2001-04-033918REPS2623702001-04-03—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 2.00 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous2623710000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received the return to the writ which I issued on 9 February 2001 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Ryan in the state of Queensland to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of the Hon. John Colinton Moore. By the endorsement on the writ, it is certified that Leonie Marjorie Short has been elected.Ms Leonie Marjorie Short made and subscribed the affirmation of allegiance.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! On behalf of the House, I welcome the new member for Ryan.Ministerial Arrangements2623714:05:0026237Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Minister for Trade will be absent from question time today and for the remainder of this week. He is travelling to the United States for trade discussions with representatives of the new United States administration. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions on his behalf.Questions Without Notice262372623714:06:0026237Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is directed to the Minister for Aged Care and it goes to the credibility of announcements that she has made about nursing home beds. Minister, can you confirm that, following your 1999 version of the announcement made today about nursing home beds, the Moran Health Care group has returned over 200 announced beds because it is not viable to operate them under your funding system? Are you aware that Mr Shane Moran recently stated that they would also be returning another 50 nursing home beds given to the Moran group out of last year's version of your announcement today? Minister, given your history of announcing beds that never materialise, how many of the beds that you have announced today will again turn out to be phantom beds that are never built and never used?26237Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I find the hypocrisy of questions being asked from the Labor Party about the supply of beds utterly astounding. This is from a Labor government that left us short of 10,000 places. That is not my estimate; it is the estimate of the Auditor-General who found that the Labor Party left us short of 10,000 places. Since I have been minister in this second Howard government, counting the 9,451 new places which I announced today—amounting to an additional expenditure of $182 million—we have issued nearly 32,000 places. Furthermore, we have put in place a trilogy of further reforms to bring them on stream. Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that I have actually opened beds that were allocated by the Labor Party in 1991. In other words, there was never any accountability. And there are many more of those. Indeed, today I have received a letter from Minister Bronwyn Pike in Melbourne asking if she could please make a new arrangement that some of the high care beds that she has been holding be brought on stream. I have sent that forthwith to the department so that it can be agreed as soon as possible, because holding back beds has been a pattern of the Victorian Labor government.Now let me come to Mr Moran. Mr Moran—a good friend of yours no doubt—has given back 50 beds from the Northern Territory because he was not granted a capital grant of $2 million. In fact, the available capital to the Northern Territory went to those organisations who could not afford self-funding capital expenditure, such as the Uniting Church Frontier Services, who got $1 million, and other charitable and religious groups, including Aboriginal groups, that received another nearly million dollars. So we put that capital funding where it was needed. The other beds that were returned by the Moran group were ones where they failed to gain the `extra service' category, which meant that they could have charged bonds. That is the financial decision they have made.I have put in place today, with this announcement of this round, something very important, and that is the third in a trilogy of reforms into the timely release of bringing beds on stream. Firstly, we said that, if you are in receipt of those beds, you have got two years to bring them on stream—and, I might say, the Morans were not successful in bringing them in on time either. The second thing is that we now require people to make a six-monthly report as to precisely where they are at in bringing those beds on stream. Thirdly, and importantly with today's announcement, a key consideration in an applicant being successful will be whether or not they can bring those beds on stream in a relatively short time frame. The government have brought in reforms whereby we have put in place a benchmark of care in a framework of continuous improvement. We have put in place more beds, more money and better care. You can compare that with the record of the Labor Party, which was nothing short of shameful, with beds not being brought on stream in time at all—as I said, in 1991 they were still not on stream—in being 10,000 places short and in having substandard homes which they never visited or took care to see that they reached a standard. They never put in a standard that was legislated for. We have done that because we care for older Australians who need that care, as distinct from the hypocrisy of the Labor Party, which has the audacity to try and say that it has any plans at all.2623814:11:0026238Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the government's approach to fiscal policy since it came to office? Would he update the House on any recent announcements in relation to budget management?26238Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Macquarie. As I think the House well knows, it has been this government's policy to run a balanced budget in times of economic growth and to repay the debt which was ratcheted up by the Labor Party in its last five miserable years of office. After coming into government, this government took a budget which was $10 billion in deficit and, over a two-year period, with $8 billion of savings, put it into surplus, and this year we will deliver the fourth surplus budget in a row. As we were doing that, we were opposed every step of the way by the Labor Party. The Labor Party not only had the budget in deficit but opposed all measures which were required to get it back into surplus. So you can imagine my surprise when a speech came across my desk the other day given by the Leader of the Opposition to the Australia-Israel Chamber of Commerce where he had this to say:Our frontline commitment in fiscal policy for the next election is what we call the `golden rule'.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—That's the one you don't keep when you are in government.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes, the golden rule is something that the Labor Party never observes when it has the capacity to do so. The golden rule apparently consists of two parts: first, governments must not borrow to finance current spending and, second, governments must save in the good times so that over the cycle the budget balances. Let us have a look at this proposition: governments must not borrow to finance current spending. Let us take the year 1994-95. The finance minister in 1994-95 was the honourable member for Brand. Let us test him against this proposition: governments must not borrow to finance current spending. In that year revenues were $109 billion and current spending was $123 billion. The government in that year borrowed 13 thousands of millions of dollars to finance current spending.4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—The golden rule.CT4Mr COSTELLO—That is right. Let us check against the second limb of the golden rule: governments must save in the good times. Let us take a good time as a growth period of 4.5 per cent, for example, in 1994-95. Governments should save in the good times, so, according to the second limb of the golden rule, at a time of 4.5 per cent growth you should not just balance the budget; you should be saving. In the 1994-95 year, of the 4½ per cent growth rate not only did the then finance minister fail to save a dollar; he went out onto financial markets and borrowed $13.3 billion. In the 808 days when the now Leader of the Opposition was finance minister, have a guess how many days he observed the golden rule. 4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—None.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Out of 808 days, how many days did the Leader of the Opposition observe the golden rule?4G4Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer—A hundred and twenty?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Any advance on 120? Sixty? Out of 808 days, the Leader of the Opposition observed the golden rule for precisely none, not one day. This golden rule attempts to take the public for a golden fool. You did not observe it on one single day, you have no capacity to carry it out, and it illustrates just why the Labor Party is ill equipped for government in this country.2623914:16:0026239Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, can you confirm that across Australia prior to today's announcement there were 15,600 phantom nursing home beds that have been announced but are not yet available?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What? You're joking.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Fifteen thousand six hundred!PG6Ms MACKLIN—Don't you include these places with available beds in your announcement on aged care places in an attempt to cover the actual shortage of beds? Minister, given your history of announcing beds that never materialise, why shouldn't Australians believe that a substantial proportion of the beds that you announced today will be phantom beds—never built and never used?26239Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—Of course, the member would know all about phantom beds because that is precisely what they announced. That is why the Auditor-General—not some spurious Labor Party committee that decides it will pick a figure out of the air, but the Auditor-General—when he audited the figures, was 10,000 places short. For that reason we have had to make up for that shortfall and provide for growth. The Labor Party in 1986 actually set the benchmark of having 100 places for each population of 1,000 people, 70 and above. Guess what? They never ever met the benchmark. In terms of allocations, we have met that benchmark and let me tell you, Mr Speaker: we brought on additional—importantly, community aged care—packages, because people want to stay at home as long as they can. For that reason we increased the number from 4,000, introduced by the previous Labor government, to 24,000 and by June 2001 we will have 24,000 community aged care packages on stream.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, the question had no —10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—A point of order?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—mention of community places. It was about—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The point of order?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—The point of order is on relevance. We want an answer to the 15,600 phantom beds—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—not all this—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. By any measure, the minister is answering the question, and I call her.SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The formula was to have 40 high-care beds, 50 low-care beds and 10 community aged care packages, making 100 places for each of the communities I just described. The fact of the matter is that, to make up for the 10,000 places that Labor had left short, we brought on 14,000 places last year, which were announced in January; the successful candidates were announced in January. As part of the 2001 round, I have announced today 9,451, of which 2½ thousand are high-care beds, because we needed that to make up the ratio which was applied to account for the ageing population.We are doing our duty. We are the party that is providing what is required, as distinct from the Labor Party, who never did. I repeat that today I have put in place a third new rule, which is that, when these places are considered by the department for allocation, a key component will be how quickly they can bring those beds on. That will be an important component added to the six-monthly report and the two-year limit that people can hang on to it, as distinct from what the Labor Party did. I repeat that I am still opening beds that they allocated in 1991. 2624014:20:0026240Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House the government's approach to creating opportunities for rural, regional and remote communities to provide their own social and economic future? Does the Minister know of any alternative approaches?26240Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question and acknowledge that certain areas of his electorate are seeing very substantial growth, reflecting, amongst other things, strong local leadership. This government believes very strongly that, when rural communities and regional communities look to their future, the key ingredient above all else is that the solutions need to be local. You need to have local leadership driving local solutions. They are the hallmark of our approach. We are delivering them via a number of programs—and not least of all through sound economic management—such as Regional Solutions and rural transaction centres. This is in stark contrast to the ALP's approach, which is to impose solutions from on top, just the way they imposed members from on top, or, as the member for Werriwa would say, via the inside lane. An interesting illustration of the way in which we approach local communities and their needs is to be found in the small town of Mungindi, which I share with my good colleague the Minister for Veterans' Affairs. One-third of it is on the Queensland side of the border and two-thirds is on the New South Wales side. I was out there during the last up week and we were talking with the local community about some of the economic and social issues that they have been confronting. They were without a doctor for quite a while and, thanks to the package that the Minister for Health and Aged Care and the government have put together, they have just attracted a new doctor to that single-doctor town. They acknowledge our role in that.After having been without a pharmacist for quite a period of time—the previous pharmacist who had been there for decades closed his shop up—with the assistance of the remote area package they now have two new pharmacists from Brisbane. They are a young couple looking forward to living their lives working in Mungindi, which is a great community. They are now looking forward to being able to use their own mobile phone. I had to speak with the Prime Minister over satellite phone from the main street of Mungindi. The next time I am out there, they will have a mobile phone coverage because, under Networking the Nation, they will have CDMA coverage. CDMA came about under our government after the previous government closed the analog network. They are looking for face-to-face banking and other services and, under the Rural Transaction Centre program, they are now designing a rural transaction centre which will give them a whole range of face-to-face services back in the community that urban Australians would take for granted. They are doing it under one of our programs. Under Roads to Recovery, they are replacing a missing bridge which has been gone for a couple of years. No-one at local government level had the capacity to put it back. It is now going back under Roads to Recovery. They are looking forward to having a decent road again between Mungindi and Boomi as it heads east towards Brisbane. I visited the local schools, and they have benefited from a range of federal government programs and what have you. Indeed, it was a very interesting illustration of how we can help a local community move forward. In addition to that, there is, of course, something they have not tapped into, the Regional Solutions program, which is also locally focused. There have been some 760 applicants from around Australia for that program, and a significant number of first-round programs out there are up and running. Success in the regions, as I said at the outset, really does depend in the first instance on locally found and locally developed answers. You cannot impose solutions from Canberra and expect them to work. Of course, Canberra imposed directives are exactly what regional Australia got from the ALP, and would get from any future Labor government. That, presumably, is what is behind Labor's national infrastructure council now proposed by the shadow spokesman. Presumably, that is what he means when he talks about regional coordination, because central control is what the ALP is all about. It does not believe in solutions from local people; it does not believe that local people might come up with answers that the Labor Party would be happy with. There is none of this grassroots democracy, as the member for Batman well knows. He knows how it works. It is a system that put him and most of his colleagues on the front bench over there. It is the system that, in the 1995 Labor preselection for the seat of Batman, allowed the national executive of the Labor Party to override the rank and file members of Batman and install the present member as its candidate. Indeed, as the member for Werriwa put it:Not surprisingly, given the way in which parliamentary careers were served to them on a plate, the Fergusons have become disconnected from reality.The member for Werriwa goes on to complain that no-one gave him such an inside lane. It is a system of centralised control that is still running very strong indeed, as the Labor Party faithful in the seat of Throsby have just discovered, with Jennie George being foisted upon them. So entrenched is this concept of centralised control in the Labor ethic that it is written into the party's rules—it is Labor law to override the wishes of a people of a region and to impose the decisions of head office upon them. That is not an approach that will ever work in rural and regional Australia—in stark contrast to the policy proposals under which we are able to work in partnership with rural communities to secure their futures.Distinguished Visitors2624110000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House of the presence in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery this afternoon of the Hon. Alan Griffiths who, as Minister for Industry, Technology and Regional Development, was a member of the cabinet of the federal parliament in 1993-94.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice262412624114:27:0026241Corcoran, Ann, MPMs CORCORAN009CWIsaacsALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, can you confirm that, on the Mornington Peninsula, a Queensland company was given 140 nursing home beds out of the 1999 version of your announcement today when it actually had no land to build them on? Is the minister also aware that the company has only just now lodged a planning application for the site—18 months after being handed the bed licences? Minister, are you not misleading the public when you count as available these beds amongst the 15,600 phantom beds that have been announced but have not yet been built?26241Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The way in which the planning is done and the way in which the allocation of places—both community aged care packages and beds—is made is that the number of places that the government will make available in one year are announced about this time of the year—March. Then the ACPACs—the Aged Care Planning Advisory Committees—meet, and there is one for each state. Those people meet together and look at the ABS statistics about what the growth will be for the particular region. They look at special needs groups, and I am delighted to say that, in the 2001 round, veterans will be classified as a special needs group. That was a decision I made last year, and it is an important one for veterans. They look at the special needs and then they make a recommendation to the department as to where those areas of need are. The department then makes a list of the targeted areas, which are published, usually about the beginning of June. They are advertised and people then apply. The department applies a set of criteria that is set out in both the Aged Care Act and the aged care principles as to which people can best serve the needs of the region of the people who need those places. Once a decision has been made by the department, they advise me of it and I then make the announcement as to who was successful. It is a very thorough, precise system of scrutiny of those people who apply. In the year 2000 round, there were 700 successful applicants, but there were 2,500 people who applied. The beds are allocated on the principle I outlined in the answer to the previous question. Indeed, brand new facilities are being built to meet the new certification requirements so that we will not have more than four people in any room and most people will have a single room with an ensuite. I have also said that in this current round a special requirement will be that a key indicator will be how quickly a provider can bring those places on stream.2624214:30:0026242Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister advise the House of the accuracy of recent public comments relating to the work of the Youth Pathways Action Plan Taskforce?26242Kemp, 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 Cook for his question. The Youth Pathways Action Plan Taskforce was established by the government in late September 1999 on the recommendation of the Youth Homelessness Taskforce. The government commissioned the report to see how government agencies, communities, state governments, businesses and schools could better work together to secure a successful transition from school to post-school life for young people and to make school more relevant to young people—the 70 per cent of students who are not seeking an academic career when they leave school. The consultations of the task force have been extensive and exhaustive and involved state governments, including of course Labor state governments, to ensure that the report is one which enables a fully comprehensive set of solutions to be put in place.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPBT4Dr KEMP—The member for Dickson has claimed that the report was 13 months overdue. The member for Lilley today called a doorstop and made the following statement:This report was delivered to the government last November, not in January as David Kemp has claimed.The truth of the matter was put on the record this morning by the chairman of the task force, Captain David Eldridge from the Salvation Army. Captain Eldridge was asked whether or not he had expected the report to be released before now. His answer was as follows:No, the report was not actually due 13 months ago.The member for Dickson might like to take that on board. He said:It was commissioned in September 1999 and initially it was going to be launched in March 2000. But about one month into our work, we realised that we really needed to undertake a much more extensive consultation and we asked for extended time. So we really completed it probably around November last year, and then with some editing and other issues gave it to the government in January.The member for Lilley said the report was delivered to the government last November, not in January. The chairman of the task force, Captain David Eldridge, said the report was given to the government in January. So is the member for Lilley calling the chairman of the task force a liar? This just shows you how far the Labor Party is prepared to go to distort the truth. But that is not the end of the matter, that is not the end of the distortions which have come from the other side of the House, because yesterday we had what Stuart Littlemore referred to last night as the `polyester outrage' of the Leader of the Opposition, alleging that the report made a direct link between the youth allowance and young people turning to theft or drugs. The Leader of the Opposition was very explicit in what he was alleging: I ask the Minister if he is aware that this leaked copy of the report states that some young people denied the youth allowance have `turned to petty theft or drug dealing to survive'.When you turn to the report itself, you do not find that link between the youth allowance and the reference in the report, which nobody could dispute, that marginalised young people indicate in some circumstances that they have turned to petty theft or drug dealing to survive. That is the problem that the government is seeking to address through the Youth Pathways report. What the report said was:These young people were young people who had run into problems at school—poor relationships with teachers or other students and inflexible learning arrangements. They told of being met with derogatory comments, sarcasm and threats of discipline. Some existing structures are not suitable for these young people and in rural and regional centres there are few alternative learning environments.Then the report says:Marginalised young people indicated that in some circumstances they had turned to petty theft or drug dealing to survive.The Leader of the Opposition attempted to make a completely inaccurate connection between young people turning to drugs and the youth allowance. The report is quite clear. Captain David Eldridge made it quite plain in his interview this morning that this report is about making sure that the school environment and other structures within which young people get support are adequate to meet their needs. These are needs that were never met during 13 years of Labor. As we remember the former member for Sydney said, `This was something we never did when we were in office.'This government has put in place the Jobs Pathway program, this government has put in place enterprise and career education and school to work programs which, under the Labor Party, provided assistance to some 25,000 young people and now provide assistance to some 167,000 young people. It is no wonder that youth unemployment has fallen dramatically under this government. What this demonstrates more than anything else is that the Labor Party is prepared to distort any information that may come into its hands in order to trade again a grubby political advantage. If you know the Labor Party, it is no wonder they have a copy of this report, because we have made no secret of this report. After their confected outrage yesterday, one may wonder why they release only six pages of it. Why are they sitting on the remainder of the report? Why don't they make the rest of it available? PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—We want to table the lot.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that persistent interjections are out of order.BT4Dr KEMP—We are very concerned about young people who are being involved in dependence on handouts, but this is the first time we have seen an opposition party which is dependent on policy handouts. Obviously, what is going to happen is that the Labor Party is going to go away and suddenly release a policy to help young people based on the government's Youth Pathways report. We will find these recommendations reflected in Labor Party policy, just like the banking policy. The Labor Party is dependent on handouts from other people for its policy ideas. This government shows that it is serious by putting forward a full report that consults every element in this community to make sure that young people get the opportunities they deserve and the Labor Party, if it wishes to put this report out, can put this report out. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I seek two things: that he table the document from which he was quoting, and I seek leave to table this report so everybody can read the whole lot of it as we saw yesterday.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—What it says about revamping the whole system.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dickson for the third time! PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—We asked for leave yesterday and you wouldn't give it to us. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! The chair has two requests before it. The second of the two requests was a request to table a document, and I believe that leave has been granted.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Leave is given to table it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the Prime Minister. The first of the two requests was a request for the minister to table, I think, the document from which he was quoting. I need to make the request to the minister for him to indicate whether or not that is his intent.BT4Kemp, Dr David, MPDr Kemp—I table it.2624414:41:0026244Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—My question is directed to the Minister for Aged Care. Is the minister aware that the Moran group recently handed back 50 nursing home beds given to them out of the 1998 version of your announcement today on the grounds that they were uneconomic to operate? Hasn't this left the Caboolture region without the 50 aged care beds announced three years ago, contributing to the shortage of over 400 aged care beds in the region? Minister, given the 15,600 phantom beds so far, how many of these beds you announced today for Queensland will again be never built and never used?26244Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I am very interested to see that a Tasmanian has to ask the question about Queensland.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—He's chair of the committee.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition for the third time!SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—And I would simply say I actually answered that question in the first question that I answered, and I repeat to you that the reason the Moran group handed back the beds in the letter that they wrote to the department was that they had not achieved extra service status which would have allowed them to have accommodation bonds instead of the accommodation charge. That was the reason they gave. Those beds will be reallocated so they are not lost.2624414:42:0026244Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, what action has the government taken to ensure that all Australian workers are free to choose whether or not they belong to a trade union? What influences and impediments exist to threaten this basic human right of freedom of choice, and what plans does the government have to address this situation?26244Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Moreton for his question. I am proud to belong to a government which has enshrined freedom of association principles in the Workplace Relations Act. We are able to do this as a government because the coalition parties belong to their rank and file members. We are not owned by any outside organisation in the way the unions own and operate the Australian Labor Party. There are many good Labor people who are very concerned about the stranglehold which the unions have over the Australian Labor Party and which constitutes a permanent threat to freedom of association principles and true industrial democracy in Australia. The member for Fremantle, for instance, said:It is clear that unions ... exercise disproportionate influence through the 60:40 rule and through their affiliated membership, many of whom have no direct connection to the party. One vote, one value—the prime condition for a democracy—is not observed in the party's rules.That is from the member for Fremantle, a former Labor Premier of Western Australia, now a frontbencher condemning her own party. It is not just that the unions own and operate the Labor Party; they also bankroll its day-to-day operations and, what is more, individual unions have a specific claim over the loyalty of individual members of the Labor caucus. Amongst the $5 million which unions gave to the Labor Party last year, the Australian Workers Union gave $653,000 and, according to the Register of Members' Interests and information on the parliamentary web site, this union claims the specific affiliation of six members of caucus. The Australian Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union not only gave $456,000 to the Labor Party last year but it owns and operates 13 members of caucus, including the Leader of the Opposition. The Australian Services Union not only gave $258,000 last year but it owns and operates 14 members of the Labor caucus. If these affiliations had no impact on policy, they might be of merely academic interest; but in health, education and economic policies Labor is dictated to by the ACTU. The former Prime Minister, Bob Hawke, used to say, `If you can't govern yourselves, you can't govern the country.' A more appropriate statement today would be, `If you're not allowed to govern yourself, you should never be allowed to govern this country.' ET4Bevis, Arch, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is defying the chair!2624514:46:0026245Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Treasurer and I refer to his repeated claims that the US dollar is to blame for the low Australian dollar. Isn't it true, Treasurer, that in the last nine months since 1 July the Australian dollar has lost ground against more than 90 per cent of the world's currencies? Treasurer, if it is just a problem with the US dollar, why has our currency fallen 14 per cent against the British pound, 13 per cent against the euro, 16 per cent against the Singapore dollar, 23 per cent against the Mexican peso and 11 per cent against the trade weighted index since 1 July?26245Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—It would be an unusual day, wouldn't it, if the Labor Party did not take an opportunity to try to talk Australia down. They had a very bad day yesterday, because it was good news for Australia yesterday: retail trade was up; bad news for the Labor Party. So we did not have any economic questions yesterday. Of course, today, the Labor Party decide to get back to what is essentially their core business. After going out on Sunday to a soccer game—Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—It was so important that he had to get the cameras down to a soccer game on Sunday to try to get his face up. Overnight movements on the currency markets were principally related to the release of a purchasing index in the United States which indicated that the US economy may in fact be growing faster than many people had expected. On overseas markets overnight there were movements in relation to many currencies, including the Kiwi dollar, which I think went below 40c, and the Canadian dollar—I think it was the member for Melbourne Ports who asked me about this—which closed at an all-time low at 63c. Not only are the fundamentals of the Australian economy not being reflected in the exchange rate; I think there is some truth in what is now believed to be the fact that the fundamentals of the US economy are not being reflected in relation to the US dollar. Through the course of 1998 and 1999, the US dollar strengthened on the back of strong US growth; through the course of 2000 and 2001, it strengthened on the back of weak US growth—that is, it became regarded as a safe haven currency, with huge capital inflows to the US economy. One of the consequences of that is that the US current account is now becoming larger than the Americans have experienced in recent years; conversely, one of the consequences for Australia is that the current account deficit is now much less than we have had in Australia for probably two decades, falling to about three per cent of GDP in the December quarter, unlike the figures of five and six per cent which have prevailed since the days of Mr Keating back in 1983.When the most recent trade figures came out, I also indicated that they showed a trade surplus for Australia—not just on the month, because you can have monthly trade surpluses, but, interestingly enough, on the trend. We have not seen Australia's trading position on goods and services in trend terms in a positive territory for probably decades. I may say in passing that a lot of the benefit of the improvement in prices as a result of the supercompetitive exchange rate is flowing to rural areas. There are a lot of people in rural Australia who are getting benefits in relation to commodity prices that they have never had before. If the Labor Party wants to have a policy of affecting the exchange rate—and I say this honestly—if the Labor Party wants either to fix the exchange rate or, in relation to a floating exchange rate, to try for a revaluation, we are all ears to hear what its policies are. I ask this: is roll-back a policy now for the exchange rate? DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You've picked it up.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Is opposing Telstra's privatisation a policy for the exchange rate? DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You've adopted it.CT4Mr COSTELLO—Is driving the Australian budget into deficit a policy on the exchange rate? DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—That's your direction.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is warned!CT4Mr COSTELLO—Is opposing the government's policy in relation to beer excises and taking $180 million out of the budget a policy on the exchange rate? Let me ask this question: does the Labor Party think that resocialising labour relations in this country is a policy on the exchange rate? Does the Labor Party think that regulating labour relations and abolishing AWAs is a policy on the exchange rate? Does the Labor Party believe that opposing competition in the economy is a policy on the exchange rate? I ask all of these questions to make one simple point: you are political opportunists, and the chief opportunist in this parliament is an ex-ACTU president, the member for Hotham. You will see political opportunists get out on a regular basis and try to make a cheap point, but you will never see them with a policy. When the press are next called to a soccer game for the chief opportunist in the opposition to make a comment in relation to the exchange rate, let them ask him this one question: if you are so concerned, which of your policies is directed to this issue? He would probably look at the soccer game and say, `Oh, no, another goal has been scored.' No policy, no serious position, five years of opposition and further from economic responsibility than ever before.2624614:54:0026246Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Is the minister aware of the lending practice known as `payday lending'? How does payday lending affect Australian consumers and is the minister aware of any policies to combat this form of finance?26246Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Forde for her ongoing interest in this matter. Payday lending is a form of finance where consumers borrow small amounts of cash and then pay it back when they next get paid, usually at astronomical interest rates. Taking an example that has been given to me from Queensland, one couple needed cash to pay off some small debts, so they went to a payday lender and borrowed $50 together with a flat fee. But the couple could not make the repayment and so rolled the loan over each fortnight together with the fee. Nine months later this couple owed the payday lender $980—$980 on a $50 loan. In their case they ended up paying an interest rate of about 487 per cent. Sometimes the interest rate can be as high as 1,000 per cent per annum.There are around 80 payday lenders in Australia, and in a report to the Queensland Labor Minister for Fair Trading last August it was estimated that this could grow to 800 payday lenders within five years. The Australian Consumers Association and the Consumer Law Centre of Victoria have been calling for the states to protect consumers from extremely aggressive lending by payday lenders. The states have the power under the Uniform Consumer Credit Code to protect consumers from this insidious and exploitative practice. The rules under the Uniform Consumer Credit Code apply to bank lending, building society lending and credit union lending, and of course the banking code of practice applies to those as well.The government's argument has always been that there must be transparency for borrowers: they must have spelled out to them in detail the provisions of the loans and their obligations under those loans. Those needing payday loans are often the less prosperous people in our community. They are usually the less financially savvy, and they are sometimes the people who can least handle spiralling debt. They often obtain payday loans to cover short-term debts that have arisen because of gambling or other distressing situations. I took the opportunity when having a look at this to have a look at the Labor Party's policy. I just remind the House that the second paragraph of the Labor Party's policy stated: This policy is the result of several years of detailed research and policy work.That is, after they received a briefing from the ABA three days earlier—`several years of detailed research and policy work'! I looked at the provision relating to payday lending and I found one sentence. It reads:Labor will work with State Governments to bring pay-day lending and other short-term lending activities into the Uniform Credit Code.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—What have you done?DK6Mr HOCKEY—What have I done? It is interesting. I was wondering where the Labor Party might have got this from. In fact, I looked through my records and found that last November I wrote to state consumer affairs ministers, including Labor state consumer affairs ministers, and I asked them, with their existing powers, to crack down on payday lending. Five months later most states are still not moving in any direction on payday lending. So if it was not—I am pretty humble about this—my policy they stole, I was wondering where the member for Hotham would have got the idea about following up on payday lending. It struck me last night when I was reading the newspaper and I had a look at this article that the member for Hotham must have gone and consulted the member for Watson, because there was speculation in the paper that all the Labor Party policies are, in fact, being road tested by the member for Watson. You can just imagine the member for Hotham going to the member for Watson and saying, `Payday lending,' and those puppy eyes of the member for Watson looking up a bit confused before he rolls onto his back saying, `Tickle my tummy.' Payday lending resonates in the community!UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. The minister was asked about payday lending. He is off with the fairies now. Where is he?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Has the minister concluded his answer? The minister will return to the question.DK6Mr HOCKEY—It is not enough to just have a word in a policy; you actually have to have a policy behind it. This government is calling on the states—and has been for five months—to move on payday lending. Today, New South Wales responded. It has taken five months for the government to convince New South Wales, because the Labor Party does not actually want to move on policy; it just wants to use the rhetoric.2624715:00:0026247Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Defence. Does he recall being asked a dorothy dixer in question time last Wednesday:Is the minister aware of an existing promise to purchase two additional submarines? Minister, would you inform the House how this would impact on the government's white paper commitments?Minister, can you confirm that your department's web site currently lists Defence project 1439 approved in 1998 by your government? Can you confirm that project 1439 is described as:A three-phased program which seeks to enhance the Collins class submarine capability and, in the longer term, acquire additional or replacement submarines.Doesn't project 1439 also state on your current web site from the 1998 undertakings by your government:It is expected that additional submarines will be of a new class but based on further development of the Collins class design. Construction of additional submarines could be expected to commence in 2005.Minister, in light of your previous statements about the acquisition of additional submarines, I ask: how are you going to pay for them? 26248Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—Let me first say that I welcome the question.Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—No, I do, because to get the Labor Party to focus on defence has been part and parcel of the questioning that I have made of the Labor Party in the last few weeks. The reason that I have been pursuing this question is that they have on the public record a statement that the Labor Party will not tell the Australian people about their policy until after the next election. I knew they were sensitive because of the bungles on the Collins class submarines—in fact, so sensitive that the Leader of the Opposition is now asking the questions himself.CE4O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'Keefe—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Does this mean that the minister has to tell lies to get to the truth?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Burke will excuse himself from the House under standing order 304A. The member for Burke realises that was a fabrication of a point of order and it is inappropriate that it should have been so raised.The member for Burke then left the chamber. WI4Mr REITH—The government's intentions have been laid out in the white paper.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—What about the web site?WI4Mr REITH—I am sorry, I do not spend a lot of time on the web site—you may do—but we have a white paper. What is very interesting about this question is the sensitivity it reveals of the Leader of the Opposition: firstly, the fact that he bungled the Collins class submarines when he was the Minister for Defence and, secondly, that the Labor Party's public position is that they will not tell us what their intentions are when it comes to spending taxpayers' dollars, if the Labor Party are ever elected. In response to that, the Labor Party have been saying, `Isn't it shocking that the defence minister is playing politics, asking us questions about our policy?'PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I asked him how he was to pay for his plans for additional submarines. We have not heard a single statement from him—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Leader of the Opposition was granted a good deal of licence from the chair as he framed that question. It was a lengthy question that referred to a number of quotes. I deem the answer by the Minister for Defence to be entirely relevant, and I call him.WI4Mr REITH—Behind the question there is a genuine issue, and the genuine issue is that we have stated, as the government, what we intend to purchase with the taxpayers' dollars over the next 10 years. We have spelled out what it is that we believe is necessary for the defence of this country. In pursuit of the Labor Party's policy—Opposition members interjecting—WI4Mr REITH—You should not be looking at our web site; you ought to be preparing a policy. You ought to be responding to the clear public and national interest for the Labor Party to tell everyone what their intentions are. These are the people who, when the shadow minister—ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—Hit by an exocet.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Brisbane is warned!WI4Mr REITH—Mr Speaker—UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Paterson is warned!WI4Mr REITH—I conclude on the simple point: the fact is the government has—849Sidebottom, Sid, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Braddon! The minister will resume his seat.RH4Kerr, Duncan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The action by the member for Denison was also entirely inappropriate. The minister has the call.MG4Lee, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell is warned. WI4Mr REITH—I was just getting out the quote, as a matter of fact. It was a quote made in December. The shadow minister said that it was good to have a bipartisan position, but he also said:I am not so certain, however, that we share the same view about the force structure ...The question of submarine purchases is a question of force structure. The simple point that I have been attempting to make is that there is a difference of opinion and approach to the basic question of force structure. The government have settled their approach. We have a clear position, it is spelt out in the defence white paper and we back that up with dollars. The fact is that, despite the amusement on your side as to what may or may not be on some web site, the government's position is in the government's white paper. It is a serious issue, and the sensitivity that you show on this reveals—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—You don't know what the white paper means.WI4Mr REITH— I know exactly what the white paper means, and I know that you have not explained to the Australian people what Labor is going to do if Labor is ever elected. It is not good enough to hide behind a declaration that we will see no such statement from you until after the next election.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I seek leave to table the government's plans for additional submarines.Leave granted. Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The actions by both the Minister for Forestry and Conservation and the member for Lalor are entirely inappropriate, and I warn them both. Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Member for Lalor! Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am well aware of the action I have taken; I need no advice from the frontbench. The member for Lalor had, for the information of those querying the decision, not in fact interjected.2624915:09:0026249Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. In the light of the government's improved arrangements for school funding, is he aware of any plans to cut school funding? What are these plans, and what is the minister's response?26249Kemp, 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 Hinkler for his question. The Howard government has lifted federal support for schooling to the highest level ever for a federal government for both public government schools and for non-government schools. I am, however, aware of plans to cut the funding of certain schools, and these are plans announced by the Leader of the Opposition, because the Leader of the Opposition has informed us that he intends to cut the funding of a number of low fee community based schools and the funding of schools serving school communities of moderate income. He has also told us that he is going to introduce again Labor's iniquitous new schools policy—so low income communities will not be able to afford a school of their own any longer.The Leader of the Opposition is planning, for example, to cut some $3,375 per student from the Warwick School of Total Education, a community based school in the Darling Downs, but he is only going to take $178 a student away from Sydney Church of England Grammar School (Shore). He is going to cut $1,603 per student from the Woodleigh Primary School in the election of Dunkley but, compared with that, he is only going to take $192 away from Knox Grammar. He is going to take $2,020 per student away from Mentone Girls Grammar in the electorate of Isaacs, a school serving a diverse community, a school directly comparable to many schools which will lose nothing, but only $20 per student away from SCEGGS Redlands and he is not going to take anything at all away from St Ignatius Riverview, Loretto, Pymble, Wenona, Masada or Queenwood. It is the poorer school communities that the Leader of the Opposition is targeting. Why is he doing this? He is doing it because he needs to treat these school communities vindictively, because he needs scapegoats to appease the Australian Education Union, whose policy is for no funding for non-government schools. These are community schools serving moderate income and low income communities—low income communities that will never have their own school because Labor will reintroduce the new schools policy. These are the scapegoat schools. These are the scapegoat school communities that the Leader of the Opposition needs because he has to appease the Australian Education Union, which does not want any funding for non-government schools.The Leader of the Opposition should not think that this disgraceful and irrational policy is going to be a low cost policy for him because we are going to make sure that the parents in Jagajaga, Melbourne Ports, Dunkley, Chisholm, Macarthur, Gilmore, Adelaide and other electorates know the full consequences for them of a Beazley victory in a federal election. This government is going to continue to fight for justice in school funding and expose the injustices and inequities of the Labor Party's school funding policy.2625015:13:0026250Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—My question is also addressed to the Minister for Defence. Minister, why did you not know about the secret report on Australia's naval shipbuilding industry, which was commissioned by your predecessor, when asked about it on the Sunday program, given that you had actually approved an answer to a Senate committee confirming the existence of the report only 11 days ago? Minister, now that you have had over 48 hours to check, can you confirm that Defence paid Mr John Prescott over $116,000 to complete the report that recommends the closure of several Australian shipyards and the loss of thousands of jobs in the Australian shipbuilding industry? Finally, Minister, on Sunday you also stated that you had a plan for Australia's shipbuilding industry. Why won't you tell the Australian public what your plan is? Why won't you release the Prescott report?26250Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—John Prescott was asked by my predecessor to look at industry issues in respect of shipbuilding. He undertook some work over a period of time and he provided a written response to the minister, John Moore, prior to my being appointed—in fact, prior to the announcement of my appointment. That was in the second half of last year. He has at some time been appointed as the chairman of ASC, the Australian Submarine Corporation, and, as I understand it, the report has been prepared in the context of the future of ASC. In that context he has provided some comments about the future of naval shipbuilding in Australia. The department has been charged with having discussions with industry on the future of shipbuilding in Australia, and the report prepared commercial in confidence by John Prescott has been part and parcel of the department's discussions.I have had some discussions with John Prescott, not specifically referring to or having any relation to the document that he prepared, I must say, but talking about the future of shipbuilding in Australia. His view expressed to me was that, whilst the government's clear outline is set out in the white paper, he expected many of the decisions about the future of the industry to be made by commercial players responsible for their own assets and their own businesses. Given that he said that to me privately, I am sure he would not mind my saying it to you publicly. Therefore, the claim that he has recommended, or that he sees that it is the government's responsibility to propose, necessarily, the abolition of jobs, as you put it, is simply out of context and certainly not the way in which the matter has been discussed with me.In terms of the future of naval shipbuilding, from time to time it does become an issue, and obviously the purchases that governments make are important. For example, back in 1989 the then defence minister, a Mr Kim Beazley, announced in a press release on 14 August 1989 with regard to the Anzac frigates: Five of the 12 ships will be assembled and launched in Newcastle. This and other work on the ships will give Newcastle industry $200 million of direct work and create 1200 new jobs.The previous government—and this is a classic case—went around Australia making all sorts of promises about defence, one of which was promising people of Newcastle that five ships would actually be launched in Newcastle as a result of the purchase of frigates. As all Australians now know, 10 of them have been built in Melbourne. This is just another case of the bungling of naval capability acquisitions by the previous minister, which reveals again the paucity of constructive comment by the Labor Party on this issue.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—Where are you going to build these?WI4Mr REITH—I beg your pardon?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will not respond to interjections.WI4Mr REITH—To respond to the interjection—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I specifically asked the minister not to respond to the interjection. The minister may care to answer the question, but he will not respond to the interjection.WI4Mr REITH—The outdated document that they have was prepared back before 1999. Typical of the Labor Party, they churn up stuff which does not represent the government's position—trying to pass it off in the Australian parliament as a current document. It just shows you how fraudulent some people are. It should be tabled again.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPWI4Reith, Peter, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—If the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the House have quite finished their cross-parliamentary exchange, I will call the member for Aston.2625115:19:0026251Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business. Would the minister inform the House of the government's response to recent plans by the Victorian state government to change land tax payments? How will these moves affect Victorian small businesses, including those in my electorate of Aston?26251Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I thank the member for Aston for his question. I know he takes a keen interest in small business, not only in his electorate but in Victoria. Small business is the engine room of Australia's economy, and this government works hard to ensure that small business has a regime of low interest rates and low inflation. I know the member for Hunter, the shadow minister for small business, agrees that that is an important part of ensuring that small business succeeds—but unfortunately the Labor Party's rhetoric on their policies towards small business is shown up by the Victorian Labor government in their latest move to introduce changes to the land tax system. What is happening in Victoria right now gives small business right around Australia a real opportunity to see what happens when the Labor Party gets into power. The Victorian government of Mr Bracks, Mr Brumby and Ms Thomson have proposed a system that is really going to make small business pay, and pay hard. They are introducing a system where there will be an abolition of the tax free threshold of $85,000, to be replaced with a progressive system with a flat rate of 2.89 per cent for all business properties. The owner of a hotel on a piece of land valued at $243,000 in Traralgon in the seat of McMillan currently pays $213—a reasonable amount. What are they going to pay under Labor? They are going to pay 25 times that amount.Opposition members interjecting—WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—No, I am not exaggerating these figures. They will now—JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClelland—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to relevance. Having heard the minister's reply, clearly it has nothing to do with his portfolio.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Barton will resume his seat. I believe that, as Minister for Small Business, his concerns about the profitability of small business are entirely within the range of his portfolio, and I allow him to continue. WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. I can only agree with your ruling. If a hotel in Traralgon is not a small business, then I do not know what is. I will go back to the figure. They are currently paying $213. Under the Labor Party in Victoria they are going to be asked to pay $5,970—an increase of more than $5,700. The brilliance of the cunning plan of the Labor Party in Victoria is that, under the new system, a hotel in the member for McMillan's seat will pay land tax at the same rate as a multinational in Collins Street. Labor do not understand small business; they are about higher interest rates, higher taxes and higher government debt. I would suggest to the member for Wills—another member of the Labor dynasty; the Thomson Labor dynasty—and the member for Hunter that they should actually include this issue in the sham of an inquiry that they are having around Australia on small business. I suggest to the member for Wills that he should have a chat to the minister for small business in Victoria, Ms Thomson, and suggest to her that, if she is fair dinkum about small business in Victoria, she will pull this piece of tax grab from the Victorian government.2625215:25:0026252Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—My question without notice is to the Minister for Defence. Can the minister confirm that, due to the government's mishandling of the airborne early warning and control systems project, no fit-out work will be done at the RAAF Base Amberley near my electorate in Ipswich? Does this not mean that local Queensland industry will miss out on several hundred million dollars worth of work and that hundreds of new jobs that could have been created will not be? Why has the government allowed all the fit-out work for this project to be done in the United States, resulting in absolutely no local economic industry or employment benefits in Queensland? Does the minister think that this is a good outcome for the people of Ipswich, Australia or the taxpayer?HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr Andrews—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: it has become a practice of the Labor Party in asking questions such as this one to contain—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—It is a good question.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip is warned!HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr Andrews—in the preamble aspersion and argumentation. The question can be asked without that and I ask you to rule accordingly.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I wish to speak to the member for Menzies' point of order. There is a fundamental flaw in his point of order. There was no preamble to that question. The first word was the word `can'. The first part was, `Can the minister confirm'. It started directly with a question. There was no preamble.HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr Andrews—Mr Speaker, on the point of order: if the Manager of Opposition Business had completed the rest of the sentence, then, as I am sure you noted, he would have read out the aspersion to which I was referring. There was argument, clearly, in the first sentence of the honourable member's question and that is out of order.BV5Adams, Dick, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lyons is certainly right. The member for Menzies makes a point of order of which the chair is very conscious. Every question, as I have said on frequent occasions, contains some argument and the degree of argument is a question for the chair to determine. The member for Oxley's question contained more argument than I like, but not sufficient for me to rule it out of order.26252Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The reason we are doing it the way we are is that we think that is the best value for money. In terms of the impact on Australian business, the value of work in Australia is estimated to be around $400 million and Australian industry will be involved in design and development of radar and electronic warfare systems components, radar component manufacture, testing and ongoing support of the new aircraft. We also have an option for three additional aircraft. If that option were to be exercised— 83ERipoll, Bernie, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Oxley is warned!WI4Mr REITH—we would obviously have a different situation to assess and we would relook at that issue of further production here in Australia. While I understand the interests that the member is pursuing in terms of jobs in his own electorate, the fact is that these things have a cost attached to them and, if you want to look at doing it a different way, then you will need to find the additional dollars to pay for it. Given that the Labor Party cannot tell us what they can afford to pay for if ever they are elected, because they are not prepared to tell us what they are prepared to do, then you are not in a very strong position.When the best that the Labor Party can do is pull out an extract from a web site which is at least two if not three years old as the basis for asking questions in the national parliament about the future of defence spending, then you have a frontbench that is completely bankrupt of any ideas about defence and has the incredible arrogance and gall to tell the Australian people that it will not tell us until after the next election.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister—WI4Mr REITH—I have finished, Mr Speaker. I think that is enough. 2625315:30:0026253Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Will the minister inform the House how the removal of parallel importation restrictions on software, games and books will assist small businesses and consumers? Is the minister aware of any alternative policy approaches, and what would be the impact if these were implemented?26253Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Sturt for his question. He has asked a question on a subject in which he has had a longstanding interest. Australian businesses and consumers have for far too long paid too much for their books, computer software, computer games and CDs, and that is why the government has taken steps to bring prices down. In 1998 the government opened up the CD market, resulting in lower CD prices for Australian consumers. The result was a significant drop in prices. For example, top 40 CDs that were once selling for around $30 or more now sell in Target and other discount stores for $21. Earlier this year we introduced amendments to the Copyright Act that will remove parallel importation restrictions on computer software, and that will relate to computer games, console games and CD-ROMs, and in relation to books, and that will cover sheet music and periodicals as well. Today the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission issued a report which found that, whilst prices for CDs have been heading down since August 1998, Australians continue to pay higher prices for books and computer software—higher prices than their overseas counterparts. The ACCC found that the importation provisions in the Copyright Act restrict competition to the detriment of consumers by granting an import monopoly to copyright holders. What they said about software is this: the last spot price comparisons show that, despite recent falls in the value of the Australian dollar, Australians are still paying around 12 per cent more on average for leading business software than their US counterparts. In relation to computer games, the ACCC said that devotees of popular PC games pay around 20 per cent more than those in the UK and five per cent more than New Zealand players. Of course, these higher prices are borne by somebody; they are borne by Australian consumers and by Australian small business and industry, such as the domestic software industry.Why should we pay higher prices? Under the government's parallel importation amendments, small business will benefit from lower prices. They will get increased access to popular applications for word processing, database management and graphical analysis. In relation to books, the ACCC found this: on average, Australians paid around 44 per cent more for fiction paperbacks than United States readers did in the 12½ years from July 1988 to December 2000. During the same period, Australians paid around nine per cent more than United Kingdom readers for best-selling paperback fiction. The ACCC's report suggests that there are significant gains to be made once we lift the restriction on parallel importation of books and software. The member for Sturt referred to alternative policy approaches. The question is whether Labor will support change so that Australian businesses and consumers do not continue to pay higher prices for tools that are essential in the knowledge nation. Under Labor's 30- and 90-day `use it or lose it' plan, Labor will continue to line up with the multinationals. Under Labor's plan, parallel import rules will maintain the monopoly profits of the distribution cartels. In August last year the then shadow minister for industry and technology even acknowledged that Labor is not interested in the interests of consumers of packaged software. What the shadow minister said on Sky News was this:The Government is moving towards a policy—they've announced a policy; we'll see the legislation soon, I assume, that will take away the rights of the creators and try to just drive down the prices. It's entirely driven by consumer interest.The Howard government is interested in consumer interests. Labor interests would only make consumers big losers, and under Labor policies they would have less choice and would have to pay more for books, magazines, CDs and computer software.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions Without Notice262542625415:35:0026254Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—Mr Speaker, I would like to add to an answer that I gave earlier.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister may proceed.SE4Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOP—When I was answering a question about the Moran beds released in Queensland I said that they had been relinquished because of failure to get extra service status. That was the answer given for the relinquishing of beds in Victoria. The answer given for Queensland was in fact that Moran said they were currently committing large sums of capital towards certification and accreditation requirements across their Australian residential care network and in the environment it was not possible for them to proceed; it would be in two years time. They asked could they have two years extra time. That was declined, so they have relinquished the beds, as is proper.Questions to the Speaker262542625415:36:0026254Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question to you. The question relates to the Hansard reporting of an answer given by the Minister for Defence on 8 March 2001. I wonder whether you would check the tape because the Hansard greens which were received in the Leader of the Opposition's office, as is normal practice, in the afternoon recorded the following in an answer coming from the Minister for Defence:Are they going to undermine our capacity for the purchase of new combat aircraft carriers?In the Hansard report that was published, at page 25478 it says:Are they going to undermine our capacity for the purchase of new combat aircraft?No `carriers'. There is a clear difference. The minister then did not know what he was talking about. Would you check the tape to see whether or not the greens have been doctored, whether in fact the Hansard has been doctored and whether that can be corrected?26254SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter. This parliament is well served by Hansard, as I believe the member for Cunningham would concur. I will follow up the matter and see what the sequence of events happened to be.2625415:38:0026255McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—Mr Speaker, I also have a question to you. I recall earlier this year, or at least late last year, that you ruled out of order a question I think to the Deputy Prime Minister regarding National Party policy. Today you rejected my objection to a question to the Minister for Small Business regarding a policy being pursued by the Victorian Labor government regarding land tax. Will you advise the House as to the circumstances in which it is or is not appropriate to ask a question about party political policy, particularly in circumstances where this parliament has no— 4G4Downer, Alexander, MPJK6Mr McCLELLAND—I take on board the point: either party policy or state government policy, particularly where that policy has no relationship to a federal government head of power under the Constitution.26255SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will pursue the matter raised by the member for Barton. I believe I had ruled entirely consistent with previous occupiers of the chair, but I will check the precedent and the matter raised.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The member is confusing questions and answers. He took his point of order during an answer. The question, I believe, did not ask about Labor Party policy anyway. We do not have to do that: the world knows you haven't got any.Opposition members interjecting—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Speaker, my point of order was that the minister was not asking you a question and would you sit him down.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—That's not a point of order.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation! I remind all members, but particularly ministers, of the obligations they have. I remind the Minister for Forestry and Conservation of his present status in the House. Personal Explanations2625515:40:0026255Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Wills claim to have been misrepresented?UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—I do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Wills may proceed.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—During question time, the Minister for Small Business, in suggesting to the House that I needed to make representations to the Victorian state government concerning land tax, claimed the Victorian government had taken certain decisions concerning land tax. The Victorian government has taken no such decisions—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Wills is aware that he must indicate where he, not the Victorian state government, has been misrepresented.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSON—and the minister completely misled the House in suggesting they had.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You should be ashamed of yourself.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the Deputy Leader of the Opposition that, but for the status currently conferred on the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, there would be no grace extended to him.15:41:0026255Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Melbourne claim to have been misrepresented?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—I do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Melbourne may proceed.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—During question time, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation stated that I and the Labor Party had done nothing about the issue of payday lending over the past five months. This is in fact untrue, and I seek leave to table a press release that I put out on the issue in December last year, calling on the government to take actionLeave granted. Questions to the Speaker262562625615:42:0026256Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Some time ago in question time, I raised a point of order concerning noise volumes in the House occasioned by the particular speaking style of certain ministers and asked whether they were compatible with occupational health and safety standards. My question for you, Mr Speaker, is whether the microphone system in the House has been adjusted in order to comply with those standards.26256SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Let me first indicate that I can think of nothing in this House that does not comply with occupational health and safety. More than once I have discussed this matter with the member for Griffith. I asked that the matter be taken up by the sound and vision people responsible for the chamber, but I had not noticed any distress following that request, so I presume the matter has been addressed. 2625615:42:0026256Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, in December, I placed on notice three questions, Nos 2324, 2325 and 2326, concerning 3RAR and the truncating of a military police report. As three months has elapsed, under standing order 150, could you ask the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence if he would be kind enough to respond? 26256SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will write to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence as the standing orders provide.2625615:43:0026256Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—Mr Speaker, on 30 November 2000, I placed on the Notice Paper question No. 2198 to the Minister for Health and Aged Care regarding the provision of an MRI scanner at Liverpool Hospital that would greatly benefit the electorates of Fowler and Macarthur. I ask that, in accordance with standing order 150, you write to the Minister for Health and Aged Care seeking reasons for the delay in answering and asking when this hospital will receive the MRI scanner.26256SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will take up the matter raised by the member for Fowler as the standing orders provide.Ministerial Statements262562625615:44:0026256Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—by leave—This marks the fifth year of publication of the government's trade outcomes and objectives statement, an innovation of the coalition government that has become a key document for Australian trade policy. Honourable members will note a change in presentation of this year's TOOS, with a more strategic examination of the fundamental changes occurring in the international business environment and our government's response to them. What has not changed is the story of the great efforts of our exporters, who continue to do Australia proud in markets right round the world.TOOS 2001 outlines a magnificent export achievement in 2000. Last year Australian exports grew by a massive 25 per cent. That represents the highest growth rate in more than two decades and more than four times the trend growth rate over the last five years of six per cent. Our export surge came against the background of 1999's marginal fall in trade of one per cent, when exports began to recover after the Asian economic crisis. In the Olympic year, our exporters left the blocks flying. In 2000, total Australian exports reached $143 billion. Merchandise exports rose by 28 per cent and services exports by 18 per cent. The non-rural sector put in the best performance—up 34 per cent—with very strong increases in petroleum, metals, wine and automotive exports. With growth of 18 per cent, rural exports also did well, particularly meat, oil seeds and crustaceans. Exports to all Australia's major trading partners grew strongly, but particularly so to the economies of our immediate region, as they recovered from the economic crisis. Merchandise exports to the East Asian region rose 34 per cent, with very good results in China, up 47 per cent, Singapore, up 45 per cent and the Republic of Korea, up 43 per cent. Yet another milestone that TOOS highlights is the dramatic improvement in Australia's balance of trade. We have more than halved the trade deficit, from $16.6 billion to $7.3 billion. Indeed, Australia has achieved a $479 million surplus in services exports. That is great news for exporters and great news for us all, as export performance contributed strongly to economic growth, in the face of relatively low domestic rates of consumption and capital expenditure growth. TOOS 2001 points out a number of challenges for Australian exports in the coming year. Global economic growth is likely to weaken. A slowdown in the United States might affect our exports not only to that country but also to regional economies with strong US trade ties like Japan, the Republic of Korea, Taiwan and China. As domestic economic conditions in some of our trading partners weaken, our task in securing market access may also become more difficult. Higher world oil prices and movement in the value of the Australian dollar are also factors that could have an impact.On the positive side of the ledger, our strong export performance in 2000 will serve us well as we seek to make further gains in 2001. We have more Australian firms active in exporting, covering many new overseas markets. Our region has embraced needed economic reforms, especially floating exchange rates, which have reduced the risk of a repeat of the 1997-98 economic crisis. And the prices of our major commodity exports are much higher now than they were a year ago, notwithstanding the prospect of negative factors like weakening of the US economy and slower world economic growth.Australia's exporters can also take comfort from the knowledge that they operate in an economic environment that we are shaping to provide them every advantage as they compete in global markets. The coalition government has reduced barriers to domestic competition, lowered the cost of business inputs and done away with a raft of burdensome government regulations. The new tax system has cut costs for exporters by around $3.5 billion each year. We have slashed waterfront costs and delays and are pushing ahead with workplace reform, and we are looking to the future with an additional $2.9 billion of funding over five years to further develop Australia's innovation capability. Our government's multifaceted strategy to address possible challenges and reduce the obstacles faced by Australian exporters is also outlined in TOOS. Our highest trade priority is the launch of a new round of WTO negotiations, which has the greatest potential to improve market access. We will also be helping our traders make the most of the opportunities that will arise from China's expected accession to the WTO. In WTO negotiations on agriculture we will work for fairer rules for agricultural trade and significant cuts in support and protection. And we will be increasing resources to defend Australian trade interests through the WTO's dispute settlement mechanism, where we have already had good wins on lamb exports to the United States and beef exports to Korea.Regionally, we will be gathering support for a WTO round at APEC. We will also continue the valuable and very practical work done at APEC to improve the business environment in the region, including through initiatives to promote Internet uptake and paperless trading. We are advancing discussions between the CER partners and the members of ASEAN on a closer economic partnership between the two groups, which will provide a framework for closer economic integration between ASEAN, Australia and New Zealand.We will continue to emphasise strengthening further our bilateral trading relationships. Our results-focused approach to the negotiation of free trade agreements is guiding our negotiation with Singapore of a FTA to meet the real needs of business in the globalised trading environment. The same thinking will inform our discussions with the United States, where I visited last week and my colleague the Minister for Trade is heading this afternoon. We are also working with Japan and Korea to explore new ways to expand our business relationships, taking advantage of opportunities arising from economic reform and electronic commerce. And the Market Development Task Force remains a valuable tool for the development and pursuit of high priority national trade objectives. We will face considerable challenges in pursuing these objectives. Gaps remain between the major players on the elements of a new round, and some countries will be reluctant to open their markets further because of difficult economic conditions or entrenched political opposition domestically. We will work hard to achieve our objectives, because the rewards will be high.We will continue to foster a strong export sector through advice and services to business. In 2000 the government decided to extend for a further five years the Export Market Development Grants scheme, after a review confirmed its effectiveness. We have decided the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation will enter an alliance with a suitable private insurer by the end of 2001. This will deliver to exporters the benefits of extensive networks, large buyer databases, client support systems and sophisticated IT services. Austrade-run `E-commerce for Exports' seminars showed small and medium exporters how to develop online exports.The elements I have outlined are vital to Australia's trade effort, but they are not the whole picture. As TOOS makes clear, we need to nurture an export culture in our business community, build greater awareness of the benefits of trade and help Australian firms identify and pursue new export markets. Our government has already made good progress in that regard. In February my colleague the Minister for Trade launched Austrade's Exporting for the Future strategy to explain the real benefits that flow to all Australians from international trade and open markets, including of course one in five Australian jobs. And yesterday the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade published the results of its major study entitled Australia's trade: Influences into the new millennium, which examines trends affecting Australia's trading environment over the coming decade.The 2001 Trade Outcomes and Objectives Statement renews our government's commitment to the strongest possible trading future for all Australians. The ingenuity and responsiveness of Australia's exporters and the effectiveness of coalition government policies is reflected in last year's strong trade figures. TOOS 2001 shows how our government intends to defend and expand those vital trade wins for Australia. I commend it to the House, and I table the document and my statement.15:54:0026258McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALP00—by leave—The opposition welcomes the statement. As usual, it is a highly professional piece of work by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and by Austrade. I have to say we are all a little disappointed in the PR focus. Under the former Minister for Trade, the member for Farrer, TOOS, as it is called, was a less glossy and more factual document. I do not recall the member for Farrer feeling the need to have 10 photos of himself in the statement, as the current minister has done. Nevertheless, there are important substantial matters contained within it, and in the time available I will comment on a few.It is welcome to see that our export performance over the last year has been strong. It is a tribute to many individuals and companies who fought their way through some tough times last year to take advantage of what were, for the year in question, improved economic conditions in our major markets. We see that the benefits of past changes are continuing to flow through, and much of the improvement in access that was welcomed and reflected in the statement, particularly in the table that refers to the declining levels of protection in APEC markets, flows from the achievements of the Uruguay Round and within APEC. Many market access improvements for Australian exporters flow from initiatives in those arenas.But, of course, the biggest boost to our exports, and the strongest underlying factor in the growth of export trade, is the low value of the dollar. The statement is clear evidence of the one upside to the parlous state of the Australian dollar: it has made our exports more price competitive. It has had some other worrying concerns for producers, and the Australian Industry Group has observed concern about escalating prices for imported intermediate goods and components. The National Farmers Federation has said that farmers have not seen much improvement in their bottom lines because of the impact of the dollar's value on the cost of imported fertiliser and machinery, along with higher fuel prices. If you read the fine print of the document, another factor is referred to quite openly—but it is not in the minister's statement—that is, that the welcome improvement in the services trade balance is clearly due to the state of the dollar and, in particular, to the one-off effect of the Olympics. The graph of quarterly performance over the financial year makes it crystal clear that it is an Olympics driven result. When you look beyond the impact of the dollar and the impact of the Olympics, in the story of the export recovery there is a worrying trend. Despite the dollar being at what we euphemistically call `the most competitive level imaginable', exports actually fell by 2.2 per cent in the December quarter. This was the second quarter after the much vaunted boost to exports that the GST was supposed to provide. It was ahead of any significant slowdown in our major markets, and it does not augur well for our export prospects in 2001. Once again, in the fine print of the report, you do see some reference to concerns about what a tough year 2001 is going to be, although that was not in the ministerial statement. Reflected in this document is a lack of strategy to respond to that problem, and that lack of strategy causes the opposition concern. Where we see recognition in the document that 2001 will be a hard year is in the falling exports for that quarter—without the impact of the decline in demand. Export performance is causing problems for this government, despite its unique position in recent history as a government that has benefited from improvements in our terms of trade during a long-term historical decline in our terms of trade, which are still, in a long-term pattern, in a downward trend. There has been a recent, temporary improvement in that trend during the life of this government, but we have not seen that reflected in outcomes. If you get behind the PR gloss in this statement, you have to ask: where is the strategy? The minister has noted that Australia faces an uncertain export climate in 2001 as our export markets slow. The logic of that is that the government should place a premium on export strategy for Australia, but there is nothing in the statement about enhancing Austrade's ability to promote exports, including through EMDGs. We do note the continuation of the scheme and the lauding of its performance, but there is nothing in there to say how it is going to play a role and what enhancements are envisaged that might assist our exporters to cope with this more difficult environment. The Export Market Development Grants Scheme was cut by this government, and that cut may in fact be contributing now to constrained exports, because we run on a pretty long lead time in terms of such decisions.The minister and the government gloss over the issue of trade policy, and on this front they have precious few achievements. The opposition have said, through our trade spokesman, Senator Cook, that we are favourably disposed towards the concept of a free trade agreement with the United States but that we cannot commit ourselves further until we know more about the detail of the government's proposal. Any negotiation will have to be comprehensive for it to be worth doing. It is simply not good enough for the government to take a `trust us to look after your interests' approach to this issue. A proposal to negotiate free trade with the world's leading economy is too important a matter to be advanced without extensive consultation with the Australian community and with the full range of industries likely to be affected. We have already had expressions of concern from the automobile industry, the audiovisual industry, and from people expressing their concern about its impact on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and on Medicare. There is potential, if we can get the right agreement, for it to be beneficial. But the concern is that these industries are being put at risk for a photo opportunity for the Prime Minister during his forthcoming visit to the United States. We strongly urge the government, before it considers committing Australia even to the process, to provide more details of its thinking on the FTA and details of the discussions it has had with the relevant industry groups. We need a new round of global negotiations—that should be our number one trade policy priority. There is still a chance that we can bridge the issues between developing and developed countries sufficiently to allow a new round to be launched in Qatar in November. Bilateral negotiators cannot resolve the problems that the WTO is trying to deal with, but Australia will not be able to contribute unless we show some strong leadership. We need to do more than pay lip-service. There was some fanfare last year from the Minister for Trade about `an effort to galvanise a group of middle sized economies to push for a new round'—and it sank without trace.Our other concern is about this government's lack of aspiration and ambition for APEC. The bar of what the government set out to achieve at APEC has been set so abysmally low that you could not limbo underneath it! There is just such a lack of ambition. APEC was one of our great initiatives and it is no longer playing the role of which it is capable, because there is no drive from this government. We are no longer at the forefront of trade policy. We have been rebuffed on the link between CER and AFTA. We are out of the Asia-Europe meeting—we are a conspicuous absentee. APEC has been shamefully neglected by the Howard government. It is vital that Australia does everything in its power to see APEC invigorated this year under China's chairmanship. Senator Cook has made it clear that Labor will look to greatly enhance our economic relations with China and that, in relation to both China and the rest of Asia, a Labor government would have to do some hard work to repair our regional diplomacy, which has been so badly damaged under the Howard government. We would certainly reassure our neighbours about our commitment to being part of the region and we would work hard to achieve trade policy outcomes for Australia.Overall, this statement is welcome in one way and disappointing in another. It is a story of great export effort by individual Australians and firms, but it is very disappointing in its ambitions. We are apprehensive for 2001: there are trade challenges and no strategy to deal with them, and a concern that, if we do not hear more positive and constructive proposals about it, industries may be at risk because of the Prime Minister's electoral agenda with regard to the so-called US free trade agreement. This statement makes it very clear that an incoming government will have a lot of work to do to repair the gaps in Australia's trade policy. I am confident that in Peter Cook we have got just the guy to do it.Motion (by Mr Downer) proposed:That the House take note of the paper.Debate (on motion by Mr McMullan) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance262602626010000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Jagajaga proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Government to ensure sufficient aged care beds are available to provide care to the growing population of frail older Australians.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—16:05:0026260Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—I thank my colleagues for their support. Today we have seen yet another panic announcement by the Howard government—something that we are becoming very familiar with here in this parliament from this government—which is yet again unable to contain the criticism of its aged care policy. We saw intense criticism result in spectacular backflips on a couple of issues that warrant mentioning: petrol and the business activity statement. Now we have a panic announcement from the Minister for Aged Care because she realises that this issue is hurting this government and hurting it badly. But no amount of panic announcements, media spin or misleading statistics about approved places can hide the fact that waiting times for frail elderly people for nursing home beds are getting longer and longer. The average waiting time for a nursing home bed increased from 29 days in 1997-98 to 47 days in 1998-99, and it further increased in 1999-2000 to 55 days. This has all happened under the Howard government—nowhere else. Today we see the government's panic response to this—realised of course too late—because the intense shortage of aged care beds has been hurting them in the only place they care about: the ballot box. Of course, we know full well that they do not care about elderly frail Australians. Those older Australians are the forgotten generation under the Howard government. These forgotten people, the elderly of Australia, wonder how on earth this government can be believed. All of us remember, as do all older Australians, when the Prime Minister said that nobody would be worse off under the GST.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin Thomson—I remember it.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—The member for Wills remembers, just like every other Australian remembers, that no-one would be worse off under the GST. But on issue after issue older people have been dudded. We have heard recently about the pension clawback and the aged persons savings bonus, and everyone knows that medicines have been taken off the pharmaceutical benefits list. Nursing home places is just the latest issue where aged Australians know that they cannot believe this government. This government is telling them one thing and then doing another on all of these issues.The Minister for Aged Care is now desperately trying to cover up her maladministration of this portfolio, which has gone on for too long. She has suddenly realised what Labor has been telling her for the last few months: that there is actually a huge gap between the number of nursing home beds she claims to have licensed and the number that are actually operational. There are no fewer than 15,600 phantom beds in the system. Remember, you have seen her hold up those charts that show lines going in various directions? This minister counts those 15,600 beds in her aged care allocations, and they simply do not exist. No fewer than 11 per cent of Australia's stock of nursing home beds are pure phantoms and the pure fantasy of this minister—15,600 beds which are counted as if they exist, but they do not. They are phantom beds.If we look at the number of operational beds—that is, beds that people can actually go and rest themselves in—we find that they fall dramatically short of the target of 90 per 1,000 people aged over 70. It is an absolute con—yet another con—on older Australians to talk about how many bed licences there are on offer or being traded in the marketplace. What older people want to know is whether they can get a bed when they need care. It is not just that there are some licences in the pipeline because of the necessary time between when a licence is approved and when the nursing home opens—it is not that simple. There are a number of beds missing, going back some years since this government has been in office. For example, from the 1999 allocation there still remain some beds unbuilt, and some of these licences have been returned and the beds will never be built. There is another group of licences from homes which closed in the run-up to accreditation. They have been sold to new operators and may take yet further time to get into operation. There is a group of licences held by the Victorian government which were returned. The Victorian government has been waiting for some time for the Minister for Aged Care to sign off on a package actually sent to this minister by the previous Kennett government. Can anyone remember that? That was some time ago. Only today has the minister finally responded to that. There are the licences for the year 2000 that were finally announced in January 2001 after some delay, and they will take another year or so to come on stream. They are already being counted as if they were operational, as if they were available for people.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Aren't they?PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLIN—No, they are not—not one of them. The common theme is a lack of capital to build the facilities. Of course, the policy responsibility for this lack of capital rests only in one place: it rests with the Howard government. It is the Howard government that has not guaranteed that the capital was there to make sure that these facilities could be built.You may remember—I certainly do—that in 1996 the government made rather a hash of aged care and there was a certain Doug Moran who had given them a lot of advice. In fact, I understood that Doug Moran had written a Liberal Party policy on aged care—the one that was going to require people to sell their homes. The Moran Health Care group has recently announced that it wants to relinquish many of its recent licences, including 50 licences issued in 1998—quite a while ago—in the Caboolture area, in the seat of Longman; 200 licences issued in 1999—we do not know the locations; and apparently a further 50 licences in the Northern Territory issued in 2000.Another company was granted 140 aged care licences in 1999 down on the Mornington Peninsula in Victoria, in two very interesting electorates—the electorate of Flinders and the electorate of Dunkley. Those electorates are supposedly being served by these beds—more phantom beds, of course. They never even had the land required for the facility, and a planning application has only just now been lodged for these phantom beds. Of course, the member for Flinders and the member for Dunkley have done a fabulous job representing their constituents to get these licences up and running! The land did not exist, but the beds were counted in the minister's graphs. They did not have the land but somehow those beds got onto the graph.The minister has also been completely ignoring the pleas coming from our public hospitals, which are finding that problems have increased enormously because of the large number of elderly people who have had their treatment and are waiting to get into a nursing home bed. We are still seeing an enormous number of people unnecessarily having to stay in hospital beds because they cannot get a nursing home bed. The implication of that is that other people, generally elderly people, have to queue up in emergency departments because they cannot get a bed in the hospital, they have to stay at home with relatives who cannot cope or they end up waiting for their elective surgery much longer than they would otherwise have had to do—all because this government will not make available sufficient numbers of nursing home beds and, when they do, the beds take years and years to come on stream.The second area where older people have been misled, and the second reason that this minister will not be believed, is in the government's terrific little way of describing aged care places as beds. I am sure we will hear quite a bit about that from the minister today. The minister has gone about this by adding in the number of community care packages for older people as if they were nursing home beds. She says that she has provided enough aged care beds because she has provided all of these additional community care packages. But, when we look at the details, we find that hardly any nursing home beds were provided; a few more hostel beds were provided and a lot of community care packages.Let me go to a few from the last allocation. There were three new nursing home beds, not nursing homes, provided for the whole of Perth, the member for Cowan would be interested to know. Those of you from Brisbane will be interested to know—the new member for Ryan will be very interested to tell the constituents of Ryan about this—that for the whole of Brisbane in the January allocation there were two additional nursing home beds. Adelaide got seven, so Adelaide did quite well. There were only four additional nursing home beds for Sydney in the 2000 allocation. There will be no new nursing home beds for the New South Wales Central Coast, the western metropolitan area of Melbourne, the Sunshine Coast, Logan Valley in Queensland, the southern metropolitan area of Perth or the mid-north of South Australia. These are areas that are all desperately short of nursing home beds. It is blatantly obvious that this Howard government has forgotten completely about those areas of need. The government has forgotten about older Australians and there is no doubt whatsoever—once again, I am sure the member for Ryan could vouch for this—that when older Australians go to the ballot box they will not forget who it was that misled them about the number of phantom beds out there. They will not forget about this minister trying to fudge the figures by saying that there are all of these additional aged care places—but only two extra beds in all of Brisbane. No, older Australians will not forget that when they get to the ballot box.We also saw how out of touch this minister was when it came to the quality of aged care in Australia. All of us remember, and of course older Australians remember better than most, what happened with the kerosene bath incident at Riverside—the exposure of that horrific incident at Riverside pushed the minister into belated spot checks. Older Australians can have no confidence whatsoever in this latest panic announcement because what they do not know is how many of these new places that have just been announced today are actually false. How many are phantoms? How many of them are just a fantasy? How many are the figment of this minister's imagination? On too many occasions the truth has been extracted piece by piece from this minister. Remember how hard it was to get answers on Riverside. Remember how hard it was for this minister to take any responsibility for what happened at Riverside. Of course, we have seen again today that she has refused to take any responsibility for 15,600 phantom beds that she counts as being available to older Australians who are desperately in need of care. Older Australians know that those beds do not exist; older Australians know that they are having to wait far too long for a nursing home bed; and older Australians know where to put the responsibility for that—straight to the Howard government—and they will be letting the government know loud and clear at the ballot box. 16:20:0026263Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—I was interested to hear the shadow minister, who seems to have taken over responsibility for aged care from poor old Mr Swan, who has never quite recovered from his brown paper bag incident. I think the phrase used was that there was a `panic announcement' today. Far from being a panic announcement, the 32,000 aged care places that we announced have been part of long-term planning. They are contained in the forward estimates and are in accordance with the forward estimates. When we came to government, the Auditor-General—and I will put my money, as will the rest of Australia, on the Auditor-General rather than on Labor Party's back of the envelope calculations—found that the Labor Party were 10,000 places short in aged care. In 1986, they had made a decision that there was more need for low level care than high level care. They set a benchmark of 40 high care places, 50 low care places—in the old terminology that meant nursing home and hostel—and 10 community aged care packages. They never met the benchmark because they failed to issue provisional licences. They failed to make allocations and commitments which providers could take up. In fact, the provision of aged care is a partnership. It is a partnership between government, providers, families, the staff of the providers, doctors and allied health professionals so that there is quality of life for individuals who need residential aged care. There was an ethos in the Labor Party that said that people should just be put into institutional care. This government have put the accent on the quality of care for residents who live in homes. We do not have patients, we do not run hospitals or pseudohospitals. Older Australians are just as entitled as any other Australian to be in hospital and to receive the care and rehabilitation that they need and to have proper discharge policies applied to them. Yet they do not receive it. We hear stories about the discharge of elderly, frail Australians who have gone to hospital but are then shunted out of hospital quicker and sicker than when they went in, with no dignity and with no respect, like the man who had been in a residential aged care home, who had been sent to hospital because he needed hospital care but who was told by the home that they were no longer able to care for him as he needed hospital care. They said that they were going to send him back. So they went into their computer, found an address for this gentleman and sent him to that address with no underclothes and no shoes—just the gown that had been put on him in the hospital. The address that they had found was the address where he had lived prior to his going into the home. So there was no-one there to receive him, and he was sent back to the hospital. The hospital then rang the home and said, `We are just going to send him to you,' which they did, and he died three days later. I could read to you from this excellent tome Nursing older people of documented evidence by Stephen Duckett—who was previously the Secretary to the Department of Human Services and Health when Carmen Lawrence was the minister—pointing out how, if you are over 65, you get lesser treatment than if you are under 65. He documents very well how, if you go in with a particular DRG number regarding respiratory care and you are under 65, you will cost more than the older person because you will have more tests, more imaging and more intervention. If you are over 65, you will get less and you will be chucked out sooner. With regard to hip replacements, he points out that, if you are under 65, the operation will cost $8,800; if you are over 65, it will cost $7,400. Why is that? Because if you are over 65, you get a cheaper prosthesis. So all of this documentation that people are starting to do in regard to hospitals is about time—and there is all this cant about bed blockers, older Australians who dare to want their cares attended to for more than 13 days. Statistics will show, by the Victorian health department's own report, that only two per cent of older people who go to hospital and are long-term stayers—that is around 30 days—need to go into residential care. The others, with proper care, go home—and home is where they want to be. That is what this government has been about in its aged care policy. We have been providing the opportunity for people to stay home, not to have to go prematurely into residential care. We have put in place community aged care packages, which is like low level care in your own home. When we took office, there were barely 4,000 of these in existence. By 30 June this year, there will be 24,000 in operation, enabling people to have the option to stay home and have quality of life.People are making choices about which residential home they might want to go into when they do need residential care, not just take the first bed that is offered to them and be shunted into it, written off and out of the way like the Labor Party would have it. These are human beings with sensitivities, who care about their possessions, their relatives and their quality of life, just like you or me. If you are going to move home, do you want to be shunted off in a week? Do you want to have some say about where you are going? Where we have people who urgently need that care, 15 per cent of them are in a residential aged care facility in 48 hours—that is, where it is necessary. But people are putting their names down on lists to show, `This is my choice, this is where I want to be.' They say, `I don't want to be in that home; I'll wait for this one.' Therefore, we have lengthened the validity of the aged care assessment from three months, as it was under the Labor Party, to 12 months, to give people that option. We can now give much more backup care in the home, which means that people can stay in their home longer and then, if they do need residential care, they can in fact receive it. Let me give you an idea of the way those numbers of entry periods can be distorted. I was having a conversation with someone in the aged care industry who said that the family to which he belonged had made a decision that their mother should go into a home. So they put their mother's name down on a list for a home. It has been there for nine months, but every time a bed comes up, mother says, `I don't want to go into a home. I want to say in my home.' By providing the services that we provide, she can stay in her home, but she is a statistic on an entry period. That can be repeated. You can put your name down for six homes. There is nothing to stop that. You can say, `These are my preferences. This is what I will wait for.' The accent always of all of our aged care policy is to provide residential care for those who need it. The good news is that only 7.9 per cent of people over the age of 70 are going to need residential care. About another 13 per cent will need some form of care—it may be meals on wheels, some help about the home or bathing and dressing in the morning. The rest of us, the other 80 per cent of us, are going to have a damned good life—living longer and healthier lives, participating in the work force until one day we drop off the perch—in our own home.So the bottom line is that, for those people who do need residential aged care—that 7.9 per cent of people over the age of 70—we are going to provide that as good care. Therefore, we introduced much needed reforms. We introduced accreditation, and that is that all aged care homes where frail, elderly Australians need to live must be accredited to receive a government subsidy. To achieve that, we put more money into the system. We have increased funding for aged care by $1,400 million since we came to office. We now spend on residential care—excluding community aged care packages, just on residential care—$3.9 billion, and the places that I added today will add in excess of $182 million to that expenditure, although part of that expenditure of $182 million will be for extra community aged care packages. In the announcement I made today we put an accent on high level care, and we put an accent on high level care in accordance with the forward estimates because we need that to continue to meet the benchmark. In fact, we now exceed it in every state in terms of allocation. But we want them to be brought on stream quickly, so we have done three things. The first thing was to require that all beds that are issued are to be brought on stream within two years. The same applies to community aged care packages, but all of those will come on stream within six months. The second thing we said in the last round was that the people who are successful recipients must every six months report to the department on what they are doing about getting those places operational. The third thing we have done in this announcement today is to say that, when they are being assessed by the department, a key ingredient will be the ability of the provider to show that they can bring on those beds in a relatively shorter time frame. That is designed to bring them on more quickly and to make people who are would-be approved providers or would-be successful competitors for the places show that they can bring them on more quickly. All of our policy is designed to have respect for the individual, and for this reason I turn now to the staff who work with people in residential aged care. For too long we have heard the Labor Party bag them. We have had the Labor Party put them down. We have heard the Labor Party say that they are poor, they are delivering bad care and they are bad people. They are not. In the process of accreditation, we saw 190 residential aged care homes either leave the system or be relocated because they either could not or would not meet the standards. The 2,938 homes that now are accredited are provided by people of good heart and good intention who are following the policy I have set that we want everyone who works in aged care to have some form of qualification. We are one of the largest employers in the country. What enormous pride it gives me to attend a graduation ceremony of people who are working in aged care who have not touched the books for 15 years, perhaps people of non-English speaking backgrounds, who have gone back and studied and achieved a level 3 certificate. The care they give becomes evident in the pride of their achievement. Only last week I witnessed the signing of an agreement between Wesley Gardens, which is part of the Uniting Church, and La Trobe University whereby the campus of Wesley Gardens will become a faculty of nursing and there will be 20 to 30 students commencing their degrees in July. Wesley Gardens is going to be paying the fees for their students so that they do not attract HECS. They want to have people who are committed to aged care working with them. There is another such arrangement between Baptist Community Services in New South Wales and Newcastle University. They have the first teaching home. That recognition comes from the university, not from the department. It is in place, as was Wesley Gardens. Anglicare are looking at doing it; the St Ives Group in Western Australia are looking at doing it. In other words, the pride in achieving and delivering good care is at the top of everyone's agenda. They do not deserve the constant bagging of the Labor Party, who just want to put them down and who are not happy unless they can find a scandal. They do not care about the individuals who are recipients of care, who are deliverers of care, who are relatives, who are advocates at work or official visitors—none of that matters. `Let's put them down'—that is the policy of the Labor Party. (Time expired)16:35:0026266Corcoran, Ann, MPMs CORCORAN009CWIsaacsALP00—Last week, the Minister for Aged Care issued a press release entitled `Aged care places—the real picture'. It was another grand deception by the minister and shows that she has lost her grip on reality. The minister constructed a graph showing that her government has exceeded the target ratio of aged care places in 1999 and 2000. How did she achieve this outcome at a time when waiting lists and bed shortages throughout the country tell a different story? She did so by including in her calculations beds which have been allocated or approved but are not operational. Today this minister has the audacity to suggest that the residential aged care beds that she has just announced will solve the current crisis. Well, they will not. I can tell you from experience that what matters to the people in my electorate, and no doubt to all Australians, is beds in operation, not beds on bits of paper. Australians deserve to be told the real story, to see the real picture.We have just been given a whole set of statistics. Let me add a few more to them. The Howard government set itself a target of 90 aged care beds—that is, nursing home and hostel beds—for every 1,000 people aged 70 and over. When John Howard came to office in 1996, there were 90.5 beds per 1,000 people aged 70 and over—a surplus of about 750 aged care beds. After just two years, this ratio dropped to 87.3 beds, which represents a shortage of 4,300 beds across the country. In 2000, the ratio dropped even further to an all-time low of 84.3 beds for every 1,000 people aged 70 and over. What does this mean on the ground? By June 2000, the government was 9,500 beds short of the benchmark it set itself. Across the country, there are 9,500 fewer aged care beds than the government itself says are needed. Bed shortages are not confined to a few hot spots. According to the department's annual report, 72 per cent of the government's planning regions had a shortfall of aged care beds in June 2000.The Minister for Aged Care is fond of speaking of the beds she announced in the 2000 allocation round. She has made additional announcements today, which I will come to in a moment. Even when these allocations are included in forward projections, the government will still be below target in 2002—5,700 aged care beds below target, to be precise. The minister's real picture presumes that allocating beds is the equivalent of having them up and running. But, when the government allocates a new aged care bed, the provider must gain planning approval for the new facility, design and construct the building and then equip and staff it. On average, that takes about 18 months. Providers have about two years to make the beds operational. The 2000 allocation round and the additional beds announced today only make up for some of the earlier small allocations under this government. For the preceding three years, the government failed to allocate enough beds. The crisis we face today in aged care stems directly from this mismanagement. It is important to stress that what we have heard from the minister today will do nothing to ease today's problems. The new beds that she has announced will not come online until 2003 and, using recent history as a guide, many of those will be phantom beds—announced but never built.The 1999 allocation round provides a case in point. In my home state of Victoria 140 aged care bed licences were allocated in 1999, and 18 months later the provider has only just lodged a planning application. Phantom beds provide no places for the frail aged on the Mornington Peninsula, no comfort for their families and no relief for Victorian public hospitals already under strain. The minister fails to understand that dealing with the current problems in aged care requires us to address current needs. It requires her, as the minister, to deal with what is, rather than what may be. The government's failure to plan properly for the needs of our ageing population, its failure to allocate enough new aged care beds to meet the needs of the elderly, is causing distress for the frail aged and their families. Australians want to know that an aged care bed is available in their local community if and when they need one. The recent story of a family being forced to drive an elderly relative from Darwin to Perth is just one graphic example of the pressure now being placed on families because of the shortage of aged care beds.Across Australia frail older Australians are waiting longer and longer for a nursing home bed. The government set for itself as a performance measure for aged care reform that waiting times would decline, but in the last three years the average waiting time for a nursing home bed has jumped dramatically—from 29 days to 55 days. What does this mean in real human terms? The frail person waiting for an aged care bed is probably sitting in an acute bed somewhere in a public hospital. The frail person is not getting the specialised care elderly people need. This is no reflection on the nursing staff in the hospital—far from it. Those staff are there to care for the short-term acute patient. The frail person in the public hospital does not require minute by minute or hour by hour nursing.They need, amongst other things, to be encouraged and helped out of bed, given appropriate exercise and encouragement to keep moving and provided with mental stimulation and variety in their environment. The frail person in hospital does not often get the specialised care they need in an acute hospital and quickly goes downhill. I have witnessed a frail person very much frailer and in need of special care after such a stay. Too often these people do not ever recover to their former level of independence.These figures—that is, the move of the waiting time from 29 days to 55 days—quantify the strain now being placed on families to find a bed for a frail elderly relative. They represent the weeks spent searching for a vacancy and the increasing desperation that leads many to accept a bed located some distance from the family and friends of the person requiring care. The government's response to the alarming growth in waiting times is to scrap the target. It now claims that average time spent waiting for a nursing home bed is not important and does not need to be measured or reported. The minister is now refusing to provide the public with the average waiting time for a nursing home bed in each region, information her department collects. Rather than fix the problem, the minister is now just trying to hide it from the public.Who carries the cost of all of this? Part of it is carried by the public hospital system. This growth in waiting times inevitably puts pressure on the public hospitals, as many of those waiting for a bed cannot remain at home. There are increasing numbers of frail elderly in our public hospitals who would be discharged immediately if there were a nursing home bed to go to. Instead, they wait weeks, even months, before a vacancy can be found. In the meantime that bed is not available for an acute patient. Just last week I was approached by a mother in tears because her teenage daughter is confined to a wheelchair while she waits for a bed and an operation. The bed would be available more quickly if this government had had the compassion and the wit to provide sufficient aged care beds when and where they were needed. A recent ring around of a few hospitals that serve my constituents indicated that these hospitals had 51 elderly people in them just waiting for an aged care bed, and there were another nine people awaiting assessment. Problems in aged care are not restricted to bed shortages. The current funding arrangements do not focus on quality care. Nursing staff have told me of the impact funding shortages have had on them and the care that they are able to provide. In contrast to what we have just heard, nursing staff have talked to me about the stress they are under on a daily basis because they are forced to work in an environment where they cannot provide the level of care or the level of professionalism they know they should be delivering. Staff have talked to me about being forced to walk past a disoriented patient who was in tears when they should be stopping for a few minutes to offer reassurance and comfort. How long does it take to do that? Yet the staff cannot find the time. Staff talk about the time constraints forcing them to, as they say, `shovel in the food', instead of assisting a patient to eat a meal in a dignified way. Staff are leaving the aged care industry in droves and so adding to the threat of reduced quality of care for our frail and elderly people. The government needs to hear what is being said and to lift its game. It needs to pinch another policy and read the bit about sensible and adequate funding of aged care.The real question is this. There is a critical shortage of nursing home and hostel beds across the country. There is a shortage of the here and now. Since coming into office, the government has turned a small surplus of beds—750 in 1996—into a 9,500-bed shortage. It has set targets and repeatedly failed to reach them. Even when we factor in recent announcements, we will still face a shortage of nearly 6,000 aged care beds in 2002. The shortage is likely to be larger than this because we know that many of the beds this minister announces never see the light of day. She fills her graphs and statistics with phantom beds which are allocated but never made operational. The frail aged cannot rest easily on apparitions.Today's problems in aged care are systemic. One component has been the failure of the Howard government to allocate enough new aged care beds to meet the growing demands of our ageing population. This failure has put pressure on our frail aged, their families and the public health system. It is a pressure they face today, and the minister's announcement will do nothing to ease it.16:45:0026268Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Under the Howard government, residential aged care funding has increased from $2½ billion in the last year of the former Keating government to $3.9 billion now. If we have a look at the elderly and at aged care, there are a number of things that come to the fore. First of all, most older people prefer to remain in their own home. Family members are willing to make sacrifices to keep their relatives out of nursing homes. Most people prefer community care to living in a nursing home. So, when we talk about people living in residential aged care, we should remember that it is three to four per cent of the total aged population that actually live in nursing homes. As a consequence, over the last 20 years there has been an increase in community care as opposed to residential care. Under the Howard government, we have increased our focus on home based care, all our initiatives with carers and also initiatives for staying at home.Looking more broadly at the whole issue of ageing in Australia, we have developed a national strategy which operates across the whole of government, which is looking, with a number of discussion papers, at ageing in Australia. Publicly funded services are only a very small proportion of the assistance which is provided to the frail elderly. The largest source of support for older people is the extended family and their partners. The Australian Bureau of Statistics in 1999 found that more than 90 per cent of older people in the community who required help received assistance from an informal care network of family and friends. As the Minister for Aged Care has said, the target that was established in 1986 was for 40 high care places, 50 low care places and 10 community packages for every 1,000 people in the population aged more than 70. The Labor Party never met it. It has been well recognised for a long time that the population is getting older, and that is why it is important that we look at the proportion of people over 70. But, as the minister also said, 80 per cent of aged people will never require any services: they will never require residential care or community care.In 1994, Bob Gregory reported on the state of nursing homes in Australia under the previous Labor government. What he found was that there was a massive capital shortfall. That was manifest in things like more than four people in a room, insufficient health standards and insufficient fire standards. He estimated that $125 million was required each year to fulfil the capital requirements of the nursing home sector. The Auditor-General, more recently, found that the Labor government left a deficit of 10,000 aged care places.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—How many?TK6Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTT—A deficit of 10,000 aged care places. The Labor Party are railing about phantom places; when they left government, they left a deficit of 10,000 aged care places. In 1985, there were 100 aged care places in Australia for every 1,000 people aged more than 70. Under the Labor Party, this dropped to 93 places for every 1,000. Under this government, it will go up to 108, which is the highest level ever—108 places for every 1,000 people. We have announced almost 10,000 new aged care places today—almost 2,500 in high-care, 4,500 in low-care and 2,200 as community aged care packages. This is $182 million a year extra in places in aged care. As well as this, there is an extra $173 million in funding for places in the 2000 approvals. That means 31,000 new aged care places in the last three years. As I said before, there are now, with the announcements today, going to be 108 places per 1,000 people aged 70 years or more. That will provide the highest ever proportion of aged care places to the population greater than 70.There are also three important measures which mean that these places will be taken up. First of all, if the beds are not used within two years, they are reallocated; the community aged care packages have to be used within six months. This was not the case under the previous system. Previously people could just drag on and not use these beds. Secondly, the successful recipients must report to the department every six months about what they are doing. Thirdly, when assessed by the department an important criterion is the ability to bring the beds online quickly.If we look at the area of government achievements in aged care, first of all, 40,000 residential aged care places have been allocated since the coalition government came to office. There were 6,500 community aged care packages announced earlier this year. We have also provided the nursing home sector with a capital income stream worth $8½ billion from 1998 to 2008. Think of what the nursing home sector was like before we came into government: there were inadequate places, there was a deficit of 10,000, so we needed more places being built and, as Bob Gregory found, many of the nursing homes were not up to scratch on fire, safety and health standards and also in terms of their having more than four patients to a room.One of the policies that the government has adopted and that I am proud of is accreditation. Accreditation provides improved quality for the sector. It also looks at a number of objective management tests. If you look at the previous approach, it was all dictated by the Australian Nursing Federation. Looking at staffing ratios, it is typical of the Labor Party that we see policy deeply influenced by the trade union movement. Under accreditation, the focus is on quality for residents of nursing homes. There is certification for the standards of the buildings. I think 99.6 per cent of facilities have met certification requirements. But what this means is that nursing homes that are not up to scratch will not be able to go on. We also inherited Labor's policy of differential residential rates in each state, and we announced, a year or two ago, a funding equalisation and assistance package which provides an extra $148 million over six years. That will equalise the national funding rates so that there is no longer any difference between the states. As I said before, residential aged care funding has increased from $2½ billion in 1995-96 to $3.9 billion in this financial year. This government has done a lot in the area of aged care. We have a lot of achievements and we have a lot to be proud of. I support the minister.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Bills26270The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 2) 2000-2001Appropriation Bill (No. 3) 2000-2001Appropriation Bill (No. 4) 2000-2001Miscellaneous2627010000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—I advise the House that the Deputy Speaker has fixed Wednesday, 4 April 2001, at 9.40 a.m., as the time for the next meeting of the Main Committee, unless an alternative day or hour is fixed.Miscellaneous26270Motion (by Mr Ronaldson)—by leave—agreed to:That the following bills be referred to the Main Committee for consideration:Coal Industry Repeal Bill 2000Foreign Affairs and Trade Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2000Dried Vine Fruits (Rate of Primary Industry (Excise) Levy) Validation Bill 2001Dried Vine Fruits (Rate of Primary Industry (Customs) Charge) Validation Bill 2001Bills26270R1184BillsR118326270Debate resumed from 6 December 2000, on motion by Mr Entsch:That the bill be now read a second time.16:56:0026270Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—The opposition is pleased to provide qualified support for the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 2000. There are a number of issues in these bills which are technical or routine in nature and we are pleased to be able to support those particular measures. But there are some which are perhaps partially ideologically and policy driven and it is about those that I will certainly raise a few questions in the course of my remarks. However, that said, we propose to support the bills as a whole because the obvious policy direction at this stage is one which can be sustained, but one which we wish to measure over time to ensure that the trend is appropriate and that the measures the government proposes do not take us too far down the delegation track.Energy is, of course, our most important resource. It is indeed the very basis of our modern technological society and without reasonably priced sources of energy readily available to Australian industry, commerce and the public, we would not be able to enjoy the standard of living or the lifestyle which we now enjoy. Anything which assists the provision of that energy assists both our economic sustenance at a domestic level and also our export potential, and provides further support for the Australian economy. As we have seen in recent days, the economy needs all the support it can get given the administration the present government offers. This legislation in particular seeks to move us further down the track of delegating some of the functions now held by the Commonwealth to the states in relation to the administration of the petroleum and submerged lands areas. The Commonwealth and the states have for many years now, following the original constitutional settlement of what was a fairly vexed constitutional issue, provided that the Commonwealth and states will jointly administer these areas. Some parts of the very technical and day-to-day management are within the control of the respective state governments, whereas other areas that are more policy driven and that are required to have a national perspective which supports national consistency are administered on a joint basis with the Commonwealth minister and the relevant state minister. Of course, this balance has been in place for some time and has worked relatively well. However, the Commonwealth is now seeking, over a period of time—and this is not a new concept; this has been discussed in a public context for some time—to move technically and legislatively towards empowering the states to undertake a greater proportion of those functions, and to delegate to the states more of the responsibility.This is part of a gradual process which the Commonwealth government—the Howard government—has embarked upon over the last five or six years to gradually strip functions and indeed resources from the departments of the Commonwealth government and from several agencies, which I will mention in a moment, that have significant responsibility for this area of resources development. The government has gradually taken staffing and the basic technological resources from those departments and agencies and gradually reduced their functionality in a way that almost mandates this progression of service towards the states because there is no longer an adequate resource at the Commonwealth level to enable the Commonwealth to properly act in this area. I think that is a matter for serious concern, because the Commonwealth government is the only agency in this debate that is able to provide national consistency on energy policy.Unfortunately, this government does not have a national energy policy that can be used to coordinate activities at the state and federal level with industry, both internationally and domestically, to ensure that our resources are exploited and developed in a way that is consistent with the national interest and our future needs. The government prefers to delegate these functions to the states. I am not quite sure why because, while the states are more than capable of administering the day-to-day technical management of offshore resources, it should be the Commonwealth's responsibility to provide the overriding policy direction and the necessary resource and data access for industry and for management by the Commonwealth and the states.This government does not appear to be interested in doing that. What basis do I have for that statement? It is clear to anyone who has followed the trend in recent budgets for the resources that are made available, for example, to AGSO—our premier geological survey organisation, which has given sterling service to the Commonwealth and to Australia over many years. Unfortunately, while the minister acknowledges the value of that organisation, he does not provide it with the necessary staffing and dollars to undertake that work.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch—Absolutely untrue.N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—The parliamentary secretary protests that this is not true, but the reality is that he needs to consult his budget documents and look at the number of staff that are employed by that organisation. He will see the way that the number of professional staff employed by AGSO has declined over time. Of course, it may well be possible for the agency to do more with less, but the reality is that they have been required to do more and more with fewer and fewer staff for so long that they are no longer in a position to benefit from those potential efficiencies. They have now reached the stage where they are actually less able to deliver the benefits that the Commonwealth, industry and state colleagues with whom they work want to see. Other important resources at the Commonwealth level include mapping, which is very important not only in the petroleum and offshore petroleum areas but also in mineral exploration generally. Although I certainly acknowledge that they could have been much better, mapping and data access for spatial data in this country have been reasonably good in the past, but the reality now is that our ability to generate spatial data and to manipulate it in ways which modern computers allow is much diminished. When you combine that with the savage cuts to AGSO over a period of time, you can see that the Commonwealth's ability to deliver data in the public interest both to industry and commerce and to the states and its own agencies, to allow them to manage these activities, is seriously diminished.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch—It is much cheaper than ever before.N36Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANS—The response is that these things are cheaper—and indeed they are—but we now have far more potential that we can draw from that data. Whereas the uses for this in the past have been limited, the reality is that now the uses are very substantial. Given its resource base and resource potential, Australia should have one of the best spatial databases in the world and one of the best mapping surveys in the world, but we do not, because of the budget trends of this Commonwealth government. None of this is to play down the successes of these agencies, because they have had their successes and they work very hard. However, far more could have been done had this government resourced them adequately. At a time when resource prices throughout the world—the prices for the primary metals which this country exports—have been in a period of long-term decline, the government and the public sector should be supporting industry with enhanced access to data, mapping resources, publicly funded exploration information, spectral data, geometric data and gravitational data—all of which are very important for industry.Of course, at the same time this government is reducing the availability of that data by cutting back from the agencies. While it is still there, while it is still available, it is not as timely as it should be and it is not as available as it should be. This is an area where this government has certainly failed the resources industry, at a time when exploration activity is down and when the industry needs greater support from government than at any time in the past. It is not for government to undertake the exploration activity which these companies should rightly undertake in their own private capacity, it is not for government to put the taxpayers' capital at risk, but it is certainly for government to provide basic data about the countryside and offshore resources—data that industry throughout the world can then compete for, bid for and use in the way the private sector can properly use that kind of data—to invest money, to risk money and ultimately, hopefully, to help develop our resources in the way we have seen in the past and should see further in the future.I would like to flag our concern and, I believe, industry's concern about the way in which the government is continuing to shuffle the responsibility of offshore management onto the states. I also flag that we will—as the Commonwealth government flagged in the second reading speech it is proposing—carefully monitor this trend to observe the outcome and to see just where this government's policies take us. We certainly reserve the right to reverse this trend and to consolidate some of these functions at the Commonwealth level, because we sometimes doubt the ability of each of the state governments to respond equally to the many demands of industry and the technology requirements which the management of this industry imposes on those who would undertake it. We want to see a capacity retained at the Commonwealth level which can deliver for the national interest and for the national coordination of this important resource, thereby ensuring that differences between the states—for example, a lack of interest from one state and a lack of resources in another state—do not adversely affect the ability of Australia to get the maximum benefit from its many offshore resources. Of course, this legislation also makes some relatively routine changes to the legislation, some of which are more important than others. The change which allows the use of GPS data and which establishes a new datum for the mapping process is very significant, even though it is not a particularly exciting change in a legislative sense. GPS, the global positioning system, has become a very important part of community and industry activity, and many opportunities now exist to exploit the positioning system information throughout the community, not only in the resources sector. Obviously, for the mapping and resources sector the use of global positioning data will be very important, allowing very precise measurements, the relatively easy translation of this information into digital form and, of course, the high reproducibility of this information. Of course, it is equally well used throughout the community, with the transport industry and many other groups having significant use for GPS. The significance of this is that GPS, like the Internet, was initially established by government, in this case by the government of the United States, as a resource for the military to maintain their ability to project weapons onto highly accurate locations, but it has now become a very useful community tool—beating the swords into ploughshares, in a technological sense—to allow everyone in the community to gain access to highly specific spatial and geographic information. This is a very important lesson to learn in the context of the government providing the fundamental infrastructure on which the community and industry and commerce can then draw and use as the basis for significant economic activity, significant employment and significant wealth creation. I think that is a lesson which this government has yet to learn, but it is one which these changes highlight to us. So, like the Internet, GPS is a valuable public sector provided resource which the private sector is now quite properly exploiting for economic gain. This country is behind in some areas in the exploitation of GPS technology, but I have met a number of companies that are now implementing that technology as quickly as they can. Ultimately, I think it will be a very important public sector technology. I only hope that the various groups throughout the world who provide this technology—the US government, the Russian government and, shortly, the European government—can agree on common standards. That is perhaps an area where Australia can help broker some reasonable agreement, because at the international level there are three competing standards for this data and we would like to see that consolidated into a single globally relevant system. Everyone would benefit from that process, but we have yet to see any action on that front. I suppose it will be some time before we can expect the Europeans to cooperate, even with the United States—let alone with the Russian Federation—and vice versa. So I very strongly support that development in the bill, as I do the other more routine areas of amendment, which I think are of a technical nature and, while we support them, do not particularly merit any further discussion at this point.Why is the management of our petroleum and offshore resources quite so important? As I started out by observing to the House, energy is one of our most fundamental resources. It is absolutely essential to the maintenance of our economic credibility and lifestyle. Energy from gas, in particular—which this bill is relevant to, along with petroleum—is very important in a greenhouse context and in ensuring the efficient availability of energy throughout the country. We need to see a much greater propensity by this government to help manage the regulation and provision of a policy which will encourage the states and the private providers of gas and electrical energy to better plan the future of energy in Australia.Unfortunately, we have the example of California, which is all too painful an example for those who want to operate a modern economy in the context of a power shortage. Clearly, those who have seen the chaos and the economic costs of the problems which have arisen recently in California will understand why it is very important for the Commonwealth government primarily and the state governments secondarily to coordinate their activities in the provision of energy. One of the problems in Australia has been the overregulation of the sector state by state, and this is a trend which this bill encourages even further, because it devolves responsibility in this management area to each of the states. While that does not deal directly with energy as it is delivered to the consumer, it certainly creates a climate in which we continue to perpetuate this multiplicity of regulators, to the cost of industry and, I would suspect, ultimately to the detriment of consumers. There are many energy providers in this country who would welcome the opportunity for the Commonwealth to sit down with the states and with industry, stakeholders and consumers and work out more effective and efficient ways to ensure that energy is distributed to consumers in this country and to ensure that the national market works more effectively. We saw in South Australia, my home state, serious shortages of energy last summer, and I suspect that we will see them again in the next summer even more significantly. Indeed, when many industrial and commercial customers become contestable on 1 July, I suspect that prices are likely to rise to even higher levels. Particularly in states like South Australia, where there is limited availability of competitive alternatives, we will see industry held to ransom in effect by those who have the capacity to generate electricity, on days when the spot price rises quite dramatically. That will certainly happen in summer, because summer is increasingly the period of peak demand, when everyone has their airconditioning and other units on. Whereas in the past it was heating in winter which generated the main demand, now we see this in summer. The problems will continue until a coordinated energy policy is possible, and I suspect that will not be until we see a change of government at the Commonwealth level, as we have seen in so many of the states recently.Activity out there is quite strong. In the last few days, we have seen a very important announcement from Woodside and from the North West Shelf partners on a very important and exciting project, which has seen the fourth train for the LNG plant proposed as a real prospect over the next few years. The commitment is to an investment of something like $A1.6 billion when this fourth train is available. Of course, it will be one of the largest, if not the largest, in the world. A real effort is being made to ensure that much of the spin-off from the economic benefit of this remains in the Western Australian and Australian economies. But certainly the long-term value from this very important export industry will be retained in Australia. The number of jobs and the economic activity which is part of the gross state product of Western Australia will be very significant indeed. I would like to congratulate Woodside and the North West Shelf partners—because there are quite a few people involved in that project, and a number of companies—for the commitment which they are making to Australia's energy future and to our long-term economic gain.These companies and many others like them are actively exploring off the coast of Australia now to look for further additional resources. The Otway Basin, for example, is one which even now is the subject of significant prospecting activity by Woodside and by its partners. Each of two petroleum areas off the coast of Victoria will offer the potential, if these drilling expectations prove correct, to provide significant additional gas resources not only to Victoria but also to South Australia, where the increased capacity, the increased competition, will be a very welcome trend. We also have, in the same time frame, the possibility of gas coming down from the Timor Sea and from the exciting new developments in the Timor Gap. These will provide gas landed on shore at Darwin, and possibly going through to Mount Isa and then down to the Santos development at Moomba. The potential for that basin will ultimately expire and further inputs of gas will be required. The Timor Sea gas is one with some of the most potential. I mention these two or three projects just to give an indication to the House of the magnitude and importance of this industry and of the value of gas as a resource, as a fuel and as a transition fuel in a carbon constrained world, which it certainly will be over the next two or three decades. This industry has a long way to go in reaching its full potential. I believe that the Commonwealth government has to be the lead organisation in ensuring that, from a government perspective, the industry is able to realise its full potential. It is for the Commonwealth government to take the lead here, in cooperation with the states, working where necessary with the states and delegating to them where appropriate the day-to-day management of these gas and offshore oil finds and fields. The reality is that the technology has to be examined at a national level. The national interest can be properly addressed only by the Commonwealth government. Industry will be comfortable only with Commonwealth government established policy in this area. Only the Commonwealth government can ensure the degree of uniformity, standardisation of policy and regulatory input needed across the industry as a whole. Given the enormous risks, given the enormous investment which is required in all of these developments, whether they prove to be massive resources or whether they prove to be dry, the reality is that we need that kind of consistency, that kind of Commonwealth leadership, to ensure that the industry has the basis for that massive future investment and to take the kind of risks which are essential in this industry.The opposition offers its support for this legislation on the understanding that this issue of the Commonwealth-state division of responsibility will be one that we will monitor closely in the future and on which we will expect to see the government report. We will expect to see the government report on the success of that experiment. We will be listening very closely to industry and to the states, where necessary, to make sure that it does. 17:19:0026275McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—In rising to speak tonight on the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 2000 I acknowledge the thoughtful comments of the shadow minister on some of the matters he has raised—in particular, his comments about the lack of power in California. My understanding of that difficulty is that those sectors of the community who supported the green movement brought about a political influence in California that stopped further generation power stations from being erected, and that in turn has brought about a very serious lack of power there. I also note his comment on the national grid possibilities. I observe that Victoria and New South Wales are moving to a national grid where power loads can be shared between the various states. I am pleased that the shadow minister notes the risk involved in the power industry, particularly on the North West Shelf. I would hope that a Labor government would take that into account as a broader Canberra bureaucracy in their planning mechanisms to control the industry when they come to power in 30 years time, because it is going to be a long while before the two shadow ministers at the table get to the government benches! LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—You will be chasing sheep before us!VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—My interest in these matters, Shadow Minister, goes back to my participation on the Standing Committee of Industry, Science and Resources. That committee did some very good work in the late 1980s, looking at the North West Shelf to establish what the Australian content could be of that major development. I was privileged to go to the Rankin platform on two occasions, where I saw first-hand the importance of the gas resources of the North West Shelf and the massive project that that was. Members of the House would be aware that the cost of that project was $12 billion to $14 billion. In the early part of the project, it was touch and go as to whether it would proceed. It was proceeded with on the basis of crude oil at that time being approximately $US14 to $US15 a barrel. That was a crucial decision—an on-balance decision—to proceed and export that natural gas to Japan with long-term contracts. I remember asking the Managing Director of Woodside Petroleum, Mr Charles Allen, what the key elements of those projects were. He replied that the key elements in his view were controlling inflation, first; second, controlling inflation; and, third, controlling inflation to make sure that the project did not get out of hand. Of course, under this government, inflation is under control; whereas, during the time of the Labor government, those projects were very much in jeopardy because of runaway inflation. Whilst this legislation would seem relatively insignificant, it comes from a long historical and political background of offshore exploration and discovery of gas in the 1950s and is part of the legislative arrangements that the shadow minister referred to between the Commonwealth and the states. Members would be aware of the Esso-BHP finding of gas in Bass Strait in 1965 and how that brought about a financial bonanza for the stock markets, as well as gas supplies to Victoria and oil to Australia. By 1971, Bass Strait oil met more than 60 per cent of Australia's requirements. While that is some time ago and things have changed, it was a very significant factor in oil exploration for Australian industry. Following those discoveries, there was an interesting development between the states and the Commonwealth. In 1967 the states and the Commonwealth reached an agreement in relation to submerged lands and the continental shelf. At that time there was a lot of debate between the Bolte government and the Commonwealth government as to who owned the resources beneath the seabed and what the legal connotations were in relation to these massive resources. In 1967 the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 was passed by the Commonwealth. That act defined `adjacent area' of state and assumed Commonwealth control of that `adjacent area'. These are technical terms but they helped to decide who controlled the area of the sea off the continental shelf. The state had legislation dealing with its own land and territory. So the real question was what constitutional authority the Commonwealth had over the submerged lands. In 1967 that act really did not resolve this ongoing dilemma. However, as some older members might recall—and you, Mr Deputy Speaker Causley, as a person interested in politics at that time, might recall these arguments—back in 1969 the Gorton government made an arbitrary decision to exercise sovereign control over the resources of the seabed off the Australian coast to the outer limits of the continental shelf. That seems innocuous enough, but it brought about a very stirring political debate at that time. The decision was made by Prime Minister Gorton and the Gorton government without consulting the states. If you read some of the history on it you will see some very interesting comments, and I would just like to quote very briefly from Alan Reid's book The Gorton Experiment. I think he described it very well when he said: Until then the State Governments had believed that they held the sovereign rights from the low water mark to the outer limits of the shelf. Involved were mineral rights, though not rights over the offshore petroleum discoveries as these rights had already been fixed by agreements between the Commonwealth and the States.Some commentators would suggest that this was the beginning of the end for the Gorton government because of the very arbitrary action of the Prime Minister. The states at that time had expected further negotiation, as did the then Minister for National Development, Sir David Fairbairn. Minister Fairbairn was very concerned that there was a lack of consultation with the states, and there was quite a political fallout, as some members will recall.The other debate at the time was the negotiation of the resource between the Esso-BHP partners, the Bolte government in Victoria and the federal government under Prime Minister Gorton. It was perceived at the time that Esso and BHP, who had taken the risk in finding those gas and oil fields, had outmanoeuvred both governments in terms of the gas prices, the royalty prices, the lease conditions and the level at which the oil prices were set. So we had an interesting situation. They were new and exciting times. Oil had been found, gas had been found, and Sir Henry Bolte in Victoria was riding high as a very strong Premier with, I think it is fair to say, anti-Canberra tendencies. He was very unhappy that the then Gorton government were taking over what he considered to be a Victorian asset. The controversy was not really prevented through the 1967 agreement, so that led to a further piece of legislation, called the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act, which said that the Commonwealth is in charge of all of the areas offshore adjacent to the state or territory. It did not resolve who had sovereignty, and it did create a joint and designated authority between the Commonwealth and the state. So you had state ministers deciding on exploration permits, and the designated authority was the state or territory minister running the day-to-day aspects of this set of arrangements. As I say, this was an approach to try to sort out the federal-state relationships, and the states were very unhappy. By 1973 this legislation was passed, which extended Commonwealth control over the continental shelf and its resources. It extended the Commonwealth control over the territorial sea and defined the adjacent areas.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—You were here then.VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—However—as the shadow minister at the table would recall, because he is interested in politics—it was challenged in the High Court by the states. Those interested in the law would be aware of the important case that was decided in 1973, the seas and submerged lands case. That was decided in favour of the Commonwealth. It set in train this ongoing argument about the sovereignty of the Commonwealth versus the states over these very important resources. We ended up, as members would be aware, with the Commonwealth having the sovereignty and the states having the administrative control, which came into further legislation in 1983. So we had a situation of sorting out states' rights versus those of the federal government. There were tax implications, because obviously state governments, particularly Victoria, were looking for the revenue. The Commonwealth under the Gorton government thought they had a claim to the revenue, and I have no doubt the Whitlam government were very keen to get the revenue as well, because they spent so vigorously and expansively that they needed any revenue they could get. So we had moved on to a situation of the resource rent tax—LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—What backflips are you making this week? Beer?VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—The shadow minister at the table would understand resource rent tax; last year $400 million was collected. So there was the matter of excise duty being collected and the controversial resource rent tax, which has been somewhat difficult to fully understand but was a tax levied on 40 per cent of a project's taxable profits. This was a fairly complex tax—fair enough—based on the profits of the outcome of the project rather than on the resource that was under the sea. Two-thirds of the monthly royalty collected by the Commonwealth is remitted to the states. So both the states and the federal government get some of the money. The Western Australian government receives additional revenue on top of this arrangement for the particular activity of the North West Shelf.The legislation before us today is one of a fairly administrative nature but it tidies up this whole area of Commonwealth-state relations by making an attempt to demark the areas of responsibility where the Commonwealth and state ministers make decisions on the exploration permits, production licences and pipeline licences. What has been decided is that the day-to-day administration will be by those states close to the resource—Victoria in the case of Bass Strait and Western Australia with the North West Shelf. There is an understanding that those state governments have taken a particular interest—and, in the case of Western Australia, considerable risks, both financial and in some ways political—in encouraging these projects to proceed. The Commonwealth will monitor the set of arrangements every three years. An important detail is that it allows for more accurate mapping of the particular permit areas. Members of the public might ask why this is so important. But those people who have been close to this whole debate would understand the importance of mapping large areas in the ocean accurately, because at any one point there could be vast wealth if a particular well does strike gas or oil. The new system that is being proposed is a global positioning system. The shadow minister discussed that, and I support his remarks that it is now a more accurate system. I note that the member for Corio has come into the chamber to get an understanding of oil and gas matters and that would be helpful to him. He does not understand much about agriculture but, if he listens carefully on this occasion, he will learn a bit about natural gas and energy.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPVH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHUR—He would not understand what it meant. The shadow minister for transport might be able to help him with a bit of information about submerged lands. The two shadow ministers at the table need a bit of help and education on these matters from time to time, and hopefully they will listen carefully. There has been an improvement in the technology. We will be moving away from the old geodetic datum system that was adopted in 1966 to the new global positioning system, which will provide a much more accurate delineation of the permits and areas.The other more subtle part of the bill before the House that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, who is at the table, is very familiar with is that the government officials will be protected from legal liability provided they have acted in good faith under the legislation in giving consent to or accepting exploration proposals. These permits and exploration possibilities are very important in terms of what might or might not be there. Protection from legal liability for officials has been extended under this legislation. The previous legislation gave protection from liability only to officials approving and transferring permits and licences. I think it is a move in the right direction. It will help in the legal area of sorting out who owns the assets under the permit area, how they will be administered, and the transfer of permits.In conclusion, this whole area of gas and oil exploration over the sea and the continental shelf is important to Australia, as is the North West Shelf and Bass Strait and, in my own territory—and the member for Corio is close to it—the Otway Basin, where a number of permits are now available and exploration is going on fairly intensely, and there is some optimism that there will be some real possibilities of finding gas or oil in that part of the southern shelf. We see that there are risks involved in offshore exploration—tremendous risks are undertaken by the oil companies in the North Sea, with the natural hazards of cold and very heavy winds. Similar problems are encountered on the North West Shelf. Those platforms are designed to withstand the 100-year cyclone. That might turn up only once in 100 years but the platforms have to be designed to those specifications. The national parliament, I think in a reasonably bipartisan manner, is trying to develop a set of rules and regulations under this legislation to encourage exploration and to encourage a cooperative effort between the states, between the Commonwealth and states and between those companies that are outlaying vast amounts of money to seek those riches under the sea. It is a very risky business and the Commonwealth government, with the help of both sides of the parliament, can reduce those risks and create a certainty in the way in which exploration takes place, and I commend the legislation for that. I also commend the parliamentary secretary at the table for his interest in the matter. I hope both sides of the parliament will support the legislation and support ongoing activity by the government and the opposition, hopefully, over the next 20 or 30 years to ensure that there is a regime on the coastal shelf to look for the resources of oil and gas and that there is compatibility between regulators, between explorers and between state and federal governments on this very important national issue. 17:37:0026279O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—Discussion on the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 2000 provides us with the opportunity to range across a number of issues relating to petroleum and gas. I want to take the opportunity to outline in simple terms a few of the issues that have come to my attention from my constituents, particularly during the last 12 months, a little bit of the history of them and how that relates to this continuing issue of exploration and, as the member has just said, the arrangements that exist in Australia to encourage it. First, while we got a wonderful history lesson from the member for Corangamite—he must be the only one who has been here long enough to remember some of that stuff—the fact is that the big shift was to the establishment of the resource rent tax and the acceptance in Australia of the principle of import parity pricing. It has come up constantly in recent months when people have said, `Why do we have to operate with import parity pricing particularly when we have our own oil and gas?' I think members on both sides of the House have accepted the argument the explorers have put that they are not prepared to invest in exploration and in the heavy capital costs of drawing the resource out when it is discovered unless they have permission to sell that resource anywhere in the world. That means being able to extract the price the world is prepared to pay for crude oil at any time, which is, of course, generally set by the supply and demand situation that is governed by the OPEC countries and the rate of production that they operate at any particular time.As a rough rule of thumb for Australians, that import parity price, when translated to the bowser at $US30 a barrel, seems to be around 40c Australian per litre at the fuel pump. That does not sound like very much. The rest is excise or state tax that is added to it. In being quite blunt about this, I note that equivalent price of about 40c Australian per litre is the same everywhere in the world. It does not matter whether you are in the UK, the US, Europe, Japan, anywhere; it is about 40c Australian to get a litre of fuel to the bowser. Anything over and above that reflects government taxing policy in that country.It is of interest that Australia, funnily enough, is one of the lower taxing fuel countries. I do not mind saying that, although I do not run around making a political point of it. In a moment I am going to come to the fact of who goes around politically telling fibs about these things. Petrol in the UK at the moment is something of the order of $A2.20 a litre. That is pretty general across Europe. In Japan, I am told, it is of the order of $A2.30 a litre. Those prices simply reflect the level of government tax.Motorists should simply be honestly told by their politicians that all that means is that, if it is not raised as revenue on petrol tax, it has to be raised in some other way, and anybody who comes along and says, `Petrol tax should be lower,' therefore has to say, `Okay, where will we raise the tax elsewhere?' That is a pretty honest assessment. That is what I give to my constituents when they raise the issue of petrol tax with me. When they raise the issue of import parity pricing with me, I say to them exactly what I have said before: we in Australia accept that, if these companies cannot receive the same return as they would on the global market, why would they spend their investment dollars in Australia? Australia conforms to that formula and accepts it.It is from there that we begin to depart from the government's approach. We depart over the policies which surround how you treat the resource, once you have it and once it has been found, in the distribution chain and all the rest of it. The first issue—and we go to the North West Shelf, which has been talked about by contributors to this debate—is Australian industry involvement. It is our gas, it is our crude oil and it is our resource and, when large multinationals want to invest in it and develop it, yes, they pay a resource rent tax to the federal government. In some cases they pay a similar tax to state governments for the assistance they get around those state boundaries. The fact of the matter is it is our resource and we are in a position to use that resource to gain leverage in ensuring that there is strong Australian industry participation in these projects. In 1984, when the North West Shelf project commenced, the then Labor government set a quite high hurdle for Australian industry involvement. That seemed to go along as a pretty successful project until the change of government in 1996, when stage 2 was being developed and the then resources minister, Senator Parer, announced two things. One was that Australia was dropping export controls, which meant that some of the leverage that the federal government had over the conditions under which you could export a resource was being reduced, and with it went the leverage on an issue like this. The government also announced that it no longer intended—well, it did not actually announce that it no longer intended to enforce Australian industry involvement levels; it just sort of did not do it. I suppose that is the best way to describe it. It ceased to do it and, of course, the companies ceased to think the levels were significant.The first I heard of that particular facet of it was from a company in my electorate, Deer Park Engineering, which is a very sophisticated engineering company that supplies, among other things, capping valves for underwater mining operations. It is very sophisticated, very expensive and very big business. It is a family company, and the owner rang me and said, `What is going on with you blokes?' I asked him what he was on about, and he explained to me that he had been rung by his customer, one of the partners in the North West Shelf operation, saying that there would not be a tender for the next round of valves because they did not have to do it in Australia anymore.I took up that particular case with the senator and we also began to make a case of it on this side of the House. In fact, we embarrassed the government into ringing a few people up and saying, `Hey, smarten this up. Let's get back to some Australian industry involvement.' It turned out reasonably well in the end, but I make the point that in this ideological thrust for competition, free market and not giving a damn about the impact, particularly in Australian manufacturing industry, it is a very short step from lifting your foot off the pedal to seeing the car slow down completely. That is what happened in this very specific example quite quickly. So I say that we should never forget, as the parliament of Australia and the government of Australia should never forget, when encouraging those exploration projects that it is our resource and we are in a position to demand maximum Australian industry involvement, and we should do so.Talking about the North West Shelf LPG and LNG and Bass Strait LPG takes me on to a second issue, which is the current LPG price outrage—and that is how I must describe it—that exists now in the marketplace in Australia. Let me explain very clearly the arrangement originally entered into by the Fraser government and supported during the years of the Hawke and Keating governments by Labor. The arrangement with the fuel companies was in order to encourage conversions and use of LPG as an alternative fuel source in Australia, firstly because it gave us more independence in our own energy supplies and secondly because it is less polluting in greenhouse gases than petrol. We wanted to encourage conversion to LPG in Australia in cars and buses and other uses, and the way to encourage it was not to put fuel tax on it. So LPG was quite cheap in Australia compared with petrol for more than 25 years because of a federal government decision to deliberately exclude it from excise. The deal with the petrol companies during that whole period was that, provided the government did not tax excise, they would invest in all the infrastructure, fit out the petrol stations, get the cars converted and supply the gas. Those who have been around long enough remember that it used to be hard to get LPG because you could not find a petrol station that had LPG tanks. A lot of money was invested in setting it all up and making it viable, and that has happened. So they honoured that undertaking. The second undertaking was that they would not charge higher than half the retail price of petrol. If petrol was 70c, LPG would never be more than 35c; if petrol was 80c, LPG would be under 40c. For 25 years they have stuck to the deal. Here I am actually praising the petrol companies, but they honoured the deal and I have no criticism of them. What has happened since 1 July last year? The introduction of the GST broke the deal. It is the first time a tax has been put on LPG, and it is a 10 per cent GST. Mr Howard was warned, Mr Costello was warned, and we all said, `Do you understand that you are breaking the deal with the petrol companies and they will have open slather—and they will have every right to have open slather?' What has happened now? Go and look at the price board of any petrol station selling LPG around Australia and you will find that if petrol is 90c, LPG is about 50c. It is well over half the level. They have not only put on a 10 per cent GST but cranked LPG up as far as they can go before motorists start to say, `Why would I bother to convert? Why would I bother to use it?' It was a dumb decision. It has LPG users right around Australia furious, and they are entitled to be. In my view it is an outrage. A smart government would step back into the ring and fix it.I also want to take up a theme that the Treasurer, in particular, has been running as he talks about the role of the opposition—saying that we are saying things now that we would not say in government. I remember very vividly the campaign about country petrol prices run by the then opposition, the now government, right through rural Australia in the whole year leading up to the 1996 election. I remember it absolutely vividly. I was on the stage copping it, not only from Liberals and Nationals but also from all the motoring organisations and the National Farmers Federation. You were filling halls all over country Australia with your slogans, `Not enough petrol taxes spent on roads' and `Country petrol prices are a rip-off'.In the first budget, road funding was halved. Where did the cheer squad go? The Farmers Federation, the automobile organisations—they all went down the rabbit burrow. They never said a word. While they were bagging Labor, terrific. They never said a word. What has happened to country petrol prices? They have been loaded up. It is not only the case that if you take your foot off the pedal the car slows down, but also the case that you have brought the GST into the equation and widened the gap. If the city price is 80c, 10 per cent makes it 88c. If the country price is 90c, 10 per cent makes it 99c. You actually widen the gap with the GST, and that is exactly what has happened.I am here to say that I am certainly not going to allow the government, between now and the next federal election, to forget that they campaigned on a hoax right across rural Australia. That is where they won the seats. They campaigned on a hoax and misled country people into thinking that they would get cheaper fuel prices, and they misled country people into thinking that they would get more money spent on roads. The chief misleader has just entered the chamber—Minister McGauran—because at the time he was the shadow minister with responsibility for this. We had the McGauran petrol plan. I even have a letter from Jeff Kennett telling me my ideas were of no interest to him; he was backing the McGauran petrol plan. Of course, the McGauran petrol plan has resulted in country fuel prices going through the roof. It is a timely entrance, Minister; thank you for coming in to listen to my contribution.The final thing that I would like to raise in this contribution is this: the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, mentioned in answer to a question on road funding this week that he is having some second thoughts about the administration of the Roads to Recovery plan. This Roads to Recovery plan, which is restoring road funding this year to the level it was when they took over, after having cut it in half for the last five years, is supposed to be some bonanza to the road construction industry and to councils. The minister has now understood that it is all very well to promise all this money but that, because of the floods, because of different situations, particularly where there have been no funds, there are no plans in place to spend them. He will finish up with the embarrassment of this money not even being spent. He is beginning to think about allowing those who are able to use it to take the three-year funding program up-front and accelerate some of the projects that otherwise would be spread over a longer time. I commend the minister for that. He should have thought of it in the first place; it was a standard practice when Labor was administering these programs.On Friday, the minister is meeting a delegation from the Macedon shire and the Calder Highway Improvement Committee. They are from my electorate. They have strongly pressed the point that they are in a position to use the allocation this financial year or over the next 12 months; there would be considerable savings involved and considerable progress made on the Calder Highway if the three-year program was brought forward so they could get the work done while the construction crews are there. The Victorian government has said that it is prepared to continue funding the program at the moment if the federal government says it will come to the party in this way. We have an opportunity where a major delay in road construction in a vital black spot on one of the busiest highways in Victoria has been set back because of the funding policies of the Liberals and Nationals both in Canberra and Victoria. There is now an opportunity to rectify that. I am calling on the minister to give that delegation a first-class hearing on Friday. I am calling on him to agree to their proposals to accelerate the funding for the works on the Calder Highway, particularly the Carlsruhe section.I welcome this opportunity to raise a number of those issues. I support our shadow minister's contribution to the debate and hope that the minister will listen to the advice that I have just given him.17:57:0026282Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—I am very pleased to be speaking in this debate on the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 2000, and to be following the member for Burke. Mind you, I was told that he was only speaking for 10 minutes, but his speech was so good I did not mind sitting here for the extra 10 minutes and I certainly support everything he said. It is very symbolic that this legislation should be debated on the day that a $2.4 billion expansion to the North West Shelf has been announced. That project is for liquefied natural gas. The timing is symbolic because this shows the enormous potential of our submerged lands domain. In my first term in this parliament, I was often amused by the then opposition claiming that Labor policies, particularly Labor policies with respect to the Mabo title legislation, would drive prospectors away. This was always the argument: we were going to drive them away. I do not know where we were going to drive them to. The important thing about geological exploration is that, despite the concept that some people might have of the earth being homogeneous, it certainly is not. The then opposition did not seem to understand that prospectors do their homework. They know the hot spots; they know the likely areas; they know where minerals and petroleum are likely to be found. Geological surveys, geomagnetic surveys or simply the interpretation of the age of rocks and the strata, and close inspection of aerial photographs and geological maps, will identify domains that are worthy of exploration. The point is that Australia has many of those. Referring back to the North West Shelf decision today, we can get a glimpse of the tremendous potential of our submerged lands—a natural wealth that really belongs to all Australians, a wealth that we as a nation should be entitled to. I was interested that the member for Burke brought up the world parity pricing of our oil. When that decision was made, it was made on the basis that it was better for the government to be able to tax that resource and to claim some of the money back to the central government. So oil demanded world parity prices. Also, there was an argument that, if you do not charge world parity prices, no-one will come here and explore. That has proved to be absolute rubbish, because the cost per volume at which the gas and petroleum resource is being exploited is minuscule. The price the North West Shelf is getting for the gas that it is selling to Japan, Korea and other parts of Asia is just so small compared with what we as Australians are paying for our own resource. World parity pricing also means that about 50 per cent of the crude oil that is removed from our oilfields is sold offshore. I was quite horrified to find out that the biggest user of Australian crude oil is the United States. Our crude oil is taken halfway around the world and converted into petroleum products for the United States. I guess part of the reason for that is that Esso is a major shareholder, particularly in the Bass Strait deposit.Having been a geology student in the sixties, I can well recall one of my old lecturers, the late Arthur Ritchie, and as a mature age student I often used to go and have a beer and a yarn with Arthur.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—More than one.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—If it had been in these days, I would have been able only to afford one because of the excise on it! Arthur often used to decry the fact that Australia had been, but was no longer, one of the great geological domains of the world. The mineral deposits of Australia that were exploited were some of the wealthiest. He used to describe Broken Hill. When those boundary riders discovered the silver at Broken Hill, the silver ore was simply scattered on the surface. The metal was just lying there because of millions of years of erosion; the residual metal that had eroded out of the rocks was just sitting there to be scraped up and taken away. He would talk about the fact that Mount Isa, the richest copper mine in the world at that time, was not being exploited by Australian capital. Mount Morgan was the richest goldmine in the world for the volume of material that was turned over, for the amount of gold that was taken out of it. All of these mines were developed by foreign owned capital. We got a few jobs out of it—we got the blood, sweat and tears jobs. In the area I represent, the Hunter Valley, we still have those jobs. In the coalmines, the miners risk their lives. The miners do the blood, sweat and tears jobs, and where do the profits go? They go to the boardrooms and stock exchanges on the other side of the world. As a young country, we really needed that money to develop our infrastructure and to develop our industry. It was a resource that was owned by Australians, but all we got out of it was a few jobs.Arthur and I would often have a beer and say, `Mate, that must not happen in the future.' I suppose that is why I wanted to speak on this legislation. We do support the legislation. We accept, in a bipartisan way, what the government are saying. But we also put the government on notice that, if they want to transfer to the states the power to manage our natural resources, it must always be kept under close scrutiny. I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources said in his second reading speech:The proposed reforms include changes to the administrative arrangements between the Commonwealth, the states and the Northern Territory to clarify roles, minimise duplication and progressively shift administrative responsibility to the states and the Northern Territory while retaining Commonwealth involvement in issues that have national implications.We support that. That is right, duplication should not be there. It is a shame that those same concepts do not exist in other fields like health, education and transport where we have unnecessary duplication of administration and expenditure and we are not spending the money on delivering necessary services to our community. At another point, the parliamentary secretary said: The transfer of these selected powers will help streamline the administration of offshore petroleum resources to the benefit of the petroleum industry.If that means to the increased profit of the petroleum industry, then I would put a big question mark over it. If it means that it is going to make it more efficient and that the benefits of that efficiency are passed on to Australian consumers, I would support it. But if it means simply that added profits will go into petroleum companies' coffers then I would oppose it. I was interested to hear yesterday the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry tell us how this federal government had just given $8.8 million to BP to put ethanol into petrol in Brisbane. There is nothing wrong with using ethanol, but the point is that last year, on a global basis, BP made a profit of $US26 billion. It sounds to me like the sort of company that really needs $A8.8 million to help it put a blending factory in Brisbane! Ethanol is produced and sold to BP significantly cheaper than the petrol that they are blending with the ethanol. I will bet London to a brick that the blended petrol is no cheaper to the consumer. And that is where this government is not diligent enough.As my colleague the member for Burke said, until 1 July last year there was no tax on LP gas. LP gas was a wonderful industry, where Australian technology was developing and people were prepared to pay approximately $2,000 to have their car converted to dual fuel. The Ford company thought it was such a good fuel that they even developed a special motor. You can now buy a Falcon Forte that runs only on LP gas. That car was on the drawing board and came into being before 1 July last year. I know—and I bet other members of this House have had complaints too—that people invested in those cars and then suddenly found, after 1 July 2000, the fuel that was cheap enough to encourage that technology to be developed became dearer. A lot of people feel they have been dudded by the fact that they have bought that car.So when we talk about resources and resource management we are not talking about something that is the property of the organisation that is developing that resource. We are talking about something in which all Australians have a share—have part ownership—and the development and exploitation of that resource should yield benefits for all Australians. The significance of this legislation should be not simply to pass on benefits to oil companies but to pass on benefits at the same time to all Australians. If it can be a win-win situation, we support it. All I am saying is that we put the government on notice that that is what we expect and that is what we believe is behind the legislation. Please ensure that is the situation.18:10:0026284Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—in reply—Firstly, I would like to thank all those members who contributed to this debate in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000 and the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 2000. It was pleasing to hear the acknowledgment of the member for Bonython of the value of both AGSO and Auslig and the vital role that they play in the mineral and petroleum and gas industries in this country. He also acknowledged the value of spatial data, including GPS technology, to the economic future of this country. The member for Corangamite, in his excellent contribution, through his long experience in this place, was able to reflect on the history of the Australian oil and gas industry and acknowledged the value of the oil and gas industry to this country. I would also like to thank the member for Burke, who gave strong support to the import parity pricing policy and highlighted the fact that Australia has some of the lowest taxed fuel in the developed world. Like the member for Burke, this government certainly strongly supports manufacturing industry in Australia. Finally, the member for Paterson gave strong support to the resource sector and also very strongly supported this legislation.In summary, the bill proposes a mixture of policy and technical amendments to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 and two other acts that are incorporated in it. Policy amendments consist of a partial revision of the Commonwealth, state and Northern Territory relationship in managing offshore petroleum resources. I will remind honourable members that this revision underpins a more extensive program of reform of the administrative arrangements between the jurisdictions. This also clarifies roles, minimises duplication and progressively shifts administrative responsibilities to the states and the Northern Territory, while retaining Commonwealth involvement in issues that have national implications. The reforms include development of a ministerial level memorandum of understanding between the jurisdictions. This memorandum will be supported by intergovernmental protocols and regular compliance audits to ensure that all jurisdictions are adhering to the protocols. As I informed the House in December, the powers recommended for transfer in the bill from the joint authorities to the designated authorities are relatively routine in nature. The Commonwealth will monitor compliance with protocols over the next three years and conduct another review of the allocation of powers. Further powers may be able to be transferred at the end of that process.Turning to the second major policy reform contained in the bill, the need to adopt the geocentric datum of Australia in Commonwealth legislation arises from the increased use of satellite navigation in surveying navigation and similar purposes. The bill will provide the framework for making petroleum title administration under the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 compatible with the global positioning system. This technical innovation will be another step forward in fostering petroleum exploration and development in waters around Australia.Little more needs to be said about the other amendments in the bill other than that they will help to keep the system working to ensure that Australia remains an attractive location in the world for petroleum exploration and development. I commend the bill to honourable members.The Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 2000 is complementary to the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000. Under the same policy decision, it applies the proposed transfer of powers I have just summarised. This bill seeks to transfer a small number of powers of functions in the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Act 1967 from the joint authorities to the designated authorities. These functions involve the joined authority in determining the fee payable for the registration of titles and dealings in a number of different situations. It is quite appropriate to transfer these functions to the designated authority. I commend this bill to honourable members. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 26285Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 18:17:0026285Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—I present the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill and move:(1) Schedule 1, page 10 (after line 29), after item 28, insert:28A Transitional—acts or omissions that happen before Royal Assent(1) For the purposes of this item, the transitional period is the period:(a) beginning at the commencement of this item; and(b) ending immediately before the day on which this Act received the Royal Assent.(2) This Part does not have the effect of making a person liable to prosecution for an offence constituted by an act or omission that happens during the transitional period.(3) Paragraph 108(2)(b) of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 does not apply to a failure to remove property during the transitional period in accordance with a direction under section 107 of that Act.(4) Paragraphs 113(2)(b) and (3)(b) of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 do not apply in relation to the doing of any thing required to be done during the transitional period by a direction under section 107 of that Act. The amendment will add a provision that excludes the possibility that any person will retrospectively come under any criminal or civil liability as a result of the schedule 1, part 3 amendments being backdated to 7 March 2000. Members would have observed that this part of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2000 seeks to make a number of technical corrections to section 107 of the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967. There are valid reasons for making the corrections retrospective to 7 March 2000, when the amendments with drafting errors came into effect. However, since the bill was introduced, the government has received further legal advice about these amendments, noting that the retrospectivity should not apply to the offence provision in the section or the related civil liability. Accordingly, the government has decided that the new provision in the form of item 28A should be added to the bill. I commend this amendment to honourable members and present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendment agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to.26286Bill (on motion by Mr Entsch)—by leave—read a third time.Bills26286R118326286Consideration resumed from 6 December 2000, on motion by Mr Entsch:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.26286Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Entsch) read a third time.Bills26286R109626286Consideration resumed from 29 November 2000.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 2), omit “8”, substitute “8A”.(2) Clause 2, page 2 (line 3), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(3) Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (lines 2 to 24), omit subsections (1) to (3), substitute: (1) If a debt by a person to the Commonwealth under the social security law has not been wholly paid, the Secretary must give the person a notice specifying: (a) the date on which it was issued (the date of the notice); and (b) the reason the debt was incurred, including a brief explanation of the circumstances that led to the debt being incurred; and (c) the period to which the debt relates; and (d) the outstanding amount of the debt at the date of the notice; and (e) the day on which the outstanding amount is due and payable; and (f) that a range of options is available for repayment of the debt; and (g) the contact details for inquiries concerning the debt. (2) The outstanding amount of the debt is due and payable on the 28th day after the date of the notice. (3) If the debt has not been wholly paid and: (a) the person has failed to enter into an arrangement under section 1234 to pay the outstanding amount of the debt; or (b) the person has entered into an arrangement under that section but has failed to make a payment in accordance with the arrangement or, if the arrangement has been amended, in accordance with the arrangement as amended; the Secretary may give to the person a further notice specifying: (c) the date on which it was issued (the date of the further notice); and (d) the matters mentioned in paragraphs (1)(b) to (g); and (e) the effect of sections 1229A and 1229AB; and (f) how the interest under section 1229A is to be calculated.(4) Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (after line 10), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) Under this section, a person is not liable to pay interest on a debt, or the proportion of a debt, that was incurred because of an administrative error made by the Commonwealth or an agent of the Commonwealth.(5) Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (line 29), omit “later”, substitute “latest”.(6) Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (line 32), omit “21st”, substitute “28th”.(7) Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (line 33), at the end of subsection (4), add: ; (c) where a request for review (the initial request) has been made within 3 months after the receipt of a notice issued under subsection 1229(1)—3 months after the day on which an authorised review officer makes a decision in respect of the initial request.(8) Schedule 1, item 12, page 11 (after line 20), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) The Secretary may make a determination under this section in circumstances that include (but are not limited to) the Secretary being satisfied that the person has a reasonable excuse for: (a) failing to enter into an arrangement under section 1234 to pay the outstanding amount of the debt; or (b) having entered an arrangement, failing to make a payment in accordance with that arrangement.(9) Schedule 1, item 12, page 12 (line 1), at the end of paragraph (b), add “without reasonable excuse”.(10) Schedule 1, item 12, page 12 (line 10), omit “$100”, substitute “$50”.(11) Schedule 1, item 14, page 12 (line 23), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(12) Schedule 1, item 16, page 13 (line 4), omit “A debt”, substitute “Subject to subsection (2), a debt”.(13) Schedule 1, item 16, page 13 (after line 16), at the end of section 1230C, add: (2) Subject to subsection (3), a debt due to the Commonwealth under this Act is recoverable by means of a method mentioned in paragraph (1)(d) or (e) only if the Commonwealth: (a) has first sought to recover the debt by means of a method mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c); and (b) can establish that the person who owes the debt has failed to enter into a reasonable arrangement to repay the debt. (3) If the Secretary determines that recovery of the debt by means of a method mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) is not appropriate, having regard to the circumstances of the case, paragraph (2)(a) does not apply.(14) Schedule 1, item 20, page 14 (lines 15 to 18), omit the item, substitute:20 Subsections 1231(2A) and (2B)Repeal the subsections, substitute: (2A) Subject to subsections (2C), (2D) and (2E), action under this section for the recovery of a debt or overpayment is not to be commenced after the end of the period of 6 years starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt.20A Paragraphs 1231(2C)(a), (2D)(a) and (2E)(a)Omit “or (2B)”.(15) Schedule 1, item 21, page 14 (lines 19 to 22), omit the item, substitute:21 Subsections 1232(2) and (3)Repeal the subsections, substitute: (2) Subject to subsections (4), (5) and(6), legal proceedings for the recovery of the debt are not to be commenced after the end of the period of 6 years starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt. 21A Paragraphs 1232(4)(a), (5)(a) and (6)(a)Omit “or (3)”.(16) Schedule 1, item 22, page 14 (lines 23 to 26), omit the item, substitute:22 Subsections 1233(7A) and (7B)Repeal the subsections, substitute: (7A) Subject to subsections (7C), (7D) and (7E), action under this section for the recovery of a debt is not to be commenced after the end of the period of 6 years starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt.22A Paragraphs 1233(7C)(a), (7D)(a) and (7E)(a)Omit “or (7B)”.(17) Schedule 1, item 23, page 15 (lines 9 and 10), omit subsection (4), substitute: (4) The Secretary may terminate or alter an arrangement entered into under subsection (1): (a) at the debtor's request; or (b) after giving 28 days' notice to the debtor of the proposed termination or alteration; or (c) without notice, if the Secretary is satisfied that the person has failed to disclose material information about his or her true capacity to repay the debt.(18) Schedule 1, item 24, page 16 (after line 19), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) As soon as possible after issuing a notice under subsection (2), the Secretary must inform the deceased estate in writing of: (a) the amount sought to be recovered from the deceased person's account; and (b) the reasons for the recovery action.(19) Schedule 1, page 17 (after line 26), after item 30, insert:30A Subsection 1237A(1)Repeal the subsection (including the note), substitute: (1) Subject to subsection (1A), the Secretary must waive the right to recover the proportion of a debt that is attributable to an administrative error made by the Commonwealth if the debtor received in good faith the payment or payments that gave rise to that proportion of the debt.(20) Schedule 1, item 31, page 17 (line 27) to page 18 (line 2), omit the item.(21) Schedule 1, item 34, page 18 (line 16), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(22) Schedule 1, item 34, page 18 (line 18), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(23) Schedule 1, item 34, page 18 (line 22), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(24) Schedule 1, item 34, page 18 (line 25), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(25) Schedule 1, item 34, page 19 (line 2), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(26) Schedule 1, item 34, page 19 (line 11), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(27) Schedule 1, item 34, page 19 (line 13), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(28) Schedule 3, item 3, page 21 (line 17) to page 22 (line 7), omit subsections (1) to (3), substitute: (1) If a debt by a person to the Commonwealth under a provision of this Part has not been wholly paid, the Secretary must give the person a notice specifying: (a) the date on which it was issued (the date of the notice); and (b) the reason the debt was incurred, including a brief explanation of the circumstances that led to the debt being incurred; and (c) the period to which the debt relates; and (d) the outstanding amount of the debt at the date of the notice; and (e) the day on which the outstanding amount is due and payable; and (f) that a range of options is available for repayment of the debt; and (g) the contact details for inquiries concerning the debt. (2) The outstanding amount of the debt is due and payable on the 28th day after the date of the notice. (3) If the debt has not been wholly paid and: (a) the person has failed to enter into an arrangement under section 91 to pay the outstanding amount of the debt; or (b) the person has entered into an arrangement under that section but has failed to make a payment in accordance with the arrangement or, if the arrangement has been amended, in accordance with the arrangement as amended;the Secretary may give to the person a further notice specifying: (c) the date on which it was issued (the date of the further notice); and (d) the matters mentioned in paragraphs (1)(b) to (g); and (e) the effect of sections 78 and 78B; and (f) how the interest under section 78 is to be calculated.(29) Schedule 3, item 3, page 22 (after line 25), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) Under this section, a person is not liable to pay interest on a debt, or the proportion of a debt, that was incurred because of an administrative error made by the Commonwealth or an agent of the Commonwealth.(30) Schedule 3, item 3, page 23 (line 11), omit “later”, substitute “latest”.(31) Schedule 3, item 3, page 23 (line 14), omit “21st”, substitute “28th”.(32) Schedule 3, item 3, page 23 (line 15), at the end of subsection (4), add: ; (c) where a request for review (the initial request) has been made within 3 months after the receipt of a notice issued under subsection 77(1)—3 months after the day on which an authorised review officer makes a decision in respect of the initial request.(33) Schedule 3, item 3, page 24 (after line 4), after subsection 78A(1), insert: (1A) The Secretary may make a determination under this section in circumstances that include (but are not limited to) the Secretary being satisfied that the person has a reasonable excuse for: (a) failing to enter into an arrangement under section 91 to pay the outstanding amount of the debt; or (b) having entered an arrangement, failing to make a payment in accordance with that arrangement.(34) Schedule 3, item 3, page 24 (line 18), at the end of paragraph (b), add “without reasonable excuse”.(35) Schedule 3, item 3, page 24 (line 27), omit “$100”, substitute “$50”.(36) Schedule 3, item 5, page 25 (line 8), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(37) Schedule 3, page 25 (after line 21), after item 7, insert:7A Subsections 86(1) and (2)Repeal the subsections, substitute: (1) Subject to subsections (3), (4) and (5), action under section 84, 84A or 87A for the recovery of a debt is not to be commenced after the end of the period of 6 years starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt.7B Paragraphs 86(3)(a), (4)(a) and (5)(a)Omit “or (2)”.7C Subsection 87(3)Omit “the day on which the debt arose”, substitute “the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt”.7D Paragraph 87(4)(b)Omit “the day on which the debt arose”, substitute “the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt”.7E Subsections 88(2) and (3)Repeal the subsections, substitute: (2) Subject to subsections (4), (5) and (6), legal proceedings for the recovery of the debt are not to be commenced after the end of the period of 6 years starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt.7F Paragraphs 88(4)(a), (5)(a) and (6)(a)Omit “or (3)”.7G Subsections 90(1) and (2)Repeal the subsections, substitute: (1) Subject to subsections (3), (4) and (5), action under section 89 for the recovery of a debt is not to be commenced after the end of the period of 6 years starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt.7H Paragraphs 90(3)(a), (4)(a) and (5)(a)Omit “or (2)”.(38) Schedule 3, item 8, page 26 (lines 9 and 10), omit subsection (4), substitute: (4) The Secretary may terminate or alter an arrangement entered into under subsection (1): (a) at the debtor's request; or (b) after giving 28 days' notice to the debtor of the proposed termination or alteration; or (c) without notice, if the Secretary is satisfied that the person has failed to disclose material information about his or her true capacity to repay the debt.(39) Schedule 3, item 9, page 27 (after line 17), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) As soon as possible after issuing a notice under subsection (2), the Secretary must inform the deceased estate in writing of: (a) the amount sought to be recovered from the deceased person's account; and (b) the reasons for the recovery action.(40) Schedule 3, item 14, page 28 (lines 11 to 17), omit the item.(41) Schedule 3, item 17, page 29 (line 12), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(42) Schedule 3, item 17, page 29 (line 23), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(43) Schedule 3, item 17, page 29 (line 28), omit “7, 8”, substitute “7 to 8”.(44) Schedule 3, item 17, page 29 (line 29), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(45) Schedule 3, item 17, page 29 (line 33), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(46) Schedule 3, item 17, page 30 (line 2), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(47) Schedule 4, page 31 (after line 22), after item 5, insert:5A Subsection 205(3)Omit “or (3), as the case requires”.(48) Schedule 4, item 7, page 32 (lines 2 to 25), omit subsections (1) to (3), substitute: (1) If: (a) a recoverable amount has not been wholly paid to the Commonwealth; and (b) the right of the Commonwealth to recover the outstanding amount has not been waived under paragraph 206(1)(b);the Commission must give the person to whom, or on whose account, the recoverable amount was paid a notice specifying: (c) the date on which it was issued (the date of the notice); and (d) the reason the outstanding amount was incurred, including a brief explanation of the circumstances that led to the outstanding amount being incurred; and (e) the period to which the outstanding amount relates; and (f) the outstanding amount at the date of the notice; and (g) the day on which the outstanding amount is due and payable; and (h) that a range of options is available for repayment of the outstanding amount; and (i) the contact details for inquiries concerning the outstanding amount. (2) The outstanding amount is due and payable on the 28th day after the date of the notice. (3) If the recoverable amount has not been wholly paid and: (a) the person has failed to enter into an arrangement with the Commission to pay the outstanding amount; or (b) the person has entered into such an arrangement with the Commission but has failed to make a payment in accordance with the arrangement or, if the arrangement has been amended, in accordance with the arrangement as amended;the Commission may give to the person a further notice specifying: (c) the date on which it was issued (the date of the further notice); and (d) the matters mentioned in paragraphs (1)(d) to (i); and (e) the effect of section 205AAB and 205AAD; and (f) how the interest under section 205AAB is to be calculated.(49) Schedule 4, item 7, page 33 (after line 11), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) Under this section, a person is not liable to pay interest on an outstanding amount, or the proportion of an outstanding amount, that was incurred because of an administrative error made by the Commonwealth or an agent of the Commonwealth.(50) Schedule 4, item 7, page 33 (line 34), omit “21st”, substitute “28th”.(51) Schedule 4, item 7, page 34 (after line 20), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) The Commission may make a determination under this section in circumstances that include (but are not limited to) the Commission being satisfied that the person has a reasonable excuse for: (a) failing to enter into an arrangement to pay the outstanding amount; or (b) having entered an arrangement, failing to make a payment in accordance with that arrangement.(52) Schedule 4, item 7, page 34 (line 34), at the end of paragraph 205AAC(6)(b), add “without reasonable excuse”.(53) Schedule 4, item 7, page 35 (line 10), omit “$100”, substitute “$50”.(54) Schedule 4, item 8, page 36 (after line 20), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) As soon as possible after issuing a notice under subsection (2), the Commission must inform the deceased estate in writing of: (a) the amount sought to be recovered from the deceased person's account; and (b) the reasons for the recovery action.(55) Schedule 4, page 36 (after line 35), after item 8, insert:8A Subsections 206(2) and (3)Repeal the subsections, substitute: (2) Proceedings for the recovery from a person of any amount that is payable by the person to the Commonwealth under or as a result of this Act are not to be commenced after the end of the period of 6 years starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware, or could reasonably be expected to have become aware, of the circumstances that gave rise to the debt.(56) Schedule 4, item 9, page 37 (lines 3 and 4), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(57) Schedule 4, item 9, page 37 (line 6), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(58) Schedule 4, item 9, page 37 (line 8), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(59) Schedule 4, item 9, page 37 (line 24), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(60) Schedule 4, item 9, page 38 (line 19), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 April 2001”.(61) Schedule 4, item 9, page 39 (after line 2), at the end of the item, add:(6) The amendments made by items 5A and 8A apply to: (a) debts that are owed at the commencement of 1 January 2001; and (b) debts that arise after that time.18:20:0026291Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I indicate to the House that the government proposes to move that amendments Nos 1, 3 to 6, 8 to 10, 12, 14 to 18, 20, 28 to 31, 33 to 35, 37 to 40, 43, 47 to 55 be agreed to, that amendment No. 19 be disagreed to and that amendments Nos 2, 7, 11, 13, 21 to 27, 32, 36, 41 to 42, 44 to 46 and 56 to 61 be disagreed to but that other amendments be made in place thereof. I suggest therefore that it may suit the convenience of the House to first consider those amendments that the government proposes be agreed to, then consider the amendment that the government proposes be disagreed to and then consider the amendments the government proposes be disagreed to but other amendments be made in place thereof. I move: That Senate amendments Nos. 1, 3 to 6, 8 to 10, 12, 14 to 18, 20, 28 to 31, 33 to 35, 37 to 40, 43 and 47 to 55 be agreed to.These amendments cover a number of issues. For example, some amendments ensure that the action to recover debts under social security law cannot be taken after a six-year period starting on the first day on which an officer becomes aware or should have been aware of the existence of the debt. Some amendments ensure that a person cannot become liable to pay interest on any part of a debt that has been incurred because of an administrative error. Some amendments specify the information that must be contained in the notice advising a person that a debt exists. While this information is already included in such a notice as a matter of sound administrative practice, it is considered desirable to set down these details in legislation. These Senate amendments are agreed to.18:22:0026292Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Most of these amendments were originally moved by Labor, and they will ensure the more punitive and unfair elements of the original bill are amended to bring in some fairness. We believe these amendments will improve the fairness of the bill.Question resolved in the affirmative. 18:23:0026292Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I move:That Senate amendment No. 19 be disagreed to.The government opposes the Senate amendment to section 1237A of the act which deals with the waiver of debt arising from error. The proposal to remove the word `solely' from section 1237A of the legislation would have created more uncertainty about the interpretation of this part of the legislation. The government, however, has agreed to investigate the operations of the administrative waiver provision. This investigation will be undertaken by my department and will include consultation with the Australian Labor Party and Welfare Rights.18:23:0026292Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—I thank the Minister for Community Services for that invitation. The opposition is disappointed that the government are not prepared to accept the opposition's amendment to rectify the operation of the waiver provisions relating to debts raised. The opposition's amendment sought to address what we believe is a loophole that Centrelink is exploiting to recover debts that should otherwise be waived. Importantly, these debts relate to those that are the result of an administrative error. Their refusal to support this amendment really highlights that they do not have confidence in the front-line social security delivery agency. The opposition does not have the numbers in this place to prevent the government from removing our amendment, but we will be considering our options when the bill returns to the Senate.Question resolved in the affirmative. 18:24:0026292Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to Senate amendment No. 19 and I move:That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative. 18:25:0026292Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I move:That amendments Nos. 2, 7, 11, 13, 21 to 27, 32, 36, 41 to 42, 44 to 46 and 56 to 61 be disagreed to and government amendments (1) to (24) be made in place thereof:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (line 3), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(2) Schedule 1, item 12, page 10 (after line 33), at the end of subsection (4), add: ; (c) if a request for review has been made within 90 days after the receipt of a notice issued under subsection 1229(1)—90 days after the day on which an authorised review officer makes a decision in respect of the request. (3) Schedule 1, item 14, page 12 (line 23), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(4) Schedule 1, item 16, page 13 (after line 16), at the end of section 1230C, add: (2) Subject to subsection (3), a debt due to the Commonwealth under this Act is recoverable by means of a method mentioned in paragraph (1)(d) or (e) only if the Commonwealth: (a) has first sought to recover the debt by means of a method mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c); and (b) can establish that the person who owes the debt: (i) has failed to enter into a reasonable arrangement to repay the debt; or (ii) after having entered into such an arrangement, has failed to make a particular payment in accordance with the arrangement. (3) If the Secretary determines that the recovery of the debt by means of a method mentioned in paragraph (1)(a), (b) or (c) is not appropriate having regard to the circumstances of the case, paragraph (2)(a) does not apply in respect of the recovery of the debt.(5) Schedule 1, item 34, page 18 (line 16), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(6) Schedule 1, item 34, page 18 (line 18), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(7) Schedule 1, item 34, page 18 (line 22), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(8) Schedule 1, item 34, page 18 (line 25), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(9) Schedule 1, item 34, page 19 (line 2), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(10) Schedule 1, item 34, page 19 (line 11), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(11) Schedule 1, item 34, page 19 (line 13), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(12) Schedule 3, item 3, page 23 (line 15), at the end of subsection (4), add: ; (c) if a request for review has been made within 90 days after the receipt of a notice issued under subsection 77(1)—90 days after the day on which an authorised review officer makes a decision in respect of the request.(13) Schedule 3, item 5, page 25 (line 8), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(14) Schedule 3, item 17, page 29 (line 12), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(15) Schedule 3, item 17, page 29 (line 23), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(16) Schedule 3, item 17, page 29 (line 29), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(17) Schedule 3, item 17, page 29 (line 33), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(18) Schedule 3, item 17, page 30 (line 2), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(19) Schedule 4, item 9, page 37 (lines 3 and 4), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(20) Schedule 4, item 9, page 37 (line 6), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(21) Schedule 4, item 9, page 37 (line 8), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(22) Schedule 4, item 9, page 37 (line 24), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(23) Schedule 4, item 9, page 38 (line 19), omit “1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001”.(24) Schedule 4, item 9, page 39 (after line 2), at the end of the item, add: (6) The amendments made by items 5A and 8A apply to: (a) debts that are owed at the commencement of 1 July 2001; and (b) debts that arise after that time.Senate amendments Nos 2, 11, 21 to 27, 36, 41 to 42, 44 to 46 and 56 to 61 were government amendments to change the commencement date to 1 April 2001. As that date is no longer feasible, we substitute government amendments to provide for a new commencement date of 1 July 2001. Senate amendments Nos 7 and 32 further clarify the time in which interest cannot be charged. Where a person seeks a review of a decision to raise an overpayment, interest cannot be incurred on that debt until three months after the day on which an authorised review officer makes a decision in respect of the review requested. The reference to three months is inconsistent with the current approach. These Senate amendments should be opposed and the government amendments substituted to refer to a period of 90 days. Amendment No. 13 refers to the arrangement debtors need to enter into with Centrelink when an overpayment has occurred. Prior to Centrelink being able to commence legal proceedings and garnishee action to recover a debt, Centrelink must first establish that the debtor has failed to enter into an arrangement to repay the debt. At present the amendment does not require the debtor to actually be complying with the arrangement. The government amendment clarifies the operation of the provision by providing that legal proceedings and garnishee action are also available in circumstances where, having entered an arrangement to repay the debt, the debtor fails to make payments in accordance with that arrangement. I table the supplementary explanatory memorandum. 18:27:0026294Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—The opposition will not oppose these amendments, as they are largely technical.Question resolved in the affirmative.Sitting suspended from 6.27 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills26294R113526294Debate resumed from 2 April, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.upon which Mr McClelland moved by way of amendment:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“the House(1) condemns the Government for introducing a bill which is: (a) discriminatory and socially divisive; (b) a completely inadequate response to the complex ethical, social and economic issues involved in the development and use of assisted reproductive technologies; and (c) totally ignores other areas involving the care and upbringing of children where similar issues and principles are raised; and(2) calls on the Government to implement the strong and unanimous recommendations of the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council to establish a national framework to regulate the provision and development of assisted reproductive technology (ART) services which should include: (a) mechanisms to evaluate, assess and prioritise the provision of ART services, including providing necessary criteria to protect, as a primary consideration, the interests of children who may be born from the use of ART as well as the interests of donors and those persons seeking to use ART; (b) measures to ensure that any child born as a result of the use of ART is able to identify and locate his or her biological parents; (c) adequate facilities and resources for medical practitioners to obtain expert advice and guidance on the complex ethical, social and economic issues involved in the use of ART; and (d) procedures to monitor and review the use of ART to ensure that the benefits of ART to participants are balanced with the interests of society as a whole”.20:00:0026294Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—I rise to speak to the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. Nothing is more precious than a child. I am sure that all of us remember the feeling when we held our newborn child in our arms. As a parent, I know that having a child provides a real purpose to life and is, frankly, a lifetime joy. For parents, the creation of a safe, protective, happy and supportive environment for our children is one of the main aims in our life. I fully agree with the Prime Minister who, when announcing this legislation on 1 August last year, said:This issue primarily involves the fundamental right of a child within our society to have the reasonable expectation, other things being equal, of the care and affection of both a mother and a father. That is the motivation behind this bill. This bill restates a simple, truly family orientated philosophy that is now extended to the unborn child—that every child needs a mum and a dad. The need for this bill arose from a decision of the Federal Court on the matter of McBain v. The State of Victoria. The court held that Victorian legislation restricting IVF treatment to women who were married and living with their husbands or who were in what was considered a permanent de facto relationship was inconsistent with the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act and was invalid under section 109 of the Constitution. Both the Solicitor-General and the Chief General Counsel agreed that this Federal Court decision was a correct interpretation of the existing law. So the government was faced with allowing matters to rest there or moving to validate the Victorian legislation. I am delighted to see that it did the latter—to endorse and support in legislation the rights of the states to decide such matters. The Commonwealth does not have the constitutional power to legislate directly in relation to the availability of IVF. This is rightly a state matter. This bill, though, is to enable the government to go as far as it can to ensure that pro-family legislation exists which will allow states to pass legislation similar to that in Victoria. The Victorian case involved a single woman who approached Dr McBain, a gynaecologist specialising in IVF, to provide her with IVF treatment. Dr McBain concluded that he was prevented from doing so on the basis that the woman was single and not in a de facto relationship. He then appealed to the courts. The reaction to the intervening debate, the decision to legislate and the Prime Minister's announcement was quite predictable. The usual suspects were out in force. The feminist lobby was outraged, the civil liberties groups were up in arms, and the antidiscrimination protesters came to the fore. Allow me to quote from some of these suspects. The Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Susan Halliday, referred to the amendment as `an eroding of our human rights framework'. The President of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Professor Alice Tay, said:This legislation undermines the sex discrimination regime that has been in place for 16 years to ensure equality of access to services irrespective of people's marital status. I draw the House's attention to the clinical use of the word `services'. It would seem that the President of HREOC classifies the creation of life and the rights of the child resulting from IVF in the same light as the right to have a drink in an all-male club or buying a sports car.Then there is the multitude of voices crying that we have breached one international convention or another. But I find it odd that none of them have quoted, as yet, Article 8 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child which extends to children having the right to preserve their identity, which means knowing who your mother and father are and knowing where you come from. I have not heard the critics acknowledge that a child has the right to know his or her biological heritage. Besides the emotional security and the sense of identity with one's place in the world, it may be important in identifying genetically inherited health risks. The usual suspects dare not talk about Principle 6 of the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, which states that a child:... shall wherever possible grow up in the care and under the responsibility of their parents.Please note the use of the word `parents' in the plural in this declaration. It seems to me that those railing against this bill about alleged human rights violations and making assertions about the government's denial of these rights are very carefully selective when they come to quoting various international declarations and covenants.My decision to support this legislation was welcomed by my electorate. I am never backward at coming forward in my electorate. People know where I propose to stand on legislation. I make no secret of my views and I canvass very widely the views of my electorate. I encourage people to write to me and to contact the office. I want to have an interactive relationship with my electorate. I am their representative and I want them to let me know. My tacit support for this legislation and my request for the electorate to contact me brought an overwhelming response. My electorate is widely supportive of the Prime Minister's action and of this legislation. I received messages of support from the Australian Family Association, Right to Life, the Catholic Women's League, the Australian Christian Coalition and virtually every church denomination in my constituency. But more than that, and most importantly, I received dozens, scores, even hundreds of messages of support from ordinary, hardworking decent citizens who felt strongly about the Prime Minister's stand on this matter. There is no doubt in my mind that this legislation is fully supported by the vast majority of people in my electorate. I will be very interested to see the reaction of those on the other side because I do not think that the views of ordinary, decent, hardworking Australians vary greatly across our great country. We do have differences, but generally people are of the same mind. I would be very surprised if people in the electorates of Capricornia and down in the southern areas of Brisbane—in Dickson and so on—are not concerned by the implications of the opposition's stand on this legislation.The simple fact is that a child needs a mum and a dad. They need to know mum and dad to the extent that they can and to develop a relationship with mum and dad. There is a wealth of research available which shows that a child who is brought up in a traditional family—and I accept that not every family is able to offer that—with a mum and a dad are happier, healthier and more well adjusted to deal with life as they grow up. I do not believe that a single woman or a woman living in a same-sex relationship and having an IVF procured child has the capacity to provide for the whole range of a child's emotional needs.Let me say quite clearly this is not a judgment on those sole parents who, through divorce, death or other unforeseen circumstances, find themselves raising children alone. I see many sole parents in my electorate. They try very hard under difficult circumstances and generally do not actively seek or anticipate being in a position of raising a child or children alone. However, they do so, and they do it to the best of their ability. This is not a judgment directed at those sole parents. However, to have conceived a child or to see a child conceived knowing that that child will never have an interaction and a relationship with their father, no matter how spurious or how distant that relationship may be, is not, I believe, a decision that members of parliament or the community should make.Frankly, if it is the choice of a woman to remain single or live in a same-sex relationship then they have abrogated their right to taxpayer assisted conception. If one needs an example of where an unfettered right of access to IVF can lead then one should look no further than a debate that was aired on the Sixty Minutes program in August of last year. I was invited to participate in this debate. Regrettably, I live a very long way away from the television station and prior commitments prevented me from partaking in the debate. But I did recommend that our National Party Senator Julian McGauran participate, and he did, and I thought he made an outstanding contribution.What we saw there was the end result of this type of what I guess one could call largesse—indifference?—on the part of the Labor Party in opposition. It is always interesting. I am a mathematician, and we are always taught to extrapolate to the final degree where things take you. I think that in these very intricate social debates that is always the factor that we have to consider: where will this take us? When you look at the individual case there is always an argument, but when you extrapolate and look at where the particular social engineering is going to take us, that is when the truth comes home. I thought that on this documentary by Sixty Minutes we had a very clear idea of where this uninhibited, uncontrolled view of any citizen to the rights of taxpayer funded IVF would take us.What we saw that night on Sixty Minutes was the vision of a 22-year-old gay male who intends to donate sperm to fertilise an egg provided by his platonic lesbian girlfriend, the fertilised egg to be implanted in his mother for her to bear the child which he would then raise whilst continuing to work full-time as a trainee manager in a fast food outlet. His only justification for this extraordinary proposal was that he desperately wants a child. I have to say to the House that I do not doubt his sincerity, but I really do ask whose rights we are arguing here. Are we arguing the rights of a young gay male of 22 to have a child that he believes he desperately wants, or are we looking at the rights of that child? I think we have to look at the rights of that child. The truth of the matter is that a child does have the right to mum and dad, no matter how fractured, how difficult, how torturous the relationship with their parents may be. People often say there is no standard traditional family anyway. That is quite true. There are many traditional families that fail, as there are many non-traditional families that are successes. Nonetheless, a child should have the expectation that the community and the parliament will support them in their desire to know their mum and dad, to know their parents and to establish a relationship—no matter how tenuous, rich or whatever it may be—with their parents, and that means mum and dad. Children are not the latest designer icon; they are not an accessory. Children are our future, they are our investment in the next generation and they are people in their own right. I do not want the children of the next generation to look back at us and say, `You failed us. At a time when we weren't even born—when we were without voice—you failed us.'I feel very strongly about this legislation because I think that the voiceless, the vulnerable and the unheard have a place in this parliament. I do not think that noisy lobby groups, minority groups and so on should be allowed—regardless of the political party that they exploit—to have their voice heard above those who have no voice. So I am very pleased to support this legislation—I really am. I am very proud to support this legislation. And I trust the wider community. It will be interesting to see what the final decision of the Labor Party is in the Senate. Let me say, too, that throughout Australia, if the Labor Party vote this down—if they vote down the right of the states to decide such matters; if they support propositions such as a 22-year-old gay man deciding that his mother will carry the fertilised egg of his lesbian friend because he has a designer desire for a child; and if that becomes known in the wider community in the forthcoming federal election—we are on the side of the unborn, of the voiceless and of the community values.I want to talk about the IVF program and the enormous amount of taxpayers' money that supports it. It is not there as a plaything for any man or woman who has a passing fantasy of being a parent. As I said, children are not a designer label commodity; they should not be the latest fad. A child is another living human person. They have a need of two parents and they have, despite their circumstances, a need to know both parents and to know that both parents love them and care for them beyond having donated an egg or sperm. They need to know that they are cared for in a nurturing and supportive home. They need to know their mum and dad. As I said, not every child has the opportunity to live with mum and dad or perhaps to have the ideal situation, but they need to know that their mother and father cared for them when they were conceived and wanted them when they were conceived; that they were not part of some, I guess, clapped-out 1960s designer idea of what a child should be. A father figure will never replace a father; no matter how distant he might be, no matter how flawed the relationship or how enriched and nurturing it might be, a child needs to know that mum and dad were there.I will be promoting this bill and the government's stand on this issue and I commend the Prime Minister. Again, the Prime Minister absolutely understands those hardworking, decent Australians that have a real concern about the family unit and the future of our children. I will be promoting this bill, not only throughout my electorate but throughout Queensland. I commend this bill to the House. 20:20:0026298Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I am pleased to stand up here tonight to speak to the amendment which has been moved by the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Barton, and to speak against this Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000. This bill amends the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act 1984 to enable the states and territories to legislate to restrict access to assisted reproductive technology services on the basis of a person's marital status. Section 22 of the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act prohibits discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the grounds of sex or marital status. The Sex Discrimination Act defines marital status as the status or condition of being `single, married, married but living separately and apart from one's spouse, divorced, widowed or the de facto spouse of another person'. The Sex Discrimination Act has been around for 17 years and this Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill seeks to roll that act back.Victoria was the first jurisdiction in Australia to legislatively restrict access to IVF and other assisted reproductive services. In 1995 the Victorian Infertility Treatment Act was introduced. Section 8 of that act currently provides: (1) A woman who undergoes a treatment procedure must—(a) be married and living with her husband on a genuine domestic basis; or (b) be living with a man in a de facto relationship.(2) Before a woman undergoes a treatment procedure she and her husband must consent to the carrying out of the kind of procedure to be carried out. (3) Before a woman undergoes a treatment procedure—(a) a doctor must be satisfied, on reasonable grounds, from an examination or from treatment he or she has carried out that the woman is unlikely to become pregnant from an oocyte produced by her and sperm produced by her husband other than by a treatment procedure; or (b) a doctor, who has specialist qualifications in human genetics, must be satisfied, from an examination he or she has carried out, that if the woman became pregnant from an oocyte produced by her and sperm produced by her husband, a genetic abnormality or a disease might be transmitted to a person born as a result of the pregnancy. Therefore, in Victoria three eligibility criteria must be satisfied for treatment: marital status, the consent of the woman and her husband or de facto husband, and infertility or the risk of genetic abnormality or disease. The McBain v. The State of Victoria decision in the Federal Court invalidated parts of this section, and that decision is the basis of the bill. South Australia and Western Australia also have legislation restricting access to assisted reproductive treatment.In March 1997 the Commonwealth Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission awarded damages to three Victorian women in long-term de facto heterosexual relationships who had been refused access to IVF treatment solely on the basis of their marital status. As a result of this case, the Victorian legislation was amended, as I have just detailed, to permit both legally married and de facto heterosexual couples access to fertility services.I will outline the McBain case. John McBain, a Melbourne gynaecologist specialising in reproductive technology, was consulted by Lisa Meldrum. Lisa was a single woman wishing to conceive through IVF, using donor sperm. Dr McBain was prohibited by Victorian law from administering IVF treatment. If Dr McBain had provided Ms Meldrum with IVF treatment he risked being charged with a criminal offence with a penalty of up to four years imprisonment—four years for helping a woman who was infertile have her own child. Dr McBain commenced proceedings in the Federal Court, seeking a declaration that the Victorian legislation was inconsistent with the Sex Discrimination Act and hence inoperative by virtue of section 109 of the Constitution, so that he could lawfully provide treatment to Ms Meldrum. Let us go back to August last year when the government first introduced this bill. As has been mentioned before in this debate, the government were running scared. At the time, the Labor Party was having its national conference in Hobart and developing policies and statements of national importance. The government knew this and wanted to throw a bomb in the works. So what did they do? They came out and said that they were going to roll back the Sex Discrimination Act and that they were going to discriminate against women on the basis of their marital status in relation to IVF treatments. This was a knee-jerk reaction from a government in panic mode. These issues are highly complex, highly emotive and very difficult.Since 1996, there has been a unanimous recommendation of the Medical Ethics Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council that there is a need for a national framework to address these complex issues, and that is what Labor have proposed in the amendment we have moved to the motion for the second reading. I believe the government is playing politics with moral judgments. In an article published in the Newcastle Herald in August last year, local journalist Maureen Fitzhenry addressed this issue in relation to a lesbian couple who gave birth to beautiful triplets. Talking about their story, she said:What is discrimination? Treating people differently under the law because of their marital status or sexual orientation is obviously one definition.But John Howard wants to add a rider: `Except when they want to use medical technology to get pregnant.'Then, somehow, this is not discrimination any more.Instead, such a move would merely protect the `rights' of children. And those children, says Mr Howard, should be able to expect the affection and care of both a mother and father.That would be nice, of course. `Other things being equal,' Mr Howard curiously adds.We have heard a lot about other things being equal in this debate over the last few days. There is obviously clear recognition on the part of the Prime Minister that most of the time all things are not equal. The article continues:He's talking about the chance that things may not be equal if the father is an alcoholic who belts the children or if the mother is a lunatic who screams at them all day long. Then one parent, or a parent and grandparent, an older sister, or a couple of spinster aunts are acceptable guardians. The government can't control these things. It cannot pass a law that stops men from being violent or erases mental illness and drug abuse. It cannot dictate, with any hope of success, that all people be nice to each other. It also cannot dictate that all people be heterosexual. ... ... ...But John Howard is playing politics that really have nothing to do with whether children born to a lesbian couple or a single mum will grow up surrounded by love and support.He's simply making a statement about the morality of homosexuality without actually coming right out and saying it.To put this into context, when the Prime Minister was opposition leader in 1987, he insisted that the coalition vote against equal employment opportunity for women. In that same year, as opposition leader, the Prime Minister also vowed, if the coalition were to win office, to scrap the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, which was set up under the Sex Discrimination Act. We on this side of the parliament say thank goodness they did not. Over the past few years, there has been a term around of `wedge politics'. I believe this issue has the potential of playing a part in that abhorrent area of political life.James Murray, the religious affairs editor at the Australian, in an article on 31 October 2000 on the role of the churches in this whole debate, said:No one denies the right of the bishops to have an opinion or, indeed, as individual citizens, the right to express their views. But to act in concert as some superior body with the privilege of interfering on the grounds of their own teachings is a very dangerous way to go. It may prove highly counterproductive. Indeed, it was reported during the public debate on this issue that the Attorney-General, Mr Williams, argued in cabinet that it was wrong to pick and choose which issues to be moralistic about if antidiscrimination laws were to mean anything. In a press release from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission on 18 August, Professor Alice Tay, the president of the commission, said:This legislation undermines the sex discrimination regime that has been in place for 16 years to ensure equality of access to services irrespective of people's marital status.Susan Halliday, the Sex Discrimination Commissioner, said:This is the first time in the 25 year history of Federal anti-discrimination laws that the framework has been altered to reflect the social policy of the political party of the day.Professor Tay said that Australia should be concerned about any erosion of longstanding human rights frameworks. She also said:We have had a good reputation historically on gender discrimination protection and equality generally and should endeavour to maintain that standing and our achievements.In the HREOC submission, the commission expressed their concerns about the bill. They said that it undermines core domestic and international human rights guarantees, introduces uncertainty into the scope of human rights guarantees, introduces inconsistency of operation for women in different states and territories, has a negative impact on women, intrudes into the decision of individuals and families about reproduction, and fails to reflect the diverse range of family situations in which Australians currently choose to live. The commission recommended that this amendment bill be rejected in its entirety.I received many letters on this issue during those couple of months following the government's stated intention to produce legislation to roll back the Sex Discrimination Act, and one of my constituents, Ms Ena Abell from Garden Suburb, expresses concern much more eloquently than I ever could. In a letter to the Attorney-General, she says:I am a senior citizen (65yrs) and wish to register my concerns in relation to the recent announcement made by the Prime Minister of his intention to change the Federal Anti-discrimination Act to an Act of Discrimination against single women and lesbian couples.Remember, this is a 65-year-old woman. She writes:Being happily married for 43 years and producing three wonderful daughters who pursued professions after their university days and who have forged strong family ties, one could infer that we typify Mr Howard's “ideal” family type and for this I am very proud however, as our children left the nest I began to note the effects of social change upon their careers and lives. The subtle discriminations in the workplace against women's promotion and the damaging effects of male chauvinistic attitudes became most apparent. I soon realised that the gender discrimination I had fought throughout my university career had not been overcome but was alive and thriving a quarter of a century on!This brings me to the issue at hand. How dare the Prime Minister and his Cabinet perpetuate discrimination against Australian women! How dare they make “off the cuff” decisions without consulting those directly concerned. What do politicians know about the rigours of the I.V.F program? How can politicians possibly understand the feelings of a woman desperate to have and care for a child? When will men stop telling women what is good for them?She goes on:The Prime Minister stated again on television tonight “the rights of the children are a primary concern.” ... ... ...Please explain where my childhood rights were when the Government sent my father overseas in World War 2 and he consequently died in a P.O.W camp. I had to grow up in a single parent family and it was far from dysfunctional. Families are continually adapting to the changes in their environment and to be different in form does not mean dysfunctional.She concludes:As a liberal voter for 44 years I am appalled that is necessary to write this letter. I shall just have to hope that Mr Beasley is correct and that the Prime Minister has made this blunder because of his “tired and retiring” manner. Regardless, politicians would do well to realise that females make up 51% + of the population and are less prepared today to play the subordinate role. Yours sincerely, Ms Ena Abell.I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister did not make a blunder. This legislation is being debated in the parliament. But for your sake and for my sake I hope that I am not writing a letter like that to the Attorney-General or to the Prime Minister when I am a grandmother 25 or 30 years on. I hope that Australia will have come a long way by then.In response to a lot of these letters that I received, I wrote in the following terms:The Australian Labor Party is firmly of the view that winding back human rights, as the Howard government proposes, is divisive and sets a dangerous precedent. It will also do nothing whatsoever to address complex social and ethical issues associated with artificial reproductive technologies. As well as being fundamentally flawed, the government's legislation does absolutely nothing to regulate the difficult issues which arise in assisted reproductive technology. The Howard Government's motives in introducing this bill are open to question in circumstances where they did not even bother to appear in the McBain proceedings. By not appearing, they waived any right to appeal. In considering this issue, I invite you to reflect on two important questions: (1) Will the Federal Government's legislation regulate the provision of IVF and other forms of assisted reproductive technology? (2) Will winding back the Sex Discrimination Act protect the interests of children who may be born as a result of these technologies? The answer to both of those questions is clearly no. This bill does not address the complex moral, ethical, social and economic issues involved in the development and use of this technology. In contrast, the Labor caucus resolution of 15 August 2000 committed a future Labor government to developing a national framework to ensure that the whole of society is well served by the application of reproductive technology in accordance with the ethical and social values of the community. I conclude by reading that resolution:This Caucus notes that the Australian community has a legitimate interest in ensuring that the whole of society is well served by the development and application of assisted reproductive technology. In that context Caucus supports the strong and unanimous recommendation of the Australian Health Ethics Committee of the NH&MRC to the Federal Government to facilitate the introduction of complementary State and Territory legislation to ensure that this technology is used in accordance with the ethical and social values of the community. Labor will develop a national framework that addresses the interests of any children who may be born as a result of these technologies as well as the interests of the individuals, both women and men, who have recourse to these technologies. Caucus reaffirms that all Australians are equal before the law and that the right not to be the subject of discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status is a fundamental human right. In that context, Caucus opposes the Government's proposal to amend the Sex Discrimination Act to exempt State Laws restricting access to IVF and other fertility treatments on the ground of marital status. Such an amendment would do nothing to address the important underlying ethical and social values which are engaged by contemporary reproductive technologies.I am sure that after the next election we will have the opportunity to put into practice what we have discussed within our party and what we have consulted widely on in the general community. A Labor government under the leadership of Kim Beazley will implement this national framework, because as medical technology advances there are going to be many more issues where we face this particular dilemma and there really needs to be a framework to address all the questions that arise out of all of these issues in the years to come.20:40:0026301Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—The Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 received a lot of publicity and created a lot of smoke last year. Most of it was totally pointless and misrepresented the issues for cheap political gain. The Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill will amend the Sex Discrimination Act to allow states and territories to legislate to restrict access to any form of ART services on the basis of marital status. The Commonwealth has limited constitutional power to legislate in this field. It is consistent with the states' and territories' responsibilities in the provision of health and medical care and treatment that they be permitted to legislate in the area of ART as they consider appropriate. This legislation is not intended to reflect on the efforts of the many single parents in Australia who do an excellent job raising children under difficult circumstances. The issue primarily involves the rights of a child within our society to have the reasonable expectation, all things being equal, of the care and affection of both a mother and a father. The amendment will apply to state or territory legislation dealing with access to ART services. ART services are defined to mean `technology that is used to assist in non-coital fertilisation'. The main forms of ART include in vitro fertilisation or IVF, artificial insemination, gamete and zygote transfer and embryo transfer. Last year when the issue surfaced after the McBain v. The State of Victoria case, the homosexual lobby was quick to claim that access to assisted reproductive technology had suddenly become a right, as though this technology was on an equal footing with the traditional rights of association, speech and thought. Suddenly, every lesbian desperately wanted to become a mother and the Labor Party wanted to be there to help during delivery—and have Medicare pick up the tab. The original sex discrimination bill sought to enshrine in law the right of all Australians to live without being discriminated against. I am certain that all members and senators endorse the equality of all people in Australia. Equality is part of what makes Australia what it is. But this bill is not denying anyone a right, nor is it about stripping away a right. Let me make this perfectly clear: access to reproductive technology is not a right. Let me also make this perfectly clear: a child's access to a mother and a father, all things being equal, is a right. True heterosexual relationships often collapse and divorce is hardly a rare event. However, it is considered true beyond doubt that two parents provide a better upbringing for children than one and that the best model for raising children is by a man and a woman. This is not a revolutionary concept, but many were surprised last year when so many people supported the proposition.In all the excitement of this debate last year, when every single same-sex lobbyist suddenly found the urge within them to have a family, the so-called rights they spoke about were, without exception, selfish. There was scant regard for anyone else's right. I draw specific attention to the rights of the child and urge those opposed to this legislation to also consider the rights of the child. It should also be remembered that it is not the law that denies same-sex couples the ability to bear children; it is their lifestyle. They make the choice; they should be able to live with the consequences. No-one is being denied medical treatment for a medical condition. In an attempt to overcome the biological impossibility that they have imposed on themselves, the homosexual community has tried to gain access to assisted reproductive technology. This is where they begin talking about rights. But they cannot overcome one basic problem: it is not the law which is denying them access to children; it is their lifestyle.In choosing a same-sex lifestyle, homosexuals are, by virtue of biology, rejecting the possibility of having children. At this point they say, `We have the technology—let's use it.' I come back to the point, though, that these are not medically infertile people; they are lifestyle infertile. Their decision has created this problem and they want the rest of the Australian population to pay to fix their decision. That is, they want Medicare to foot the bill for their choice to be unable to have children. The hospital system is already under enough pressure without adding this costly social experiment to its burdens. Again, the same-sex lobby has shown its selfishness—the rights are only there for them and forget about the children, and by the way, `We don't even want to pay for this; everyone else can.' The only right in this debate which requires constant attention is the right of children to have access to the love of a mother and a father. What the original bill allowed, quite unwittingly, was access to assisted reproductive technology for single people without regard for the interests of the child. In the past year, however, the issue has moved beyond access for single people to the more emotive issue of access to assisted reproductive technology by homosexuals. The aim of the homosexual lobby was to paint itself as the victim of a heterosexual conspiracy. Let me say this again so that there is no confusion: this issue has nothing to do with homosexuality and nothing to do with the status of women. This is about families. The proof of this is in the support of the government for access to assisted reproductive technology for de facto couples.It comes back to what is best for the child. In making the exemption, the government is accepting that, for many couples, marriage is not an attractive option but they still meet all the criteria of being married except for the marriage certificate. This proves what we have been saying all along: this amendment is for children. This bill will help, as much as any bill can, to ensure that children have access to the care and support of a mother and a father. It is no coincidence that this is the model which has worked best for thousands upon thousands of years in providing the best quality of upbringing for children. The newly appointed Archbishop of Sydney, the Most Reverend Dr George Pell, probably said it best, and I quote him:Children have a right to be born into a family to know their mother and their father, and as far as possible be raised by them. Australian domestic law now says something very different.Archbishop Pell continued:This decision is one more example of the growing trend in our society to treat children as commodities: like the right of any person, single or married, to buy a car, there is now a right to buy an IVF child or, more strictly, to buy “assisted reproduction services”.Of course, Archbishop Pell is right. He is not the only member of the clergy to fight for the traditional Australian family. Let me quote from a letter from the Polish Christian Church which was sent to the Attorney-General, the Hon. Daryl Williams. It is dated 12 August 2000. It says in part:In our opinion IVF treatment should only be made available to married heterosexual couples where a natural form of conception is not possible for medical reasons. Society can recognise only such a couple as committed to staying together (by virtue of their marriage vows) and creating the proper environment for raising a family.As a society we have a common responsibility towards all the citizens of our country, including the unborn children. While they do not have a voice at the moment, we have to stand up for their rights. All children should have a right to a proper family, where they can feel secure and have a positive influence of both parents.Let me also quote from the Presbyterian Church of Eastern Australia. One of the comments that they made in their correspondence was:We recognise that In Vitro Fertilisation is a modern technique that can be used and abused. If all embryos which result from IVF are immediately restored to the woman's womb, and provided that the man and the woman who contribute sperm and eggs are husband and wife, then there is nothing in Scripture which would forbid such. IVF should therefore be only available to married couples and to those only who have a known “medical” reason hindering a natural conception.A letter from the Presbyterian Church of Victoria to the Hon. Daryl Williams says:Dear Sir,At its meeting held today, the Presbytery of Kilnoorat, representative of the Presbyterian Churches in South-West Victoria, resolved that I should write to you to encourage you to carry through the Prime Minister's intentions to amend the Federal Sex Discrimination Act, thus prohibiting single women (and by default, lesbian women) from receiving IVF treatment and/or artificial insemination using donor sperm.The Right to Life Association (NSW) Inc. also wrote a letter to Dr Michael Wooldridge which says very similar things. The view of many in this debate is that children are a right, like a car. Children are being treated like an accessory—the next step in a couple's personal development. It is as though people are saying, `Well, we have a house and car paid off; we've done some travel—hey, let's have some kids.' That is not what children are. Children are not a fashion accessory and they are not a political statement. One lesbian, however, who has taken her fight to the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal to receive fertility treatment, said on the 7.30 Report: I wouldn't deny that having kids for me is a political thing to do, and I don't apologise for the political ideologies that direct my parenting.This is what it is all about. What she said is that her kids are political accessories to endorse her ideological position on this topic. I find this admission a shocking indictment of the push by lesbians to have government funded access to assisted reproductive technology.The first consideration when having a child should be the welfare of the child. In holding this view, I am not alone. MU Australia—part of the World Wide Mothers Union—last year circulated a survey which asked, among other things, the opinion of members of MU Australia towards single motherhood through IVF. According to Barbara Smith, Australian Coordinator of the Social Responsibility Department, the comment `Don't be so stupid' was frequently recorded next to the question. The implication was that parenting is difficult in normal circumstances without imposing such difficulties by choice. As the respondents to the survey said, `Raising children is not easy.' I would just like to quote a paragraph headed `Equal Rights?' from the MU Australia report:In reference to the Sex Discrimination Act which states that all people have equal rights, some strong views were exposed in regard to this IVF debate. An IVF child of a single mother by choice or same sex couple has no right to the father. Donor sperm men have no rights to any children. Equal rights come with responsibility as well as privileges. Rights of the intended child need to be taken into consideration otherwise the intended child has no rights and is just a commodity fulfilling the wants of people who are demanding their own rights. The christian view is for all children to have the right to nurture by a father and mother therefore `all people' must be understood to include any or all children born of the IVF process.Once again, it is quite clear to me that the majority of people out there are totally opposed to same-sex partners or single women devoid of a male role model having access to this program.As most of us in this place are parents and consider parenting to be probably the most important role we have undertaken, we know the importance and significance of parenting. We know the challenges of parenting, and the major challenge is providing the best for the child. I cannot believe that the interests of a child are best served by not having both parents. This is not to say, as I said before, that many single parents do not do a fantastic job raising children. However, most would agree that life is harder raising a child without the assistance of a loving partner, and the best model we know of is a mother and father. The primary consideration is the best model and the best way to raise the child. Nothing else matters in this debate. The child is supreme. The rights of the child are supreme—not the so-called rights of a vocal minority who want a living, breathing fashion accessory.The same-sex lobbyists are also seeking to pervert the historical link between marriage and the family. This link is firmly in the minds of the Australian people. The reason this link is indelible is that the Australian people know that this is what works. It works best for families, and it works best for children. In the long run it also works best for Australia. Archbishop Pell went so far as to call the Federal Court's decision `a massive social experiment on children'. You know what: he was right. We cannot allow a social experiment such as this to occur when the victims are not going to be those who want to indulge their vanity. It is going to be their children who bear the price, and we cannot allow that to happen.I cannot urge the parliament strongly enough to reject the arguments of those opposing this amendment bill. It will take courage for many in the Australian Labor Party to stand up against the vocal homosexual community and the lobbyists within their own organisation. The Labor Party have been the captive of vocal minorities for a long time. This is their chance to make a stand for the silent majority which supports neither the notion of assisted reproductive technology for single women nor the attack on families that this represents. I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the House for your indulgence in allowing me to speak to this bill. 20:57:0026305Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—At the outset let me say that under ideal circumstances a child needs a father and a mother to nurture and guide him or her through life, or at least that first vulnerable part of life. But life it is not ideal, and statistics show almost half the traditional marriages in Australia finish in separation and divorce. Ultimately, it is estimated that about one-third of the children born of so-called traditional marriages are destined to grow up with the dominant influence of just one parent, most often the mother. Despite these figures, there are those who would deny the facts and continue to believe that the two-parent family is a dominant feature of our way of life.Twenty years ago the proponents of the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 would have wanted to effectively restrict assisted reproductive technology only to women who were married and living with their husband. It would not have been available to women living in a de facto relationship, because the conservative beliefs of the time, held by those of the same ilk as they who promote this bill, treated de facto relationships with the same disdain as they would a single mother or—heaven forbid—a gay marriage today. Indeed, commentator Anne Henderson correctly observes:When IVF treatment ushered in the test-tube baby, conservatives opposed anyone using it. Now it's just lesbians and single women.... ... ...By all means have an IVF debate—but do it without blaming single women.I said at the outset I believe a child should have the right to share his or her life as much with a father as with a mother. But I am not so naive as to believe that this situation will always come about through traditional marriage or through a de facto relationship. Nor do I believe a gay couple bringing up a child is ipso facto any more or less stable than any other relationship. Much rubbish has been said and written about the special care and love a gay couple might bring a child, whether that child is adopted or the result of ART. Equally, the traditional family is no guarantee of automatic love and guidance.At the end of the day, this argument about the access to IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies is about the rights of individual women to have what they who wish to access this technology regard as their birth right—giving birth to a child—yet little has been written or said about other rights in this equation, the rights of the unborn child and the rights of the father. Should a male donate sperm with no provisos, then I guess he surrenders his rights as a father. Yet the product of that sperm and egg, the child, may eventually have another opinion on that. My concern in all of this is the long-term benefit to society of bringing, to all intents and purposes, fatherless children into the world. In a Sydney Morning Herald article last year, commentator Bettina Arndt highlighted an earlier generation of fatherless children. She states:The same journalists who churned out tear-jerking articles on the lost children of adoption are now championing the rights of single women and lesbians to medically assisted motherhood, conveniently overlooking the fact that most of these children will be similarly condemned to a lost family history. Arndt goes on to say in that article:Surely a child raised in these circumstances is given a very clear message that fathers are irrelevant. Maybe and maybe not. But there is absolutely no doubt about one thing—as another article by gay actor Julie McCrossin points out:What are uppermost are the interests of children rather than those of women.Arndt further cites the statistics showing the risk of abuse for children growing up in a household where the male is other than their natural father—a de facto relationship—and how children from a two-parent family have far fewer mental health and behavioural problems. I will have to trust Ms Arndt's research here, but I acknowledge her professionalism and thoroughness in other works of hers I have read. We are really debating the rights of the individual adult against the needs of children: the need to be cared for by both natural parents and the need, indeed the right, to know the identity of both parents. I wonder how far we can take this `child on demand' philosophy. Surely the IVF technology was originally conceived—if that is the word—to enable infertile couples or those with medical conditions precluding normal fertilisation through intercourse to produce a child. It has been legitimately asked whether anyone should access the Medicare system for such procedures unless that procedure was for such a couple or such a condition. That is part of the wider debate that we should have on this issue rather than embarking on this divisive legislation.The shadow Attorney-General has provided me with a copy of part of the code of practice issued by the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and I thank him for that. Under the general obligations of this code, centres are required to take all reasonable steps to ensure people receiving treatment and any children resulting from it have the best possible protection and that centres must also take account of the welfare of any child who may be born. One of the conditions of the issue of a UK treatment licence reads:A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father) and of any other child who may be affected by the birth.The UK HFE legislation does not exclude any category of woman from being considered for treatment. However, centres are required to note in their procedures the importance of a stable and supportive environment for any child produced as a result of treatment.That brings me to the research included in the explanatory memorandum on this bill. It notes the entirely justifiable criticism that the proposed amendment is designed to remedy a problem which is statistically insignificant, while showing no real regard for the very real problems faced by large numbers of children. It further adds that, while perhaps 150 single women across the whole of Australia may be interested in access to IVF or donor insemination, approximately one million Australian children currently live in single parent families. I believe that the government has brought no credit on itself in this debate—both within and outside of this chamber—and in the manner in which this bill was introduced and then delayed for amendment. The bill has been reintroduced in the pre-election run-up more for blatant political purposes than from any motivation to rectify a perceived legislative anomaly that in the end affects so very few.Several months ago, Julie McCrossin summed it up. She said:I think he's—that is, the Prime Minister—... on a cynical political exercise to distinguish himself from the Labor Party at a time when Liberal and Labor are almost indistinguishable in areas such as tax, health and education.This has all the hallmarks of wedge politics, driving a divisive issue into the electorate at a time when we need to be concentrating on far more important matters, social and economic. The failure of the Prime Minister, dictated by political expediency, to allow a conscience vote on what is clearly a moral and ethical issue is a sign that there is no intention for this matter to be properly debated on its merits. The failure, too, of the opposition leader to similarly allow a conscience vote is equally to be condemned. With the denying of such a vote, this has become simply a political debate rather than a proper social issue debate such as was held on euthanasia. This is not a black-and-white issue; it is not a yes or no party line issue. It is a moral and ethical issue. This bill was initiated in the middle of last year's ALP national conference, to serve the political purpose of the government to divert attention from national scrutiny of the alternative government's policies—or lack of them. Yet it was presented as a first order moral issue by a Prime Minister who claims the high moral ground but who disappoints terribly on moral issues of far greater importance and urgency. While this debate is, after all, about women seeking to give birth with the expectation that those children will indeed be cared for and are genuinely wanted, there is another debate out there about children—young people incarcerated in the Northern Territory and Western Australia; some to die in or outside jail because society does not value them enough. As well, we have the children, now grown up, who also cannot find their parents—the stolen or removed children of past Aboriginal generations. No rushed legislation for them, but unseemly haste to get in place legislation allegedly to protect the rights of unborn children who, despite the problems they might face in later life—and whomever their parents are—are most likely to have a life far superior in quality to those Aboriginal kids of this generation and those past, for whom this parliament has so much unfinished business.This whole debate reeks of hypocrisy; it reeks of political opportunism. The Prime Minister is quite happy to allow this parliament to interfere in the Northern Territory's euthanasia laws, yet claims himself a federalist on this amendment, and no doubt on his position regarding states rights and mandatory sentencing laws. The fact is that, to suit a political agenda, this amendment does wind back the Sexual Discrimination Act, and that is a dangerous precedent. It deliberately targets lesbians and single women as less than worthy members of the kind of utopian, three-fronter, red-brick, Holden-in-the-garage, wife-at-the-Hills-hoist society that this Prime Minister and some of his colleagues still cling to.The irony is that late changes to this amendment bill have ensured that these IVF procedures will not be denied to people living in a de facto relationship. The very term `de facto' I am sure still sends shudders of distaste down the backs of those who have cooked up this political exercise, for deep down they would, if they were consistent about family values, deny these procedures to those who they would still describe—behind their hands—as living in sin.This debate should be about IVF, not about blaming single women, as Anne Henderson rightly observes. This debate should not be about whether a lesbian woman makes a good mother or whether a single woman is any worse a mother than a de facto female partner or a wife, should that wife be a partner in one of just 50 per cent of marriages that survive. This debate should, as the Attorney-General's second reading speech says, be about the rights of the child to have a reasonable expectation of the care and affection of both a mother and a father. That is an ideal. I am an idealist. But this bill does not achieve that. It does not establish a regime that protects the rights of the individual yet to be born. Only a properly considered national framework would do that. The bill is about wedge politics, and it is bad law. People who might be affected should this bill pass can still access the technology in other states. My instincts—and, I am confident, those of most in my electorate—would support anything that fosters a father-mother relationship and a conventional family setting. But those sentiments and arguments against this bill are recorded in this speech, and I believe they reflect the views of many who have responded to me on this issue in the electorate. While, as I said, I am strongly in the corner of the rights of the unborn child to have access to his mother or father—indeed, to be brought up by both, ideally—I am not about to support this bill, which is more about the politics of division than it is about unity, more about targeting minorities than about protecting the interests of unborn children. I believe we need a widespread debate in this country on the issue of IVF, adoption and the welfare of children within traditional and non-traditional families. Then perhaps the real facts, not just idealism, will come out. I am happy to support the opposition amendment, which, in its second part, reflects my call for a national framework to regulate ART services. Perhaps the UK HFE act could be the blueprint for such a framework. In the absence of such a framework, we should never, as some kind of political quick fix, embark on the regressive path of rolling back antidiscrimination laws. It is on that basis I reject this bill as bad law and will support the opposition amendment. 21:12:0026308Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I oppose the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 not so much for its content as for the means by which it has come before the parliament. This bill reflects the failing of process, the inability of the executive government to engage and involve the Australian people in the great moral issues of our time. Indeed, representative democracy is not good at handling moral issues. For morality to be of best use to society, it must be shared. It must come from a deep engagement between people. It must come from a dialogue and discussion about the development of public values and public morality. Here I am not talking about a consensus—one form of morality—but about a process of understanding. The great challenge for our society now is how to bridge difference, how to manage diversity, how to create a community of communities. It will not be done by a government standing and delivering its morality to a waiting public. It will not happen through the sort of debate that we are having in this place this evening. This parliament in effect is a rubber stamp for the morality of one person. The Prime Minister, Mr Howard, has decided on his moral values what should happen on this issue—the banning of IVF treatment for single parent and same-sex families—and this House is being asked to rubber-stamp that point of view. Along the way we have had members of parliament, most notably the member for Hume, try to impose their own values upon the rest of society. The member for Hume gave a quite fascist, dictatorial speech. In the end, who are we to try to tell people how to live their lives on such a personal and private matter as family life? Who are we to define what constitutes a good and loving family? I would have thought the role of the parliament was to open up the processes and the space by which the public can engage in a dialogue, a deep discussion, about these matters, about the way in which we can develop a shared morality across society. This reflects the challenge of modern citizenship. Modern citizenship is calling on people to salute many flags and to hold many allegiances, from the local to the global, and in their personal identities—racial, sexual and cultural allegiances. The only way this can be handled is to allow society itself to engage in the process of moral formulation, to engage in the dialogue and the exchanges between people that lead to a better understanding of the circumstances of others, to create a community of communities by allowing people to understand the virtues of and need for diversity. This bill is a perfect case study demonstrating the need for a new communitarian politics in Australia. What are the components of this case study? This is really a conflict between moral confusion and fast-changing technologies. With regard to the moral confusion, many people are asking what now constitutes a family relationship, what now constitutes a family, what are the norms and values by which we assess our own place in society and the institution of family. In my own seat of Werriwa 20 per cent of families have a single parent. Twenty per cent is not a tiny minority but a large group which should be respected. The stereotypical nuclear family in Werriwa is actually in a minority position; only a minority of families have two parents with a male income earner and children. So there is no stereotypical family type that we can moralise about as parliamentarians. It is for society itself to devise the dialogue and understanding by which a shared morality can emerge. With regard to fast-changing technology, we live in an era of enormous technological change and possibility, of which reproductive technology is but one part. This bill involves the clash of these two forces, moral confusion and fast-changing technology. But it is the wrong way to resolve that clash and tension by allowing the Prime Minister, one person in this country, to impose morality on everyone else. Morality must be shared. It must come from an engagement across society. It lies in the relationship between people; not the moral authority of government but the relationships between people in civil society. So I say that morality needs to be an inclusive rather than a divisive force in our society. On that basis, it must be shared. It must come from relationships, values and obligations between people. It is very much a job for civil society, not governments and markets. Modern politics has focused very much on the role of government and the role of market forces, and in the process it has overlooked the moral dimension. We live in an era of constant change and a great deal of confusion about the obligations that people hold to each other. What has happened to our families, what has happened to our communities, what has happened to our neighbourhoods, what are the responsibilities that we hold as citizens, what are our obligations to other people? These are the questions that Australians are asking every day. They are asking them every day and they want a deeper engagement, more information, more dialogue and more discussion about these issues, including the matter before the House this evening. They do not want a politician acting from on high to impose his or her moral code on everyone else. This is a deep paradox in our society, that so many more people are feeling economically prosperous but socially poor. They are wanting to define new relationships in common. They are wanting to share moral values across society—not a consensus but an understanding of the position of others and how that can be respected in the formal laws of the nation but also the moral codes of civil society. As I mentioned earlier, representative democracy is not good at handling these debates. It is a matter for society, it is a matter for people in discussion in communities, in families and in neighbourhoods. It is not a matter for the authoritarian role of executive government. The member for Fremantle, who is in the chamber, made an excellent point in her contribution to this debate yesterday evening. She said:The power of the majority has always been tempered by respect for the rights of others. ... We do not say, `Simply because the majority wants it to be so, it should be so.' We recognise that this very simplistic notion of democracy would indeed be tyranny.But in fact that is what we have before the House this evening—the tyranny of executive government, the tyranny of one person, the Prime Minister, imposing a moral code on all other Australians. This is the curse of modern government, that power has been concentrated in the executive. This House becomes a rubber stamp for the decision of the executive and we end up not with democracy but with tyranny.How do we answer the challenge set by the member for Fremantle? How do we build the respect of the majority for the situation of minorities? We do not build that respect by trying to define morality in this place alone. We build that respect through process—not by political decision making but by process, social process that leads to a position of shared understanding and of shared morality. The processes are all wrong, and if you try to understand the public distrust and cynicism about modern politics this is a big part of it. We all talk about the information age and a better educated society, but what does that mean? People want a say. They want an engagement with these issues on a continuous basis, not a vote every three or four years. They want a say on these matters on an ongoing basis. So the old politics has failed, and we need to find a new way of changing the nature of the political dialogue. We need to find new ways of creating the space and exchanges by which society can develop a shared morality and respect for diversity and for minority views. It is only through this process—creating the space for moral dialogue in civil society—that we can construct a community of communities in this nation. It is important to rethink the whole nature of politics. The days when one person, a prime minister, can think that he has the dictatorial power to define morality for all other Australians must end. Politics today must emerge as a civic conversation. Politics today must evolve into a moral dialogue. We need to create the forums and the space by which civil society can do its best work in engaging people in an understanding about each other. When it comes to family types, I believe the Australian people are longing for a debate on these matters and for a long process of civic conversation and moral dialogue. Public meetings, media forums, public surveys and deliberative democracy panels are some of the mechanisms by which we can engage people. We have had the time to do this; why has the political system hogged the dialogue ever since the middle of last year when this matter was first announced? We have had nine or 10 months—we could have opened up the whole matter for a great national debate and discussion on family types and on the use of fast-changing reproductive technologies. This is the root cause of modern cynicism about the political process. People are not silly—people are well-educated; they have access to mass information. They want to have their say; they want be involved in these burning issues. These are the matters of kitchen table discussion in Australian households; they are the matters being talked about over the fence. They are the matters being talked about in communities, but they are not the matters being heard and engaged with in the political system. They are not matters that we are engaging and fostering in a shared public dialogue. We are not listening, and we are not engaging in these debates.We need to find new ways of doing it. I am a great believer in the coming possibilities of direct Internet democracy, applying the new technologies to the enduring task of self-government, giving people the outlets and the opportunities to have their say. None of these new technologies nor the old technologies are perfect, but there are ways in which the parliament can change the public dialogue. There are ways in which we can build politics as a civic conversation. There are ways in which we can create an important moral dialogue. One of them is to recognise that politicians just have to let go of power. If democracy is to work properly in the information age, it must involve the devolution of power. We need to get into the habit of letting go—letting go of our right to prescribe moral codes for everyone else, letting go of some of the authoritarian practices of decades gone by. We must let go of these things and allow civil society to do its best work.My objection is really about process. This is not good legislation because it is the worst possible process with which to deal with a moral question such as IVF and family types. All we foster through bills such as this is ongoing public distrust and alienation from the political process. Representative democracy needs to get into the habit of letting go of power, of giving people the space and engagement by which civil society can define moral codes and understanding. I know this is hard. Every single person who comes into this place wants to grab hold of power. It is foreign to the instincts of representatives to let go of power, but this is what modern politics and all the technological trends are demanding. The whole point of the information age is to cut out the middleman, to disperse power and to disperse information and input. I urge upon the government at this late stage a rethink on this issue. We have had nine months and we should take another nine months to allow the public to engage much more. This is the great challenge. We all know in our electorates the extent of diversity and some of the suspicions it engenders. I mean, perhaps it is a reflex human condition to be suspicious about someone who is a bit different, a single parent, a same-sex relationship—not the same as those who regard themselves as being in the majority. How do we build bridges between social differences? How do we build bridges across diversity? We can only do it by allowing people to engage in discussions, having a deeper level of understanding in civil society, building the networks of dialogue and conversation by which people can get to know each other and understand the circumstances of strangers. That ultimately is the challenge of modern citizenship—to understand the circumstances of strangers, people we might not necessarily know, and to have respect for their situation, respect for their moral values and respect for the way in which they lead their lives. When it comes to families, we should have that respect but, most of all, we should change the nature of the political dialogue and rethink the way in which the parliament handles matters such as this. This is bad legislation and, most of all, it is bad in process. 21:26:0026311Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I add my voice in speaking against the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000, as proposed by the government. In so doing, I acknowledge that a number of speakers on this side of the House—the member for Barton, the member for Jagajaga, the member for Fremantle and the most recent comments of the member for Werriwa—have already covered a great number of the concerns that I have about this bill. I, too, am appalled at the way this legislation has come before the House and at the motivation that the government appears to have in bringing the legislation forward in the form that it has been put forward.I am appalled at their preparedness to misunderstand and misrepresent a group of people in the community, and misunderstand and misrepresent what it is that IVF offers to a number of families, the process it involves, the difficulties many people go through and the lack of its availability to many people within our community. As a young woman, and an unmarried young woman, and as one of an increasing number of young women in this parliament—more on our side of the House, I might say, than the other—I take personal affront to the hype that has been actively promoted by this government, and particularly the Prime Minister, about single women and about lesbian women, and the preparedness of the Prime Minister to think that these two automatically overlap and, in fact, can almost be used interchangeably. He seems quite prepared to equate the two and does not want to deal with a range of complex issues that should be debated in the community when we are talking about access to any form of assisted reproductive technology. What is most objectionable is that the issues that are of great community concern, as other members have already pointed out, are not dealt with in any way by this bill. The government does not deal with issues of family support or the rights of children. It does not even deal with accessibility to IVF in other circumstances. It is presenting a bill which is a cop-out; there is no more sophisticated way to put it. It is simply a cop-out to say, `We will pass legislation so that the states can make a decision about how they want to treat this issue. It is too hard for us. We happen to be the federal government and I happen to be the Prime Minister and leader of this country but I would really rather that somebody else made this decision. At the same time, I will pretend I am dealing with the issues that the community are concerned about—family values, rights of children and proper parenting.' It is entirely hypocritical and inconsistent for the government to take this approach. We all know it is discriminatory. It is certainly discriminatory to say, `We don't care that normally the Sex Discrimination Act would apply in the provision of medical services and access to medical services. We are not going to do anything that will stop a state saying that they can provide these services to people on any basis that they choose.' It is simply a myth that any social problem that the government so readily wants to point to is going to be dealt with by the Prime Minister's action in this legislation. Although they say they are going to deal with these issues of the family and the rights of children, the legislation, in the terms it is drafted, essentially allows a state to make any decision it chooses.It is not just about limiting access to IVF; it is about choosing who it is going to be available to. There is no reason why any state government, if they so choose, could not say that they would provide access to IVF not just to single or lesbian women but to women in any other situation. Why not provide it to a 16-year-old girl; why not to a 70-year-old woman? For that matter, why not say that it should be available only to married people if they have been married for more than 20 years? It is just ludicrous that the government thinks that they are doing anything to fix what they see as a problem by passing this legislation. They are actually just leaving it to the states. It is very difficult for me to understand why it is that your postcode should determine what sorts of rights you have as a woman in this community. Really, that is what the Prime Minister is saying he is quite happy to live with. I find that quite distressing. It is easy for us to compare other issues. It is a very controversial area and it is easy for the government to create some hype about it. But, when we talk about access to medical services, I think all of us agree that ordinarily they should not be provided in a discriminatory way. People might debate whether or not plastic surgery is a good thing. There are all sorts of reasons why we might say that it is or it is not, or that it is in some circumstances, but I think all of us would be horrified if a plastic surgeon were to say, `I will treat anyone as long as they are not Asian because I have an objection to treating anyone who is Asian.' We would say that that is a breach of the Racial Discrimination Act. We would find all sorts of other reasons that this should not be allowed, but for some reason we think it is okay to say that medical services can be provided in a discriminatory way if they are about assisted reproductive technology. That really is just ridiculous and is the thin edge of the wedge. Once we say that we can do it for this, I think a great many of us on this side of the House are concerned that the Sex Discrimination Act will be watered down for all sorts of other things.My electorate has a large population of lesbian women and gay men. Probably many of these gay men and women are unknown to their neighbours, to shop owners and to the schools that their children attend and, of course, they are children of others themselves. A great many of these people have written to me in the last six to nine months. Although there is only a short time available today, I would like to read into the Hansard a very moving letter that I received from a lesbian couple in my electorate. I should advise people that I am changing the names in the letter, as has been requested by the people who wrote to me. It is a good example. We can have the debate about the theory as much as we like, but until people understand that this affects real people who are committed to their children and to their family life we will always be allowing the Prime Minister and his government to slip into this inappropriate hype, marginalisation and abuse of other community members. The letter I received last year when this legislation was first on the agenda reads as follows:Dear Ms Roxon:I would like to tell you about my family. As I have listened to the standard of recent debate about IVF access for lesbian and single-mother families, I have become concerned about the tendencies to generalise and categorise which marginalise the experiences of specific people who happen not to conform to the conventional notions of the family. My partner, Jane—as I have said, I have changed the people's names in this letter—and I have been in a stable same-sex relationship for over 10 years. We are committed emotionally to each other, own our own house, share our finances, nurture each other's careers, et cetera. Out of our love for each other and our shared desire to parent children, some six years ago, we began the arduous journey towards conception. As this involved many trips interstate, first on a donor insemination program and then as problems emerged on a gift program, this required great commitment to the idea of a child just to get us through the huge emotional and financial investment involved. Fortunately for us, we were eventually successful and now have two wonderful little people living and growing with us. I am their biological mother and they have my partner's last name to make explicit their social family connections. We even went to the trouble of acquiring a Family Court order to again make explicit that our family consists of them, Jane and I. I have taken extended leave from my work to be at home with them while Jane has worked full time to support us. The children are part of a supported extended family on both sides, as well as a wide circle of friends, male and female, straight and gay, and are in every way enormously loved, looked out for and appreciated. It is hard not to feel deeply offended by much of the uninformed and homophobic nature of the public debate, nor are we man-hating, as some of the commentary implies. On the contrary, we are keen for our kids to make positive connections with male friends and relations, just as in general we are keen for them to know that the world is filled with so many different kinds of people, ways of living and possibilities.We think of our donor as a man who, perhaps casually, perhaps even altruistically, has given without strings to facilitate our little family. Our kids won't know that side of their genetics and in many ways I wish that there was potential access to that information for them if they wanted it. However, they do have what many children, more conventionally conceived, unfortunately lack: two parents who love each other and them and a stable, happy family life, an opportunity to grow up in what we see as an environment that fosters self-esteem, respect for others and a sense of fun and curiosity about the world.It is clear that these issues still have some way to run in the terms of their social and legislative consequences. I hope that you will be interested in our story and, as our local federal member, will incorporate our concerns into your and the Labor Party's responses on a national level.Yours sincerely,Dr Sue Costanzo.Again, the names have been changed. I think that is really a very moving letter which sums up what many of us on this side of the House have been trying to say: we need to be a little less ready to marginalise and discriminate against people who might be in the minority. We need to be a little bit more understanding about the commitment that people show to their children.I think we also need to be not quite so precious about this perfect ideal of a family life that the Prime Minister has. Many of us have not had the advantages of growing up in families with two parents—not because we are children of lesbian couples. There are others like me. My father died when I was young. I do not think that I have grown up in an inadequate family as a result of that and I take offence at the idea that somehow I have not been able to be a valuable member of the community because I have not had the model parenthood or family life that the Prime Minister thinks that everyone should be entitled to. I wonder, if he is so committed to that idea, how he seeks to provide that stable, loving and caring family life for everyone who is in the position of or has the misfortune of not having been part of it.It does not seem to me that this bill looks to deal with any of those issues which are much more pressing for the wider community. If he is so committed to family life, why does he not deal with the issues that are of most concern to families: maternal health and children's services, access and affordability of child care, family allowances and support, parenting support, risks of homelessness and drug use and the employment futures of many children within our community. Why are these not burning issues for the Prime Minister of this country? Why has he taken on his obsession simply in relation to single and/or lesbian women?Other speakers have already gone through the issues that we all believe are important to discuss. There are legitimate issues that are relevant for anybody, whether they are a heterosexual couple or others, in respect of IVF questions of donors and genetic history and privacy, questions that might well apply to children who have been adopted as well as children who have been born through other forms of assisted reproductive technology. These are much broader issues and should be debated properly and in a non-discriminatory manner. It really does defy belief that, in this day and age, the Prime Minister could pursue this sort of legislation. I hope that it does not meet with any success in the other place.21:38:0026313Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—There has been a great deal said in this debate about what the Sex Discrimination Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2000 does and does not do. Let me make it clear. The bill remedies a problem with the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 identified by the Federal Court in its decision in McBain v. The State of Victoria. In that case, the court held that Victorian legislation limiting access to assisted reproductive technology treatment to women who were married and living with their husband on a genuine domestic basis or living with a man in a de facto relationship was inconsistent with the Sex Discrimination Act and, as a consequence, invalid under section 109 of the Constitution. The bill does not regulate access to ART services directly. That is a matter for the states and territories, given their responsibilities for the regulation of the provision of medical care and treatment. Rather, the bill will ensure that the Sex Discrimination Act does not prevent states and territories from legislating to limit access to assisted reproductive technology services to married or de facto couples. The bill aims to ensure that, all other things being equal, a child conceived through artificial reproductive technology will be able to have the care and affection of a mother and a father. Of course, the Commonwealth could not expect to dictate that every child will be raised by a mother and a father forever, and would never presume to do so. But the government must do its best to try to protect the interests of children and families by ensuring that they can have the opportunity of the care and affection of both a mother and a father from the time of conception. It is not enough simply to say—as the opposition seems to be saying—that, as we cannot guarantee that a child will have a mother and a father for life, we should do nothing. If the Sex Discrimination Act can prevent states and territories from legislating to ensure children have that opportunity, as the Federal Court found, it should be amended to remove that impediment. The opposition has indicated that it will not support this bill. The detailed dissenting report of Labor Senators Hogg and Collins to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee's report on the bill shows that not all opposition members support the opposition position in relation to the bill. I am sure that their views reflect the concerns of many others. I know that they reflect the concerns of many in the community. The government urges the opposition to consider very carefully whether it is really putting first the interests of those who should be the centre of our concern—the children who may be born as a result of artificial reproductive technology services.Opposition members have criticised the bill for what it does not do. The member for Barton posed a number of questions about the effect of the bill. I have to say, with respect, that these questions demonstrate a lack of understanding among the opposition of the purpose of the bill and the context in which it arises, and the member for Barton's second reading amendment reflects this lack of understanding. Unlike the opposition, the Commonwealth recognises the proper role of state and territory parliaments in this area. This bill seeks to correct the operation of the Sex Discrimination Act following the ruling in McBain. It is the government's view that the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 was never intended to prevent the states and territories from legislating to restrict access to assisted reproductive technology services to women who are married or who are living in de facto relationships. The bill recognises that the Commonwealth has limited constitutional powers to legislate in this field. The state and territory parliaments have that legislative power. In fact, the bulk of the Commonwealth's legislative power arises under the external affairs power, along with a number of other minor aspects of domestic power, such as the corporations power. State and territory parliaments should be permitted to legislate in the area of assisted reproductive technologies as they consider appropriate and in a manner which reflects the views of the community in that state or territory. Therefore, whether a national code is needed is a decision for the states and territories rather than the Commonwealth. The proposal advocated by the member for Barton seems to imply that doctors should be permitted to decide who has the social and economic capacity to raise a child. Such a suggestion is obviously absurd, and one that it seems ludicrous to suggest that the states and territories would ever agree to. JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClelland—Great Britain has done it.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—Not in the way that you are suggesting. JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClelland—I have suggested precisely that that is a starting point.7V5Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS—You should have used different language. The member for Jagajaga was wrong when she said that the government had done nothing in relation to promoting national standards in this area. The member stated that in July last year the Australian Health Ministers Conference, including the Minister for Aged Care, noted a paper on options for the development of a complementary national regulatory framework for assisted reproductive technology. The member did not mention that, in doing so, the ministers acknowledged the importance of the issue and agreed to each jurisdiction individually working towards the regulation of assisted reproductive technology as previously requested by the Minister for Health and Aged Care. There is therefore no reason for the minister to raise other issues such as those addressed by the member, the states having agreed to work towards appropriate regulation. But those proposals do not obviate the need for or bring into question the appropriateness of this bill. In relation to what the bill does to protect the interests of children born as a result of assisted reproductive technologies, the amendments are clearly limited to the context of conception with the assistance of artificial reproductive technology. They are not fanciful; they are not unrealistic; they are not designed to ensure any outcome beyond a reasonable expectation, all other things being equal, that a child will be able to have the care and affection of a mother and a father by being conceived into a marriage or de facto relationship involving a man and a woman. The government has never claimed that the bill could protect children beyond this context. As the member for Herbert noted earlier, the member for Barton, in his contribution to the debate, completely misunderstood the issues that led to this bill being before the House and the issues considered in the McBain case. He suggested that one reason for the bill being before the House is that the government did not intervene in the case when it was before the Federal Court. The member for Barton could not seriously be suggesting that the government should have argued against an interpretation that both the Solicitor-General and the Chief General Counsel have advised is correct. As the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Barton must know better than that. However, for the benefit of the member for Barton, I should clarify this issue. This bill is not about correcting a judicial decision that the government believes to be wrong at law. Rather, it is about the government's view that the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 was never intended to prevent the states and territories legislating to restrict access to assisted reproductive technology services to women who are married or living in de facto relationships. The issue in McBain was one of inconsistency between a Commonwealth act and an act of a state. It is the standard practice for Commonwealth Attorneys-General not to intervene in cases regarding issues of inconsistency under section 109 of the Constitution in matters before a single judge. This is because the principles of inconsistency are well settled so that the issues in such cases usually revolve around questions of construction of state and Commonwealth legislation rather than questions of constitutional principles. This was the situation in McBain. One must assume that the member for Barton is merely posturing when he suggests that the government was negligent in its duty by not intervening in the case. The government remains committed to the objectives of the Sex Discrimination Act and to the elimination of the forms of discrimination that it covers. As stated earlier, it is the government's view that it was not contemplated that the Sex Discrimination Act would prevent the states and territories from legislating to limit access to ART services to women who are married or living in a de facto relationship. The amendment contained in the bill is confined to section 22 of the act and applies only in relation to ART services. The bill has no impact on the wider operation of the act and does not represent a winding back of the protection intended to be offered by the Sex Discrimination Act. The Sex Discrimination Act, like all antidiscrimination legislation, contains exemptions to the protection established by it. These exceptions are designed to strike an appropriate balance between competing interests. The amendments will establish an appropriate exception by ensuring that the states can legislate in the area of access to ART procedures. This bill is not about discriminating against single or lesbian women. The bill does not impose any restrictions on access to ART services; it merely enables the state and territory legislatures to limit access, if they choose, to married or de facto couples. This is consistent with the government's view that it is in the best interests of children that they have the care and affection of both a mother and a father. It is also consistent with the government's view that the Sex Discrimination Act was never intended to prevent the states and territories legislating to restrict access to assisted reproductive technology services to women who are married or living in de facto relationships.The proposed amendments do not allow state and territory governments to refuse a person access to ART on the basis that the person is the de facto spouse of another person. The Sex Discrimination Act defines a de facto spouse as: de facto spouse, in relation to a person, means a person of the opposite sex to the first-mentioned person who lives with the first-mentioned person as the husband or wife of that person on a bona fide domestic basis although not legally married to that person.Whether a de facto relationship exists between two people is a question of fact and depends on the circumstances of each case. Factors which have been considered relevant by the courts in considering whether a de facto relationship exists include whether or not a sexual relationship exists; the degree of financial interdependence and any arrangements for financial support between the parties; the ownership, use and acquisition of property; the procreation of children; the duration of the relationship; the nature and extent of the common residence; child care and support arrangements; sharing of household duties; the degree of mutual commitment and mutual support; and public recognition of the existence of the relationship. Any state or territory legislation that seeks to prevent de facto couples from accessing ART services or that imposes conditions on access by de facto couples that are not also imposed on access by married couples—for example, by requiring de facto couples to satisfy a minimum cohabitation period—will be inconsistent with the Sex Discrimination Act and will be inoperative.The government does not believe that the bill is inconsistent with Australia's international non-discrimination obligations. A differentiation in treatment will not amount to discrimination if it is based on reasonable and objective criteria and if it is for a legitimate aim that is not inconsistent with the purpose of the relevant treaty or convention. The bill aims to protect the right of a child within our society to have the reasonable expectation, other things being equal, of the care and affection of both a mother and a father. In the government's view, permitting limitations on access to ART services for this purpose is based on reasonable and objective criteria and is for a purpose that is legitimate and consistent with Australia's international obligations.The government is acting appropriately to ensure that states and territories are not prevented by the Sex Discrimination Act from enacting legislation to limit the availability of assisted reproductive technologies to married and de facto couples. If a state or territory chooses not to legislate in this area, the Sex Discrimination Act will continue to apply. In bringing forward this bill, the government is doing its part to protect the rights of children to have the care and protection, other things being equal, of both their mother and their father. I should mention that it is the case that the government opposes the amendment moved by the member for Barton. I commend the bill to the House. Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time. 26317Bill—by leave—taken as a whole21:56:0026317Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. I move government amendments Nos 1 and 2 together:(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 7 to 12), omit subsection (1A), substitute: (1A) Nothing in this section makes it unlawful to refuse a person access to, or to restrict a person's access to, assisted reproductive technology services if that refusal or restriction: (a) is on the ground that the person: (i) is not married (or, although married, is living separately and apart from his or her spouse); and (ii) is not a de facto spouse; and (b) is imposed, required or permitted by or under a law of a State or Territory (whether made before or after the commencement of this subsection).(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 19 and 20), omit “restrictedon the ground of the person's marital status”, substitute “refused or restrictedon the ground set out in paragraph (1A)(a)”.The first amendment addresses concerns about access to ART by de facto couples. It will amend proposed subsection 22(1A) to ensure that the bill does not permit state and territory laws to discriminate or to permit discrimination against de facto couples with respect to access to ART services. The proposed subsection 22(1A) of the bill as amended will ensure that the Sex Discrimination Act will not prevent state and territory laws from limiting access to ART services to married and de facto couples. In relation to married couples, it will also enable the states and territories to limit access to ART to those who are living together on a genuine domestic basis as Victoria currently does. The second amendment to proposed paragraph 22(1B)(v) is consequential upon the first and also corrects a minor drafting error. I commend the amendments to the House.21:58:0026317McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—We oppose the amendments in so far as to support them would give this bill any credibility whatsoever. The mere fact that these amendments are being moved indicates the trouble you get into as soon as you start to attempt to wind back human rights protections. This is the first time since 1984 that a government of the Australian people has attempted to wind back the protections of the Australian people. I believe, and the Attorney-General can dispute it, that the government was alive to the complications they faced when they introduced the bill. We were criticised when we pointed out, as early as 18 August, that this bill as introduced into the House permitted state governments to discriminate against de facto couples in the provision of assisted reproduction technology services. The government said that was not their intention and criticised us for raising the matter, saying that we were raising a furphy. Nonetheless, they then realised that they had to amend their own bill, bearing in mind that this bill purports to wind back or to exempt from the current protections contained in the human rights act certain classifications of women on the basis of marital status; namely, single women. They were then required to exempt from that exemption a definition of `de facto couples'. They were alive to that difficulty, I believe, as indicated by the fact that the Prime Minister, when interviewed on radio on 22 August 2000, was completely aware of the different definition of `de facto couple' that existed in South Australia and Western Australia. In both of those states there was a five-year qualification period—in other words, to preserve the operation of the Western Australian and South Australian law. The Prime Minister indicated in that interview on 22 August 2000 that how the states defined a de facto couple was, in his opinion:... a matter for individual States. The Prime Minister was alive to the fact of the complications of drafting this third exemption from an exemption in the context of important human rights protections. What happened when this issue was raised was that the proverbial hit the fan. A number of members, including on the government side—for instance, the member for Curtin—said how outrageous it was to place a value judgment on de facto couples and to exempt de facto couples from this IVF technology. But the government were still in a bind because—the Prime Minister being overseas—how were they to undertake this complicated drafting exercise? The answer was to wait until the Prime Minister came back. Paradoxically, as a result of the way this legislation is drafted, it will exempt from this exemption the definition of `de facto couple' as defined in the federal act, and there is no time limit qualification there. Paradoxically, this will actually extend the class of de facto couples in South Australia and Western Australia who will be able to access reproductive services, because it will, being a federal act of parliament, override those five-year qualification periods.I think anyone who has listened to what I have just said or, indeed, has just read what I have just said, will be shaking their head. The point that I am making is that this complicated exercise in attempting to draft exemptions from exemptions demonstrates just how unworkable and how dangerous it is when you start meddling with human rights protections for the purpose of social engineering. I think that the Attorney, quite frankly, is embarrassed about what he has done. The government itself has lost very talented people from the human rights branch of the Attorney-General's Department, primarily because of this legislation. I noted that women on the government side sat there with their heads down during this debate. There are many members disgusted with what the government is doing. The government is dividing the Australian community for blatantly political purposes, and it should, quite frankly, be ashamed. Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.26318Bill (on motion by Mr Williams)—by leave—read a third time.Tariff Proposals2631822:04:0026318Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:Excise Tariff Proposal No. 4 (2001)Customs Tariff Proposal No. 3 (2001)The tariff proposals which I have just tabled contain alterations to the Excise Tariff Act 1921 and the Customs Tariff Act 1995. Excise Tariff Proposal No. 4 (2001) and Customs Tariff Proposal No. 3 (2001) formally place before parliament changes to the rates of excise and customs duty on beer. These proposals relate to the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001 and Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001. These bills contain amendments to the rates of excise and customs duty consistent with the government's policy published prior to the 1998 election. However, the Australian Labor Party has determined on a policy of obstruction in the Senate and refuses to allow the implementation of the government's election commitments. In this regard it has been acting on behalf of breweries seeking to minimise their tax liability and obtain a windfall gain. This is another example of the Labor Party standing in the way of a government keeping its election commitments.The Australian Democrats have also stated their intention to vote against these bills insofar as they increase the excise and customs duty on draught beer to an extent that the price increases by more than 1.9 per cent as a result of the tax changes. As a consequence of the government being unable to secure its legislation, the government has reached an agreement with the Australian Democrats to reduce rates of excise and customs duty as they apply to draught beer, in order to secure the support of the Senate for the aforementioned bills. Amendments will be made to the rates for certain beer included in Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001 and Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001. The decrease in duty rates for certain beer packaged in an individual container exceeding 48 litres should be passed on by breweries immediately so that as from tomorrow the retail price of draught beer served over the counter in licensed premises will fall. These amendments are scheduled to take effect on and from 4 April 2001 and the lower rates of duty for certain beer will be legislated when the bills are passed and receive royal assent. Section 114 of the Excise Act 1901 and section 226 of the Customs Act 1901 are similar and relevantly provide that no legal proceedings in relation to an excise tariff alteration or customs tariff alteration proposed in the parliament shall be commenced before the close of the session in which that tariff alteration is proposed or before the expiration of 12 months after the alteration is proposed, whichever first occurs. By longstanding practice, these sections have been used as the underlying basis to allow collection of amounts of revenue in excess of the duty rates imposed by the Excise Tariff Act 1921 or the Customs Tariff Act 1995 at any particular time where a tariff proposal containing proposed alterations higher than those rates has been introduced in the parliament.Officers of the Australian Taxation Office, in relation to excise duty, and of the Australian Customs Service, in relation to customs duty, will accept payment of duty at the lower rates for certain beer, subject to the tariff proposals, until such time as the rates are legislated and the relevant bills receive royal assent. In this instance, amendments identical to the alterations proposed by the tariff proposals will be made to the relevant bills that are presently before the parliament. The government will take advice from the Australian Taxation Office on any compliance issues arising from the new excise tariff and, if necessary, seek legislative amendments to respond to these. A summary of the alterations contained in these proposals has been prepared and is being circulated. I commend the proposals to the chamber.22:09:0026319Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Forget the fancy titles and the waffle we have just heard. These are what constitute the beer backflip bills. This is a government that has been dragged—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I am loath to interrupt the honourable member but my expectation was he would move that the debate be adjourned.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—No. We are entitled to debate it forthwith, and we will. That was my understanding as to what the procedure was to be. This is a very important piece of legislation because it is another backflip by the government. It is more GST roll-back and it is something that the government said it would not do. It has been dragged kicking and screaming back into this place, again at the eleventh hour and again without detail so that we can properly scrutinise it. I want to say a few things tonight which will take us through to the normal adjournment period, but I expect that the bills will be held over until tomorrow and, hopefully, we will see the detail that the government has not so far given us.This is a big win for beer drinkers. Forget about this argument of it being a windfall for brewers. This is a big windfall for beer drinkers. They were told at the last election by the Prime Minister himself—not on one occasion but on a number of occasions—that, under his GST, the price of ordinary beer would not go up more than 1.9 per cent. 83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr Emerson—`There will be no more than a 1.9 per cent rise in the price of ordinary beer.'DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—That is what he said. The member for Rankin remembers this well, and so should the other side of the House. The Treasurer has been running around the country saying that this commitment was not made. `Read the fine print,' he said, `in our tax package, and you will see that it only applied to packaged beer.' In the fine print, it did. That is why the question was asked of the Prime Minister: `What does it mean for other beer?' The Prime Minister said, `It means, John'—John Laws—`that the price of ordinary beer won't go up more than 1.9 per cent.' Do the people at the table not think that draught beer is ordinary beer? If they do, let them go out to the pubs of the country and try to convince the people in there of that. The Prime Minister said, not once but on a number of occasions, `The price of ordinary beer will not go up by more than 1.9 per cent.' Then the government got re-elected and we saw a litany of broken GST promises. Petrol was one which they have been forced to backflip on. They also said that people over the age of 60—all people—would get a savings rebate of $1,000. Yet there have been many people in that category who have not received that either. This is one of a litany of broken promises which we are here correcting tonight. We welcome this measure as another backflip and we welcome it as more GST roll-back—something the government said it was not going to do. I just remember the words of the Treasurer on a number of occasions. This is the Baldrick of Australian politics, Peter Costello, the Treasurer of our nation, the one always coming up with the cunning plans as to how you can go to the electorate saying one thing, get elected and come into this place and try to get away with another. The Treasurer's last cunning plan was to try to tie the beer excise broken promise in with his capitulation on petrol and to try to blackmail Australian motorists into ensuring that the beer drinkers got dudded. The trouble is that in many cases these people overlap. This cunning little plan was exposed pretty quickly, and the Prime Minister dumped on the Treasurer. I think we could use more unkind terms, but it is true that the Treasurer was out there with prepared speaking notes saying that the reason these two bills were combined was that the Senate could not deny the decrease in the petrol excise if they persisted with insisting on a reduction in beer as well. We had the Prime Minister dumping on Baldrick, exposing and humiliating him in public. But here was the Treasurer, not so long ago in the scheme of things, back on 27 April last year, saying, in relation to beer excise, that it is not possible to have a standard excise regime which produces a 1.9 per cent price rise in a carton of beer and the same on a draft beer across the bar. This is a Treasurer who says it cannot be done but, when he is forced to do it, magically it can occur. The Treasurer went on to say in the same press release that it was not properly thought through, that it was unachievable under a standard excise and GST regime.Tonight the unachievable has been achieved. Why? Because of the persistence of the campaign run by the Australian Labor Party. It was not our promise. We exposed the deceit of the government in relation to this claim, but it was our campaign that forced this backdown. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration could not be found in time to bring this legislation in tonight. Where did they drag you up from at the last minute? Why isn't the Treasurer in here explaining why the unachievable has been achieved? Why isn't the Treasurer in this place tonight saying that what he said could not be done is being done? That is what I want to know. I want to know why this Treasurer, who has been going around deceiving the country saying that things cannot be done, when he is humiliated, will not even come in and fess up. This Treasurer is a coward. He wants people to think that he is talking tough, but when it comes to the real hard task he is the one lacking the ticker—no ticker in him coming in tonight and saying, `I'm sorry, I said it couldn't be done, but I was wrong.' No, there he is, scurried away, hiding in his office and being humiliated yet again into another GST backflip. This is what he also had to say in relation to this piece of legislation. Back on 25 May 2000, in relation to the campaign being run by us on beer, getting them to honour their promises, he said:And the Government is not going to be intimidated by money politics ... You can't have a situation like that. And this is the first big test, as I see it, of money politics.The first big test and he has failed. He has failed because he has been humiliated by his own Prime Minister into being forced to have introduced in the House under someone else's name his capitulation. This is all due to a GST broken promise. There have been many of them, but this one was red-hot. This was a Prime Minister saying that the price of ordinary beer would go up only 1.9 per cent under the GST, then getting into office—and what have we seen? The price of ordinary draught beer going up more than 10 per cent. No wonder the beer drinkers of this country got angry. And do not believe for one moment that it was the breweries running this campaign. How do you explain the biggest petition ever being presented to this parliament with 850,000 signatories. XJ6Anthony, Larry, MPDT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I tell you what, brother: you go into a pub and tell them that ordinary beer is not draught beer and see how you go. You're so out of touch on caravan parks that you would be silly enough to go in and do it. XJ6Anthony, Larry, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Minister!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I invite you to. XJ6Anthony, Larry, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The Minister for Community Services!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Go and tell them that what you were saying could not be achieved has now been achieved because you have been embarrassed.XJ6Anthony, Larry, MP83VEmerson, Craig, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I warn the Minister for Community Services! You have been warned. 83VEmerson, Craig, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The member for Rankin is warned as well!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—He is warned in Richmond, Mr Deputy Speaker. This failure of a minister—0V5Slipper, Peter, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—The parliamentary secretary will restrain himself as well.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—goes into his electorate—a hero at home and a coward down here in Canberra—and says that he is going to do something on caravan parks, goes up there and says that he is going to look after the beer drinkers. You only did it because Labor forced you to. Let us understand your position. The only circumstance in which you have done something decent for your electorate is when Labor has forced you to do it. So why don't you do the decent thing and just vacate the seat? In a few months time, we hope to take it off you. The reason we will get it off you is that you have deceived your electorate. You have been a hero at home and a coward down here in Canberra, and people cannot stand duplicity.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The deputy leader will address his remarks through the chair. He will recall the Speaker's dictum on `you' being a four-letter word.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Absolutely, Mr Deputy Speaker. I refer to the member for Richmond in that light through you. He will be found out and he will be delivered out.Labor campaigned consistently on this issue, not because it was our policy but because we said the government did not have the right to dishonour its policy. A government cannot go to the electorate saying one thing, get elected and do the other. It stands to be condemned if it does but, more importantly, we are going to insist upon it honouring its promise. The Democrats did join with us. We heard the minister today saying that the government negotiated an outcome with the Democrats. The only reason they negotiated an outcome with the Democrats is that Labor forced them to. Labor forced them to by saying that this is a government delivering its commitments—0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—You are standing in the way of those commitments.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The parliamentary secretary at the table says Labor is standing in the way of the government delivering on its commitments. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—That is true.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—That is an absolute untruth. What we are doing is ensuring that they deliver on their commitments. Your commitment was that the price of ordinary beer would not go up more than 1.9 per cent. This legislation, hopefully, will deliver on that promise. That is the only piece of information we have got before the House tonight, because I have not seen any papers in relation to this. Nothing was given to us in advance, no detail. This is the way they run the show. Not only do they break promises but when they are forced to capitulate they do not even have the decency to give us the details.83VEmerson, Craig, MP10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The member for Rankin will excuse himself from the service of the House under standing order 304A. The member for Rankin then left the chamber.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I am sure he will have the chance tomorrow when this debate continues, Mr Deputy Speaker, but you can see how people on our side have got so worked up over this because this is a government that not only has been forced to capitulate but also is still in denial. It sits there and thinks that we are stopping it implementing its commitments when in fact this legislation makes you implement your commitment. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPDT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—You be honest, my friend. The member at the table is the one being dishonest, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No, you will withdraw that.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—He has accused me of it. Ask him to withdraw it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I did not hear him say that. I have just heard you say he is dishonest. You will withdraw.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Ask him if he said it or not.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—First you will withdraw.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I will withdraw it. I will simply say that the member at the table—10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—No need to say it. Did the parliamentary secretary accuse the deputy leader of being dishonest?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—He was being economical with the truth.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Did you?0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—If I did, Mr Deputy Speaker, and one would have to check the Hansard, I withdraw.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—This just goes to show the standard of this government. He does not even remember what he said. But the point of it is that this is a government riddled with deceit, and it is being caught out every day. Last week we saw the government do four backflips in four days: one was in relation to GST roll-back in relation to the veterans, one in relation to GST simplification so far as the small business community is concerned, another in relation to beer, and there was another one which I cannot recall—5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—Australia Post.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Exactly. The shadow minister at the table was responsible for getting them to back down on that too. I tell you what, you have got a doozy of a team over on that side of the place. We will continue to hound this government, because there is not one thing it has said about this GST which has been borne out—not one thing. Let us just go through some of them. They said it was a tax that was going to be good for the economy.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—Mugged it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Since 1 July when it was introduced it has actually succeeded in delivering the first negative quarter of economic growth in 9½ years. That sounds good for the economy! Tell me by what definition that standard stacks up. Another great claim in the ANTS package was that, because of the burden it was going to lift from exporters, it was actually going to see an appreciation in the level of the dollar; in other words, the dollar was going to go up. Funny about that. When the GST started, I think the dollar was closer to 60c. It has now got a four in front of it and is still heading south. But this was a GST that was supposed to increase the level of the dollar. It was also a GST that was supposed to make everyone better off—no-one believes they are better off under the GST. Why? It is because the GST had an inflationary impact ahead of time, with people trying to beat the GST and prices going up beforehand. That is why interest rates rose—taking out of people's pockets what the tax cuts were supposed to put into them. Then we had the circumstance of the government dudding pensioners, in particular, over tax cuts with that clawback regime. There is still information we want about this legislation, and we are entitled to have it. That is why we need more time in this chamber, with the detail in front of us, to debate it. We want to see the basis upon which the costings and the calculations were done. The Democrats claim that the announcement tonight will finally deliver on the government's promise that ordinary beer will not rise by more than 1.9 per cent as a result of the GST. If that is what it does, that is great, because that is what we campaigned for, and we claim victory. The statement goes on to say that the excise rates will reduce the price of a glass of regular beer sold over the bar by 11c and the price of mid-strength or low alcohol beer by 13c to 15c. It was our understanding that the price of full strength beer would also come down by about 15c per middy. This statement says it will only come down by 11c. We want to see what has happened to the other 4c. We need to see the calculations. I ask the parliamentary secretary at the table: has he got them tonight? Is he prepared to hand them over to us so that we can make an assessment overnight as to whether you are out with those grubby little paws, having been forced to capitulate, clawing the money back?We saw the Peter Costello hand in those brewer ads where he was taking the beer as it was being drunk and there were bits disappearing from it. Now he has been forced to top it up—the shout is on Peter Costello. So mingy is he that he is out there trying to dud them for the last few bits in the glass. This is a mean Treasurer—a person without compassion, a person without much humour, a person who is not terribly bright and a person who still thinks he is the tough guy of Australian politics. He is also a person who gets rolled so often that he is almost rounded. This is the person I have referred to on other occasions as the Baldrick of Australian politics because he is always coming up with these cunning plans; so cunning are they that he even forgets what they are and his backbench is left floundering trying to work out what the hell they mean. Can you believe this? Here is a government in so much strife, floundering in the polls, being forced to backflip, which has just seen a by-election in the seat of Ryan which Labor, for the first time in history, has won—and what is the Treasurer's great political ploy today? It is to give an exclusive to Dennis Shanahan about how he is not challenging for the leadership of the Liberal Party; that he wants to be but he is prepared to be Leader of the Opposition. I tell you what; if he wants to be Leader of the Opposition, we will give it to him now, because we have a person on this side of the parliament who wants to be Prime Minister, and that is Kim Beazley. The reason we will continue to move in this direction is the deceit in this place, being owned up to, finally, and being forced to be corrected. There are many issues we want to debate on this and we look forward to—(Time expired)IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—I intend to move that this debate be adjourned but, before I do, I want to make a couple of observations.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—This is not a matter for debate. The question is that the debate be adjourned.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr Snowdon—Mr Speaker, I said I intend to move that the debate be adjourned.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I accept that. I thought the member moved that the debate be adjourned. Debate interrupted. Adjournment2632310000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2632422:30:0026324Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—Tonight I would like to acknowledge the commitment and effort of one young Australian, Ben Carey, who is sacrificing a year of his life to ride a bicycle around Australia to raise funds and community awareness to assist in the prevention of suicide. Every year in excess of 2,000 young Australians take their own lives, and that is a sad indictment of our society. More than seven young people a day lose their lives. If such a number of young people were losing their lives on the roads, the community would be outraged. But it is a silent sort of death; it is something that the community hides because it is embarrassed and ashamed of the fact that we are losing so many people a day in this way.Every time a person takes their life, it has an enormous impact on those that surround them. It affects their families, their friends and everyone that is associated with them. There is such an enormous loss. People ask: `Why did it happen? Could I have helped? Is there something that I should have done or something that I should have known?' The questions go on and on—why, why, why? The response from the community and from governments of all persuasions has been inadequate. We want to help, but quite often we do not know how to help. That is what makes Ben's effort, his Cycle for Life, such an important commitment. On Sunday, 8 April, Ben will leave Sydney Town Hall at midday and spend the next 365 days cycling about 22,000 kilometres around Australia. He will travel about 60 kilometres per day. One quarter of the distance is 5,460 kilometres, which means that he will pass along the stretch from Ingham to Townsville in Queensland on about 8 July. Halfway distance will be in Derby in Western Australia, and he is looking at reaching that town on 7 October. As you can see, it is a real commitment. This is a young man who is prepared to put his life aside. He needs the support of all communities throughout Australia. He needs support with equipment, he needs support vehicles, he needs maintenance and he needs the community to get right behind him during his trip around Australia. I implore all those communities that he visits to do so. You might ask why a 23-year-old man makes such a commitment? The answer is that he cares. He cares because he has felt the impact of suicide, as have thousands of Australians. On 4 April 1998, he lost a very close friend, who tragically ended his life. Ever since then, he has been searching for ways that he could make a contribution towards the prevention of suicide. He asked all those questions that I was referring to a moment ago. Why? Could he have done something? He spent two to three years going over and over the incident, and now he has decided to make his own very big contribution. During the cycle around Australia, he is going to be addressing community groups on suicide and suicide prevention. He will be visiting schools and talking in positive ways about the issue. He is going to record experiences that people have had relating to suicide. What he needs to make this a big success is support from the communities. He hopes to raise $1 million during these 12 months. On 10 and 11 April, he will be in Lake Macquarie and Newcastle. I urge the communities of Lake Macquarie and Newcastle to get behind him as only the Hunter can. I ask them to contribute, to dig deep in their pockets and to get behind his effort to raise money and community awareness for the very fine project that he is involved in. (Time expired)2632422:35:0026324Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I rise tonight to raise the concerns of my constituents, and in some ways it is in desperation. Whilst the deregulation of the telecommunications industry has brought many advantages to the Australian community, including cheaper STD phone calls, cheaper mobile phone calls and greater access to many of the new features of telecommunications, an area that I have concerns about is the marketing—and the aggressive marketing in some cases—of some of the new telecommunication companies and their lack of a government liaison officer or somebody to contact when problems arise for customers. One of the things that Telstra has done very well has been to provide liaison officers. A constituent can contact their federal member if there is a problem with a Telstra connection or something else and, through the liaison officer, the federal member can often help them very quickly. In January, Robyn, the daughter of Mr and Mrs Gildea, who are both in their 80s, contacted the state member about her concern that her parents had been somehow influenced into signing a contract with One.Tel. Their phone account had been transferred from Telstra to One.Tel. Both Mr and Mrs Gildea maintained that they never signed anything, that someone from One.Tel came to the door and that they were never given a password. But somehow their account was transferred from Telstra—whom they had been with for 60 years—to One.Tel.The state member, Chris Hartcher, made representations to One.Tel on their behalf. He was told that, yes, everything would be all right and that Mr and Mrs Gildea would be transferred back to Telstra. That took some time but it did happen. Then Mr and Mrs Gildea received an account from One.Tel for a service that they did not ask for and did not want. So Robyn approached my office over the matter. She was very frustrated with the company. Each time she tried to contact One.Tel she had to wait on the phone for about 40 minutes and, because Mr and Mrs Gildea did not have a password or did not know a password, Robyn was not able to do anything on her parents' behalf.At that point, my office took on the concerns of the Gildeas in trying to have this account cancelled. After a long wait, we finally got to speak to Gwen, one of One.Tel's customer service people. She apologised for the behaviour of the team that had transferred her parents' account against their wishes. Gwen was very helpful. She explained that One.Tel had had many similar problems and that this sort of matter had been considered by the ACCC. They had apparently ordered One.Tel to correct the problem and to send letters of apology. The letter of apology never arrived at the Gildeas and the bills kept coming. Each time a bill arrived, there was an extra charge for non-payment. Not only had the bills continued to arrive but also—and remember that Mr and Mrs Gildea are in their 80s—a draft statement of liquidation was sent to them by a collection agency, claiming that they would be dragged into court over an account of $67.87 for One.Tel, if they did not pay it.I tried to contact One.Tel and had the same problem as everyone else. I was kept on the phone waiting to talk to someone. I finally got on after about 10 or 15 minutes and I spoke to their communications expert. I did not have the password. Once you do not have a password they will not talk to you, they will not forward you on to an executive or to a government liaison officer—in short, they will not help you at all. That is the frustration with such an arrangement. Eventually, Mr and Mrs Gildea provided me with a copy of the letter from the collection agency. I rang the collection agency on 23 March—this has been going on for about three months—and, after being put on hold for some time, spoke to Juan who, after going away for five minutes, said that it was okay, that it was all taken care of and to disregard the legal notice—but there was no offer of a verbal apology or a letter of apology. In the meantime, I contacted the Gildeas to say that hopefully it had all been fixed up, and yet another bill had arrived from One.Tel claiming that they still owed the amount.So really this is a very public appeal to One.Tel to at least contact my office and to set in train some way of putting in an administrative liaison officer with federal members, or a government liaison officer, so that people such as the Gildeas will not be put through the stress, the frustration and the worry of such a bill—a bill they did not want, a service they did not ask for. They had been pressured by high-pressure door-to-door salesmen and transferred against their will from Telstra to One.Tel. This bill should be immediately scrapped. (Time expired)2632522:40:0026330Byrne, Anthony, MPMr BYRNE008K0HoltALP00—I rise tonight to talk about a concern of another constituent of mine, Mrs Claire Ford of Stud Road, Dandenong, who visited my office to detail her concerns about the way in which Centrelink and the existing legislation treated the provisions of the carer allowance payment. Mrs Ford is a carer for her husband, Dr Bruce Ford, a highly regarded specialist in aged care. Her initial concerns, and primary concerns, centre around the payment of the carer allowance. However, in addition to this matter was her concern about one of the more pernicious effects of the GST and how it impacted on her husband. Her husband, who is now in need of a wheelchair, had to pay GST on the maintenance of this wheelchair—cruel indeed, particularly for the neediest in our community. But I will come back to the GST later. To qualify for the carer allowance, you must provide full-time care on a daily basis for up to two adults aged 16 years and over who experience a substantial functional impairment as a result of their disability. Carer allowance can be paid in addition to carer payment. If you qualify for the carer allowance, you receive a fortnightly payment of $79.50. The carer allowance is not means tested. Problems arise in the communication of this payment to the public and in the discrimination of its application between adults and children.It appears that Centrelink has two different booklets: one called People with disabilities, illness or injury and carers and the other called Notes for carer payment and/or carer allowance. The bizarre paradox is that, if you obtain a copy of the first booklet, you find details in it that are not available in the latter one. The details missing are those covering the back payment of the carer allowance. Nowhere in the notes of this booklet does Centrelink inform applicants that they may be eligible for the back payment. It certainly covers the amount of payment. It tells you that you will be paid from the day you ring Centrelink and ask for the payment book, and it provides guidelines for eligibility. The problem is that it fails to let people know that, if they are caring for someone and meet the guidelines, they may be able to claim for up to 12 months prior to the lodgment. This would be in instances where the person has provided care in the preceding 12 months but was unaware that they were eligible for assistance. The other booklet, People with disabilities, illness and injury and carers, sets out the back payment guidelines clearly and concisely. Why do we have two different booklets covering the same issue, making it extremely difficult for persons providing the care to apply?The second anomaly, which I believe is a historical one, is the treatment of adults and children differently. If you are taking care of a child and apply for a carer payment and you were eligible for it 12 months ago, you can claim back payments for 12 months. However, if you are taking care of an adult and you meet the eligibility criteria, you can claim back payments only for six months. I find this a strange anomaly. Taking care of both a child and adult who needs care is much the same: it requires incredible commitment from the carers, no matter what age the care persons may be. I would certainly ask the minister, who is sitting with us this evening, to address this particular anomaly.I will return to the GST. I want to talk about a local group called Gateway Centre Inc. It focuses on assisting persons with disabilities to get into the work force and to be self-reliant. It is a wonderful group helping so many people achieve a sense of worth and a place in our society. The group is involved in local celebrations of Federation with a garden project highlighting pre-settlement fauna and after-settlement fauna. In many ways it highlights some of the destruction which we have been responsible for. The group also provide employment within their organisation manufacturing goods to on-sell into the retail market. That is actually what they wrote to me about—their frustration with the GST. They manufacture billiard cues and sell them to a wholesaler who, in turn, sells them to a retailer and they finally end up in our house. A simple process you would think, but it is not a simple process with the application of this GST. The GST is applicable to the cost of timber, spray painting and manufacturing simply within their own factory. When the product leaves the factory door, there is a GST for the wholesaler to pay, the retailer to pay, and finally for us to pay, the ones who are stuck with the tax. In response to this, the government would say that they would claim it as a tax input credit. However, the problem is that, in the paperwork and the time spent for all the people involved in the chain and for all the effort and the cost, there appears to be very little benefit of this tax for manufacturers. Life used to be a lot simpler for non-government agencies like Gateway with the wholesale sales tax regime, with exemptions for all entities except the final sale from the wholesaler to the retailer. There was no onerous paperwork and a lot less cost to the manufacturer. What this GST does for Gateway Centre is simply rip cash flow out of the business. It does not encourage exports, nor is it easy. So basically there are many GSTs where there used to be one. The Gateway Centre president, Mr Arthur Wren, specifically wanted this point to be raised in parliament this evening.When we are talking about the rip-off of employment opportunities, I would like to address the behaviour of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business this afternoon in question time where he came in and accused the Minister for Small Business in Victoria, Marsha Thomson, of trying to ruin small businesses with an increase in land tax. Notwithstanding the fact that this was a completely false allegation—(Time expired)2632722:45:0026327Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I was happy to represent Minister Hill at the Australian Financial Review's fourth annual emissions trading forum this morning in Sydney. I was pleased to be able to provide some reassurance to those who share my interest, and I understand the interest of many people in this House, in the role that emissions trading can play in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The idea is a simple one; it is where we recognise that different countries, different industries and different people have an opportunity to reduce their emissions at differing levels depending on the nature of their activity, the structure of the economies in which they operate and also where their starting point is. The idea says basically that we need to reduce CO2 emissions into our atmosphere. If there are opportunities in certain industry sectors and in certain countries around the world to do that at a least cost basis, then we should embrace those opportunities, rather than imply a ham-fisted, careless approach to insisting that everybody reduce their emissions in a uniform way.One of the things we have been trying to do in trying to secure this is to participate very constructively in the development of the Kyoto protocol and then in negotiating the nitty-gritty about the implementation of the protocol. The Conference of the Parties No. 6, which began in The Hague last year and is to be resumed in July this year, was meant to finalise many of the unresolved issues about how the Kyoto protocol would operate. It proved too difficult to reach agreement at The Hague. However, parties hope to make continued progress at the resumed COP6 to be held in Bonn in late July.The extent of the commitment of the world's governments to eventually reach an agreement should not be doubted. I was fortunate enough to be part of the Australian team that went to The Hague and I can certainly convey to colleagues in the House the genuine desire that all the parties had to try to resolve the differences that remain outstanding in relation to the Kyoto protocol. I am optimistic that Australia can contribute positively to these negotiations and it is in the global interest as well as our own national interest to see these issues resolved as quickly as possible.A significant yet largely unresolved international issue associated with the protocol is how to initiate a process that allows for developing countries to take on greater greenhouse abatement commitments. As it stands at the moment, developing countries are not obliged to strive towards any sort of greenhouse containment. The protocol provides measures where developing countries can participate and partner with developed countries to reduce developed country emissions, but there is nothing specifically encouraging developing countries to take a look at their own emissions. As it stands, many of our trading competitors would not be subject to emissions targets under the protocol. This gives rise to the possibility of a significant risk for Australia and other industrialised countries of carbon leakage. That is, some existing industries and some new industries planning to invest in Australia could relocate to developing countries. The assessment report of Working Party 3 of the International Panel on Climate Change includes a warning that the relocation of carbon intensive industry from developed to developing countries could lead to a significant increase in the emissions in developing countries. One of the hot issues at the moment is whether the United States will withdraw from the protocol. The government's position, as I was able to convey to this meeting this morning, is that we would prefer to see the United States stay within the protocol and seek to overcome some of the protocol's shortcomings. We in Australia have identified a number of preconditions for our country's ratification of the protocol. These are not that dissimilar from some that have been expressed in other quarters around the globe. It is about a process leading towards developing country action to control their greenhouse gas emissions. It is about maximum flexibility in the Kyoto mechanisms so those least cost, most effective abatement measures can be embraced. It is the inclusion of sinks where we are using vegetation to suck molecules out of the atmosphere that are unhelpful in greenhouse terms. And it is also about an effective compliance system.One thing that Australia has done and I believe should continue to do is keep feeding in constructive and positive ideas about how to overcome some of these issues. The kind of ideas that I think are helpful are such things as requiring developing countries to end subsidies for the burning of fossil fuels. It seems ridiculous that a country like Nigeria, which would have a greenhouse gas commitment responsibility like Australia, can continue to subsidise the availability of fuels to its citizens. It is about including in the national reporting a need for countries to account for how domestic abatement activities, sequestration measures and the use of flexibility mechanisms are helping to address their targets so that wealthier countries are not simply buying out their emissions commitments. It is about tasking the technical reference group with reporting to a future COP on the timing, nature and modalities of developing country commitments. (Time expired)2632822:50:0026328Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Mr Speaker, as you would undoubtedly agree, last week was an interesting week for banking in Australia. Not only did the Labor Party release another new policy but, importantly, it is also a policy giving a fairer deal to bank customers. We also saw a final grudging admission from Australian banks that they actually do have social obligations. All honourable members have seen closures of bank branches in their electorates. This is not just a bush phenomena; it affects all communities whether they are in the bush, the regions or cities. I have seen many bank closures in my own electorate. The Commonwealth Bank closed its doors at Shellharbour, the ANZ Bank moved out of Cringila and the State Colonial Bank ran out of Dapto—a succession of closures.Last year the banks started another round of closures. All major banks—the Commonwealth, ANZ, Westpac and the National Australia Bank—cut and ran from local communities. Usually, not only one bank acted but within a matter of hours or days another bank would announce that it too was going to pull the plug and lock the doors. This happened in Oak Flats in my electorate last year. Both Westpac and the Commonwealth Bank in a matter of days of one another pulled out of the community. People in this community felt angry about the bank closures. In the past they have also felt powerless, but not so now.Last year in Oak Flats, in October, a Bendigo Bank branch was established at the very site used by Westpac just a few months before. The people of Oak Flats had had enough. A group of community minded people started the campaign to establish a Bendigo Bank branch. After intensive lobbying, meetings and publicity, community support was strong and growing. Today, with just six months on the board, the Illawarra's first community bank is a business worth $15 million. Some 1,800 accounts have been opened, including one by me. The Oak Flats Bendigo Bank branch has been employing seven people, all from the local area, and it just recently employed another. Local businesses in the Oak Flats central business district see the bank's presence as a plus. Oak Flats could have been a ghost town. Instead, today it recovers. Major banks may think their shareholders are important, but there is much more to the bottom line in a local community. Banks need to realise this. Last week's announcement of fee-free accounts, a feature of Labor's policy, is finally acknowledgment by them that having a licence to print money comes with responsibility and an obligation to the local community. Banks need to appreciate that their presence in a local community is important. To cut, run and close is a disaster for a local community and their CBD; it destroys confidence. Aside from the fantastic revitalisation of confidence in the Oak Flats community, the establishment of the region's second community Bendigo Bank branch is progressing well at Port Kembla. The local committee, headed by local chemist Phil Bowden, is doing a great job of focusing community efforts, and deposit pledges have reached the target. Additional pledges have been received for the installation of an ATM. A community bank presence in Port Kembla is required and will shortly be available. Port Kembla is currently undergoing something of a revival. A Bendigo Bank branch would be an asset to this community, which currently has no bank at all. I understand that there is some talk of another Bendigo Bank branch presence at Dapto. I think this will be somewhat harder to achieve, as Dapto does have a good concentration of bank branches at the moment, including St George and the Illawarra Mutual Building Society. Dapto is a growing area with a new mini Campbelltown explosion to the west. A whole new electorate could be covered in this area within the next decade. I congratulate the Oak Flats Bendigo Bank branch chairman, Mr Jeff Egan, and his team for their efforts. I congratulate the Oak Flats community, especially the business community, for their faith and commitment to the Oak Flats community. I also congratulate the Port Kembla Bendigo Bank branch committee and urge them to continue their fine efforts to revive their local business centre and re-establish residents' right to access banking services.2632922:55:0026329Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—I would like to take the opportunity this evening to support a government that has had the strength to introduce a new tax system to this country. Over the past few months we have watched the members opposite in the Labor opposition without their policies and watched them laugh and joke. I guess they think they are just going to fall into government at the next election with no policies and no plan for the future. But I do not believe that will happen, because I believe the Australian community, when it comes time for an election, will weigh up the two major sides of politics and they will not like what they see in the Labor opposition. I am very proud to be part of a government that has made the hard decisions, the right decisions, for this country. We have introduced a modern tax system which has taken the wholesale sales tax off our exports. We are a major exporting nation—something which does not get the profile that it should. We are a country of innovative business people who are prepared to take the risks and who are prepared to take on the rest of the world. Our exports to the USA last year increased by 36 per cent. When the Asian crisis hit, again the Labor opposition were spruiking doom and gloom, they could not wait for us to have a recession and said that the Asian crisis would roll down and crush us. But it hardly made a difference to this country because our exporters, our businesspeople, our small business people, had the innovation to diversify and to expand beyond the Asian areas with their exports and to open up new markets. The old wholesale sales tax was a tax on exports. Every good that we produced here the government taxed, which made the price of those exports overseas increase by 12½ per cent or 22½ per cent. We were putting our own country at a disadvantage. So we took the hard decisions and we made the right decisions. We delivered the largest income tax cuts that this country has ever seen. We delivered them on time and within budget when we introduced the new tax system, unlike the Labor government, which promised tax cuts—the l-a-w tax cuts which were never delivered. We have given to young Australians the opportunity to buy their own homes. Interest rates around six and seven per cent make a huge difference to the many young people—not just young people but particularly young people—who are trying to buy their first home. A $14,000 first home buyers grant means $14,000 towards their first home. The Labor government never offered anything like that and yet lumbered this country with interest rates of 17 or 18 per cent, and in some cases over 20 per cent, which crippled this country and gave us the recession that we had to have. It destroyed homes, it destroyed businesses and it destroyed families. We have put this country on a footing that will take it forward.The next election is critical for the future of this country. I have great faith in the people of Australia that they will know that the future of this country is in good hands with the coalition government and that if we go back to a Labor government we will go back to the bad old days. We will go back to the boom-bust cycle, we will go back to higher interest rates, we will go back to unemployment over 10 per cent, we will go back to inflation that erodes people's savings, we will go back to increased youth unemployment; and we will go back to this country not having fulfilled the potential that it has as a great nation.The coalition has reduced some $50 billion of the Labor Party debt. We all know that if we pay off our Bankcard we are not paying interest. The money that we are not paying as interest now can be used for infrastructure, for community services. It was interesting that when the Labor state Treasurers came to Canberra last week they were all very keen to get their hands on the GST, because every cent of the GST goes to the states for them to provide the schools, the hospitals and the services that we want in our communities. Every single cent goes to the state governments.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:0026330House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices26330The following notices were given:EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott to present a bill for an act to amend the Workplace Relations Act 1996, and for related purposes.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott to present a bill for an act to provide for the registration of associations of employers and of employees, to regulate those associations after registration, and for related purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to present a bill for an act relating to the application of the CriminalCode to certain offences, and for other purposes.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson to present a bill for an act to amend various Acts relating to international maritime conventions, and for related purposes.7K6Entsch, Warren, MPMr Entsch to present a bill for an act to amend the TradeMarksAct1995, and for other purposes.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper to move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Fitout of new Central Office building for the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs at Belconnen, ACT.4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson to move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for work in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 29 March 2001, namely: Construction of pedestrian crossings at the intersection of Parliament Drive and Melbourne Avenue. 4K4Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson to move:That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposals for works in the Parliamentary Zone which were presented to the House on 3 April 2001, namely:(1) design and siting of services pavilion associated with Commonwealth Place and materials colours and finishes to Commonwealth Place; and(2) final text and images for Magna Carta Monument.ZJ6Barresi, Phillip, MPMr Barresi to move:That, in light of the Howard Government's internationally acknowledged reforms to the Australian financial system, including centralised prudential regulation, and the payments systems, and Australia's historically secure banking sector, this House:(1) welcomes the Australian Bankers' Association's announcement in March to guarantee minimum standards for `safety net' accounts, changes to overcome access barriers to electronic banking and the adoption of protocols for face to face banking services in rural and remote areas;(2) notes the recommendations of the Issues Paper of the Viney Review into the Banking Industry Code of Practice released in March 2001;(3) condemns Labor's record on banking policy in both Government and Opposition; and(4) calls on Australia's financial institutions to continuously work with local communities towards meeting the banking needs of Australians living in urban and regional areas.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom to present a bill for an act to amend the Defence Act 1903 to declare the Parliament's intention with respect to the award of Victoria Crosses to certain persons.MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr Mossfield to move:That this House:(1) notes that 24 311 Social Security recipients have their compensation preclusion period spanning the introduction of the GST;(2) notes that the average length of preclusion periods is 291 weeks;(3) notes that the income cut-out rate has increased by $115.23 per week to compensate for price rises caused by the GST;(4) notes that if the post GST cut-out rate of $543.63 was applied to the post GST portion of the preclusion period it would result in a significant reduction in the preclusion period; and(5) condemns the Government's failure to introduce legislation to extend GST compensation to people whose compensation preclusion period spans the introduction of the GST.Answers to Questions in Writing26332The following answers to questions were circulated:26332(Question No. 2087)208726332Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin ThomsonUK6WillsALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 30 October 2000:(1) Is he able to say who profited from the 13 minutes of trading in ASX on Tuesday, 10 October 2000, before trading was halted, after his announcement of an increase in the individual shareholding limit for the ASX, during which time ASX shares jumped from $10.96 to $11.70.(2) Is it a fact that the ASX, the regulator of the Australian Stock Exchange, cannot investigate itself; if so, will he request the Australian Securities and Investment Commission to investigate.26332Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:ASIC has inquired into the trading of ASX shares on 10 October in the period before the Australian Stock Exchange put in place the trading halt on the shares and following on from this examination has determined that no action is warranted.The Australian Securities and Investment Commission has formal responsibility under the Corporations Law for the supervision of ASX as a self listed entity. ASIC has made appropriate inquiries and reviewed the events involved in the calling of the trading halt by the Australian Stock Exchange. ASIC has determined that no action is warranted against the ASX itself or any party engaged in trading in ASX securities during the period concerned.26332(Question No. 2393)239326332Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom849BraddonALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on Thursday, 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 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) ethics 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 provision of goods, are suppliers advised that they must offer ANZ goods.(6) If the Minister's Department 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.26332Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department and its agencies are not large purchasers or consumers of office papers. The Department consumes approximately 50,200 reams of paper per annum.(2) The Department has extensive internal policies and guidelines that outline the requirements of the Commonwealth procurement guidelines. In addition, the Department has:· a centralised procurement advisory area, located in the Legal, Business Assurance and Investigations Branch, which provides advice to the Departmental staff involved in a procurement process on their responsibilities under the Commonwealth procurement guidelines; · implemented the PROMISe system to guide staff through procurement processes, enforce business rules and improve data capture about procurements; and · a centralised procurement area for the purchase of all Information Technology related goods and services. The majority of these items are purchased off the Department of Finance and Administration managed GITC3 panel arrangement.(3) The Department does not attempt to weight the core principles set out in the Commonwealth Procurement Guideline because those principles are not specific evaluation criteria. The Guidelines provide the fundamental policy framework for Commonwealth procurement and as such they have been incorporated as essential elements of the Department's procurement policies and guidelines as set out in its Chief Executive Instructions and Procurement Manual. Further, the core principles are a mixture of criteria that cannot be readily weighted against each other within any individual procurement process. Some of the criteria can be assessed based on the content of a submitted tender or quote, for instance value for money and ANZ participation, while some are addressed through the Department's own processes, for instance open and effective competition and accountability and reporting. Also, to attempt such a weighting would ignore the significant differences in priorities that can exist between the extremes of relatively minor equipment purchases, procurement of major IT or Corporate services and large-scale tenders for programme delivery. For instance, each procurement will have a different set of likely suppliers for which ANZ content may or may not be a relevant concern. The officer managing each procurement needs the ability to determine which procurement criteria need emphasis.(4) The Department does not have set weighting criteria in relation to ANZ participation. Section 1.2 of the Department's proforma Request for Tender documentation contains the following instruction to staff: “...In framing the requirement, care should be taken that there is no direct or indirect discrimination against Australian and New Zealand suppliers.” The nature of the Department's purchases means that ANZ content is not often a significant concern. The Department's major service delivery programmes specifically target ANZ Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) and the Department is a relatively small purchaser of goods. (5) There is no Commonwealth requirement that suppliers “must offer ANZ goods”. While taking into account ANZ requirements, the Department must also take into account the other principles of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines, including value for money, and endeavour to obtain the best goods or service available when expending public monies, including the costs and benefits involved on a whole of life basis.(6) The Department's procurement policies and processes already accord with the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines and are subject to numerous forms of accountability including internal audit, ANAO review, gazettal requirements, Annual Reporting requirements and responding to questions from Parliament and its committees. Additionally, the Department has implemented the PROMISe system to improve data capture about procurements and to guide staff through procurement processes. As a result, further monitoring and reporting requirements would be unnecessary and inefficient. The Department has a high level of compliance with the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines and is subject to close scrutiny of procurement practices. For these reasons, and also for those set out in response to the third part of the question, the Department will not be requested to change its current procurement policies or practices.The Australian National University is also listed under the Administrative Arrangement Orders as a responsibility of the Minister's portfolio for the period in question. The Australian National University has not been approached in preparing a response to the question because it operates with a greater degree of autonomy than other Departmental agencies. 26333(Question No. 2412)241226333Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 1 March 2001.(1) Is there a shortfall of at least 30 000 positions in the IT industry which are not being filled in Australia. (2) Are a number of high technology Australian companies moving operations offshore because of this shortfall in qualified staff.(3) Has there been a failure to fund educational institutions to provide for significant increases in IT training.(4) What action is the Government taking to deal with this continuing crisis in the availability of qualified staff in the IT industry in Australia.(5) What increases are proposed for educational institutions to deal with this crisis in a realistic way.26334Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) The same questions were also asked of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, the Hon Mr Abbott MP, who has already replied. I have nothing to add to those replies. (3) The Government does not allocate funding to higher education and vocational education and training (VET) institutions by course or field of study. DETYA funding to higher education institutions is provided in the form of a single block grant for an agreed number of student places, on the basis of an agreed educational profile covering teaching and research activities. Higher education institutions have the ability to alter the mix of courses they offer to better meet emerging demands as required. Legislation introduced in 1998 has also made it possible for higher education institutions in receipt of Commonwealth funding, to offer additional places to domestic undergraduate students on a full fee-paying basis, subject to Commonwealth Government guidelines. In the VET sector, Commonwealth funding is provided through the Australian National Training Authority (ANTA) to the States and Territories. This funding supplements States' and Territories' own funding and they are responsible for allocating funds to individual providers.Within this funding framework, higher education and VET institutions have proved very responsive to industry's needs for IT&T graduates as these needs have grown over time. This is reflected in the strong growth in IT&T places at Australian universities and in VET institutes in recent years: In the last ten years, non-overseas commencements in higher education IT&T courses increased by 92%, with a 27% increase in the last two years; In the period 1994-99 (over which consistent data are available) IT&T enrolments at semi-professional level (AQF Certificate IV and above) in VET increased by 94%, with an increase of 61% in the last two years. (4) The Government's strategy for assisting industry to acquire and develop the IT&T skills it needs involves a number of portfolios in a co-ordinated effort. The broad elements of that strategy are:Enabling the higher education, VET and school sectors to give high priority to the development of IT&T specialist and general skills within the workforce;Establishing the IT&T Skills Exchange whose principal functions will be to: improve information about demand and supply of skills; develop appropriate training programmes, especially for small business and for upskilling/retraining; and promote IT&T training to firms and individuals Facilitating entry into Australia of highly skilled IT&T workers, especially overseas graduates with Australian qualifications; andEnsuring that the VET sector, including through New Apprenticeships, can contribute effectively to the supply of middle level skills, especially through the development of the Information Technology and Telecommunications Training Packages.The most recent development has been the setting up of the IT&T Skills Exchange. Senator Alston and I are providing $5 million to help in its establishment. The Exchange will be self-funding after the initial set-up stage. One of the Exchange's first tasks is to conduct, in collaboration with Government, a study of demand and supply of IT&T skills. This information will inform policy development in this rapidly changing industry.(5) As part of the Innovation Action Plan, the Government announced in January 2001 that it would fund an additional 2,000 places a year for five years in the areas of information and communications technology, mathematics and science. This was aimed at addressing unmet student demand for higher education places and increasing the number of university graduates in these priority areas. As a result of this initiative, universities will be provided with greater capacity to respond to demand from students and employers. A recent report commissioned by my Department indicated that student unmet demand in 2000 for university level courses in IT&T was of the order of just over 2,000. The increased number of places provided through the Innovation Action Plan should go a long way towards meeting this unmet demand for IT&T places by students. As noted in my answer to question (4), my Department is also working closely with the IT&T Skills Exchange to monitor trends in demand for and supply of IT&T graduates to inform policy development. In addition, the Commonwealth has offered the States and Territories growth funding under the ANTA Agreement for 2001 to 2003, with a requirement that States and Territories provide additional VET places, including New Apprenticeships, and produce annual Innovation Strategies. To date, this has been accepted in-principle by the South Australian, NT and ACT Ministers and will be submitted to their governments for endorsement.26335(Question No. 2444)244426335O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'ConnorWU5CorioALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on Wednesday, 7 March 2001.What funds have been allocated to (a) public and (b) private schools in the electoral division of Corio in (a) 1995-96, (b) 1996-97, (c) 1997-98, (d) 1998-99, (e) 1999-2000 and (f) 2000-2001.26335Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Summary of Identifiable Commonwealth Grants for the period 1996-2001NON-GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS199619971998199920002001$$$$$$General Recurrent GrantsGeneral Recurrent Basic per Capita Grants16,470,22218,444,83221,679,39523,347,91125,386,14526,906,343Capital GrantsGeneral Element - BGA Projects92,7502,500,000282,50093,2851,312,0251,790,000Total Non-Government Schools Funding16,562,97220,944,83221,961,89523,441,19626,698,17028,696,343GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS199619971998199920002001$$$$$$Capital GrantsGovernment Capital Grants Programme826,0001,844,0001,216,0001,547,000**TOTAL COMMONWEALTH FUNDING17,388,97222,788,83223,177,89524,988,19626,698,17028,696,343* No Capital funding has been allocated to Government schools in 2000 and 2001.Commonwealth Capital Funding to Non-government SchoolsSchool Name199619971998199920002001Total$$$$$$$Catholic Regional College, Geelong2,200,00093,285501,7152,795,000Clonard College, Geelong West 660,000700,0001,360,000Covenant College, Bell Post Hill92,750282,500375,250Kardinia International College, Bell Post Hill250,000250,000St John's Lutheran School, Geelong300,000190,000490,000St Joseph's College, Newtown650,000650,000St Thomas Aquinas Catholic School, Norlane150,310150,310Total Capital Funding 92,7502,500,000282,50093,2851,312,0251,790,0006,070,560Commonwealth General Recurrent Funding to Non-government SchoolsSchool Name199619971998199920002001Total$$$$$$$Catholic Regional College, Geelong1,823,8081,997,2282,509,5452,734,0072,904,741*2,839,886*14,809,215Chanel College, Lovely Banks (closed 31 Dec 1999)1,288,8611,330,0891,419,227648,3480*0*4,686,525Christ the King School, Newcomb449,444476,251547,543629,643678,080*738,920*3,519,881Clonard College, Geelong West1,419,1121,605,6801,933,7052,192,7782,384,704*2,331,460*11,867,439Covenant College, Bell Post Hill581,158742,832866,726816,836846,726870,813*4,725,091Geelong College, Newtown847,216884,515892,784917,499961,7431,416,556*5,920,313Geelong Grammar School 'Corio', Corio593,480605,790724,649753,902661,056944,556*4,283,433Geelong Rudolf Steiner School, East Geelong000063,17268,090*131,262Holy Family Primary School, Bell Park411,040400,710490,190532,612667,648*727,552*3,229,752Kardinia International College, Bell Post Hill0507,4501,027,6671,374,4311,761,0152,213,948*6,884,511Our Lady's Primary School, Manifold Heights342,012331,704395,129436,052545,072*593,9782,643,947Oxford Christian Primary School, Newcomb28,42442,04233,338*43,41648,040*50,240*245,500Sacred Heart College, Newtown3,286,5463,639,8844,083,5804,318,1445,106,709*4,992,690*25,427,553St Andrew's Private School, Newtown (closed)85,74200000*85,742St Anthony's Primary School, Hamlyn Heights201,949197,313237,446243,185216,464*235,886*1,332,243St Anthony's Primary School, Lara466,181534,578555,587669,759597,232*650,818*3,474,155St Augustine's Special School, Whittington62,605111,722119,118133,969154,631*230,691*812,736St Francis Xavier's School, Corio470,352494,769596,366596,129658,780*717,889*3,534,285St Helen's Special School, Geelong North13,4649,58520,98327,09225,26638,606*134,996St John's Lutheran School, Geelong320,769328,973356,387398,372508,760*515,890*2,429,151St Joseph's College, Newtown2,123,5852,372,6492,843,1123,660,4004,264,233*4,186,558*19,450,537St Margaret's School, Geelong East334,542370,031401,353406,892472,048*514,402*2,499,268St Mary's Primary School, Geelong261,538296,635356,769245,581323,392*352,408*1,836,323St Patrick's School, Geelong West307,109379,396437,867562,514479,872*522,928*2,689,686St Robert's School, Newtown441,714486,364542,035642,721738,064*804,286*3,655,184St Thomas Aquinas Catholic School, Norlane309,571298,642288,289363,629318,697*347,292*1,926,120Totals16,470,22218,444,83221,679,39523,347,91125,386,14526,906,343132,234,848* Calculated entitlements, not final payment figuresCommonwealth Capital Funding to Government SchoolsSchool Name199619971998199920002001Total$$$$$$$Chilwell Primary School, Newtown105,000105,000Corio South Primary School, Corio153,000320,000473,000Corio West Primary School, Corio470,000470,000Geelong High School, East Geelong350,000350,000Hamlyn Banks Primary School, Hamlyn Heights39,000146,000260,000445,000Herne Hill Primary School, Geelong North38,00038,000James Harrison Secondary College, Geelong East137,000137,000Lara Lake Primary School, Lara Lake46,000315,000361,000Lara Primary School, Lara150,000305,000455,000Leopold Primary School, Leopold45,00063,000108,000Matthew Flinders Girls Secondary College, Geelong180,00023,000203,000Moolap Primary School, Moolap52,00052,000Nelson Park School, Bell ParkNewcomb Park Primary School, NewcombNewcomb Secondary College, Newcomb55,00055,000Newcomb South Primary School, Newcomb13,00024,00037,000North Geelong Secondary College, Geelong North50,000420,000470,000Norlane High School, Norlane118,000118,000Norlane West Primary School, Norlane West41,000360,000620,0001,021,000Western Heights Secondary College, Geelong West110,000425,000535,000Total Capital Funding826,0001,844,0001,216,0001,547,000**5,433,000* No Capital funding has been allocated to Government schools in 2000 and 2001.26338(Question No. 2448)244826338O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'ConnorWU5CorioALP00 asked the Minister for Sport and Tourism, upon notice, on 8 March 2001:(1) What programs administered by her Department provided grants to businesses or organisations in the electorate division of Corio in (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000.(2) What organisations received funding from these programs in (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000 and what sum did they receive in each year. 26339Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie KellyGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)(a) None.(b) None.(c) Regional Online Tourism Program.(2)(a) None.(b) None.(c) Great Ocean Road Marketing Inc. $66,000 (includes GST).