaman Meek's outstanding actions through the award a Chief of Defence Force Commendation; the highest commendation available to a service member outside the Australian honours and awards system.25690(Question No. 2331)233125690Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Is he able to say which states have (a) signed the 1995 Unidroit Convention on Stolen or Illegally Exported Cultural Objects, (b) ratified the Convention or (c) acceded to the Convention since his answer to question No. 1786 (Hansard, 3 October 2000, page 20676).(2) Is he able to say what progress has been made in the UK since his answer to question No. 1786 on the recommendation that the British Government should sign the Convention and facilitate early ratification of it.(3) On what dates have the relevant Departments and agencies met to consider accession by Australia since his answer to question No. 2436 (Hansard, 2 March 1998, pade 147).(4) On what dates have there been consultations with State and Territory governments regarding accession since his answer to question No. 2436.25690Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Since my answer to Question No. 1786 (Hansard, 3 October 2000, page 20676) (a) no states have signed the Convention, (b) no states have ratified the Convention and (c) no states have acceded to the Convention.For convenience, I attach a list of all states which have (a) signed, (b) ratified or (c) acceded to the Convention.(2) A Ministerial Advisory Panel was established by the UK Department for Culture, Media and Sport in May 2000 to advise on how the UK could prevent and prohibit the illicit trade in cultural objects. The Panel looked at a number of measures including accession by the UK to the UNESCO and UNIDROIT Conventions. The Panel's report, released in December 2000, recommended that the UK accede to the UNESCO Convention but not the UNIDROIT Convention. The UK Government is currently considering its position.(3) Since my answer to Question No. 2436 (Hansard, 2 March 1998, page 147), the relevant departments and agencies, including the Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, the Attorney-General's Department and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade have not met at the inter-agency level to consider accession by Australia, nor has a timetable been established to do so.(4) Since my answer to Question No. 2436 (Hansard, 2 March 1998, page 147), there has been no timetable established for consultations with State and Territory governments. UNIDROIT CONVENTION ON STOLEN OR ILLEGALLY EXPORTED CULTURAL OBJECTS(Rome, 24 June 1995)Entry into force: 1 July 1998 in accordance with Art 12.1 (first day of the sixth month following deposit of fifth instrument).Internet: http://www.unidroit.orgParticipantSignatureRatificationAcceptance(A)Approval(AA)Accession(a)Bolivia29 Jun 199613 Apr 1999Brazil23 Mar 1999(a)Burkina Faso24 Jun 1995Cambodia24 Jun 1995China7 May 1997(a)*Côte d'Ivoire24 Jun 1995Croatia24 Jun 1995Ecuador26 Nov 1997(a)El Salvador16 Jul 1999(a)Finland1 Dec 199514 Jun 1999*France 24 Jun 1995Georgia27 Jun 1995Guinea24 Jun 1995Hungary24 Jun 19958 May 1998Italy24 Jun 199511 Oct 1999Lithuania24 Jun 19954 Apr 1997Netherlands28 Jun 1996*Pakistan27 Jun 1996Paraguay13 Jun 199627 May 1997Peru28 Jun 19965 Mar 1998Portugal23 Apr 1996Romania27 Jun 199621 Jan 1998Russia29 Jun 1996Senegal29 Jun 1996Switzerland26 Jun 1996Zambia24 Jun 199525691(Question No. 2332)233225691Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) What financial contribution is the Government making to the establishment of the new Holden V6 engine plant in Melbourne from (a) the Automotive Competitiveness and Investment Scheme (ACIS), (b) research and development funding, (c) import duty concessions and (d) other budget programs.(2) Were these commitments determined in consultation with the Victorian Government; if so, what are the details of the State financial contribution to the project.(3) What is the total ACIS funding for which Holden is expected to be eligible over the next five years.(4) Is public funding for the new engine plant the equivalent of $295,000 per job created, as reported in the media.(5) Given the extent of the public funding contribution, will the Government (a) withdraw its contribution and directly grant each of the engine plant workers $295,000 or (b) buy-out the entire plant and bring it into full public ownership and control.25692Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The Minister for Industry, Science and Resources has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1)(a) to (c) At this stage no assistance has been provided from any of the schemes, however, any financial benefit that Holden might claim under any scheme will depend on the nature and amount of asctivity made by the company.(d) Under the Strategic Investment Incentives Program $12.5 million has been provided for Automotive Training and Technology Development.(2) State financial assistance to Holden is a matter for the Victorian Government.(3) ACIS is a performance-based incentive scheme. The assistance paid is dependent on the actual level of eligible investment and production by a motor vehicle producer. The actual payout is also subject to modulation to fit within the $2 billion fiscal cap for ACIS.(4) No(5)(a) No(b) No.25692(Question No. 2354)235425692Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 February 2001:(1) Is he able to say whether the US Environment Protection Agency categorised diesel exhaust soot as a likely carcinogen.(2) Has the Defence Safety Management Agency since reassessed the health and safety risks associated with the use of Defence's M113 armoured personnel carriers (APCs); if so, what were the results of its assessment.(3) What systems are in place to monitor the health status of personnel serving on M113 APCs.25692Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The recent United States Environmental Protection Agency ruling on diesel emissions is essentially an environmental action to make the air in the United States cleaner. The agency intends to regulate 21 mobile source air toxics based on their potential health effects, both carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic (ie, cancer causing and non-cancer causing). This rule complements other existing air quality programs as part of a National strategy for all mobile air pollution sources. As part of this rule, diesel emissions as a broad category were included based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency's conclusion that diesel exhaust is likely to be carcinogenic to humans by inhalation at occupational and environmental levels of exposure.(2) The Defence Safety Management Agency became aware of the concerns about occupational exposure to diesel fuel particulates in M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers at its Defence National Safety Management Conference in late November 2000. Since that time the Defence Safety Management Agency has been researching the diesel fuel emissions. An internal report has concluded that some M113 crew are probably exposed to levels of diesel fuel particulate, in certain environmental conditions that pose a long term risk to their health. Further research is about to commence involving fieldwork to scientifically measure the occupational exposure levels experienced by M113 crews. Based on the results of this study, a comprehensive action plan will be developed.(3) No special systems are currently in place to exclusively monitor the health status of all personnel serving on M113 Armoured Personnel Carriers. The medical monitoring requirements for all Army personnel are detailed in Defence Instructions (Army) Personnel 124-12. This includes individual medical assessments as follows:· Under 35 years - every three years· 35 years and over - annually.This medical assessment regime provides a comprehensive medical examination, which investigates the development of any new symptoms in Army members. Members who are in ill health report to their supporting medical facility for treatment. Policy under development will see the implementation of an Annual Health Assessment and a Comprehensive Preventive Health Examination every five years. This will include an occupational and environmental hazard exposure assessment. 25693(Question No. 2356)235625693Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 8 February 2001:(1) How many Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel have served for any period in the Balkans since 1993 on secondment to the armed forces of (a) the United Kingdom, (b) the United States and (c) other allied countries.(2) Of the personnel referred to in part (1), how many served in (a) Kosovo, (b) Bosnia-Herzegovina and (c) other locations in the Balkans.(3) What specific medical screening is being offered to ADF personnel who served in the Balkans to establish if they have suffered from exposure to depleted uranium.(4) Is it proposed to take and store DNA samples from the personnel concerned; if so, how will it be ensured that these samples are not accessed for other purposes.25693Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Compiled information to date indicates that there have been a total of 259 Australian Defence Force personnel who have served in the Balkans since 1993.Of these secondments, current information indicates that: (a) 242 personnel served with British units.(b) 17 personnel with United States (US) units.(c) No historical record of a Balkans deployment by ADF personnel on attachments to other allied countries has been identified to date.(2) Confirming specific areas of deployment to the Balkans is still under investigation by Defence.Confirmed deployments to:(a) Kosovo total 45.(b) confirmed Bosnia-Herzegovina deployments total 108.(c) deployments to other nearby areas including Macedonia, Former Republic of Yugoslavia and Croatia total 16.These figures do not include the remaining 90 ADF personnel who did not specify the areas they transited in the Balkans after their initial deployment phase. Results from the survey forms, initiated as part of the ADF Health Screening Policy process, are expected to provide further details as to the units and locations in which ADF personnel served while in the Balkans region.(3) The specific medical tests being offered to ADF personnel consist of blood and urine tests to check for proper function of the kidneys and the blood forming systems. In addition, each member is asked to complete a questionnaire that will help assess the member's exposure risk to depleted uranium. These questionnaires will be analysed, placed into member's medical records, and information shared with Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Repatriation Medical Authority should future studies become necessary. Future medical tests will be conducted as part of routine, five-yearly medical examinations or more frequently based on the outcome of the result of the health tests, questionnaires, and clinical indications.(4) No.25693(Question No. 2358)235825693Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 8 February 2001:(1) Have there been any positive developments in relation to a fair resolution of the matter regarding the virtual ban on Australian businesses from tendering for project surrounding the 2004 Athens Olympic Games? (2) Has he had any response to the letters he wrote to the European Union and to the Government of Greece in relation to this matter?(3) Is the Government planning any further initiatives with regard to solving this problem of discrimination against Australian business by the Athens Olympic authorities?25694Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—The answer to the honourable member's question in relation to Austrade is as follows:(1) Greek companies are showing a great deal of interest in obtaining Australian expertise or working with Australian companies to boost their bids for work related to the Athens 2004 Olympics.More recent tenders have allowed non-GPA companies to be included in consortia as 'special consultants' up to a value of between 5 and 20 percent of the total value of the tender. On 8 February, 2001 tenders were issued by the Ministry of Sport actually requiring tenderers to have specific 'Olympic knowledge' by including 'special consultants' in their consortia. One Australian company has already won work as a special consultant.The GPA only applies to public works tenders for design and construction, it does not apply to the sourcing of goods.(2) A reply has been received from Mr Pascal Lamy, Commissioner for Trade, European Union confirming that the decision on whether or not to accept the participation of Australian companies is 'ultimately up to the Greek authorities'.Answers are awaited to the letters written to the Government of Greece.(3) Strong representations at government and diplomatic level will continue.Recruitment is currently underway for a Senior Trade Commissioner who will be appointed to Athens for the express purpose of assisting Australian companies to win business related to the 2004 Olympics. Austrade is keeping Australian companies informed on a regular basis.25694(Question No. 2382)238225694Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 28 February 2001:(1) Will he outline the Government's intentions with regard to supporting the resolutions made by the February 2001 Indigenous Peoples and Racism Conference in Sydney.(2) Has the Government made any decisions to contribute to the World Conference on Indigenous Peoples and Racism in Durban, South Africa, in September 2001; if so, what will be the nature of the contribution.25694Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The report of the Indigenous Peoples and Racism Conference in Sydney in February 2001 contains a number of recommendations to be provided to the World Conference Against Racism, Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance in South Africa in September. I understand that this report has been transmitted to the Secretary of the World Conference and will become an official United Nations document. While the Government could not support all the recommendations of the ATSIC meeting, the Government welcomes the input of indigenous peoples to the World Conference.(2) The Government plans to be involved in the World Conference Against Racism and, to this end, will contribute (in consultation with domestic stakeholders) to the Conference's outcomes. No decisions have been made about any financial contributions to the Conference.25695(Question No. 2386)238625695Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom849BraddonALP00 asked the Minister for Trade, upon notice, on 1 March 2001:(1) Is the Minister's Department, or are agencies within the portfolio, large purchasers or consumers of office papers.(2) How are the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines being adhered to by the Minister's Department and agencies within the portfolio.(3) What methodology or weighting criteria does the Minister's Department and agencies use to determine the importance of the core principles which underpin the procurement guidelines, namely, (a) value for money, (b) open and effective competition, (c) ethic and fair dealing, (d) accountability and reporting, (e) national competitiveness and industry development and (f) support for other Commonwealth policies.(4) What weighting criteria are used to implement the mandatory provisions in the guidelines which state that agencies must be able to demonstrate that Australia New Zealand (ANZ) suppliers have had a fair opportunity to compete.(5) In inviting suppliers to tender for the provisions of goods, are suppliers advised that they must offer ANZ goods.(6) If the Minister's Departments or agencies within the portfolio do not have weighting criteria for determining the principles, will the Minister take steps to ensure that they provide an appropriate means to demonstrate their compliance with Commonwealth procurement policy.25695Vaile, Mark, MPMr VaileSU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—The answer to the honourable member's question in relation to the portfolio of Foreign Affairs and Trade is as follows:(1) In 1999-2000 the portfolio purchased approximately 48,000 reams of Australian-made paper in Canberra.(2) Portfolio agencies' in-house procurement instructions accord fully with the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines (CPGs). (3) The core principles underpin all procurement activity within the portfolio. They are contained in all instructions and guidelines provided to all staff involved in procurement.(4) The portfolio does not discriminate against ANZ suppliers. Standard tender documentation encourages ANZ suppliers to bid and in some instances, only ANZ suppliers are invited to bid. (5) Standard tender documentation requires potential suppliers to supply only ANZ products wherever possible or identify the ANZ content of the goods to be supplied. (6) Portfolio methodologies conform fully with Commonwealth Procurement Policy.25695(Question No. 2402)240225695Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 1 March 2001:For each of the past 10 years, who have been the commanding officers of 3RAR.25695Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: January 1990 to August 1991Lieutenant Colonel G R HillAugust 1991 to December 1993Brigadier G A BornholtJanuary 1994 to December 1995Colonel R A TillerJanuary 1996 to December 1997Colonel R M BoydJanuary 1998 to November 1999Lieutenant Colonel N W WelchNovember 1999 onwardsLieutenant Colonel P K Singh