2001-04-053918REPS2651502001-04-05—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous265152651509:31:0026515Martin, Stephen, MPDr MARTIN8I4CunninghamALP00—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended, as would prevent the Member for Cunningham moving forthwith:(1) This House notes that:(a) In an answer to a question on the Defence White Paper by the Minister for Defence on 8 March 2001 the Hansard Greens contained the following sentence:“Are they going to undermine our capacity for the purchase of new combat aircraft carriers?”(b) In the final version of the House Hansard of 8 March 2001, the answer from the Minister for Defence is recorded as:“Are they going to undermine our capacity for the purchase of new combat aircraft?”(c) The removal of the word “carriers” conveys a completely different meaning to the answer, which is contrary to House practice (see House of Representatives Practice, Third Edition, p. 573), where words can only be omitted if they do not change the substance or meaning of the answer.(d) By the Minister's action he again demonstrates his complete lack of knowledge regarding the contents of the Defence White Paper.(2) This House calls for the restoration of the word “carriers” to the Hansard record as a true and accurate report of the Minister for Defence's answer.Mr Speaker, this man is doing a Billy McMahon. He is changing the Hansard report.Motion (by Mr Hockey) put:That the member be not further heard.09:36:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 69Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.59Adams, D.G.H.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Fahey, J.J.Plibersek, T.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Moylan, J. E.Gerick, J.F.Somlyay, A.M.Crosio, J.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.09:40:0026516McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—If he does not know the difference between aircraft carriers and aircraft, let us hope he does not have to deal with—Motion (by Mr Hockey) put:That the member be not further heard.09:42:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 71Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.61Adams, D.G.H.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Fahey, J.J.Plibersek, T.Howard, J.W.Beazley, K.C.Moylan, J. E.Gerick, J.F.Somlyay, A.M.Crosio, J.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Original question put:That the motion (Dr Martin's) be agreed to.09:45:00The House divided.(Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 61Adams, D.G.H.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.Crean, S.F.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Swan, W.M.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.71Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S *McGauran, P.J.Nairn, G. R.Nehl, G. B.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Nugent, P.E.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Worth, P.M.Beazley, K.C.Howard, J.W.Crosio, J.A.Somlyay, A.M.Gerick, J.F.Moylan, J. E.Plibersek, T.Fahey, J.J.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.Questions to the Speaker265172651709:48:0026517SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Yesterday the honourable member for Wills asked me whether members raising points of order were required to make any declarations of interest in connection with the subject of their point of order. When the present arrangements for the declaration of members' interests were first introduced by resolution of October 1984, members were required to declare interests orally before they participated in debates or voted, but the requirement was abolished in 1988. This change was made on the recommendation of the Committee of Members' Interests which had expressed doubt that the requirement served any useful purpose in view of the obligation on members to lodge written declarations: House of Representatives Practice, page 161. Any member who wishes to propose a change in the arrangements is of course free to take up the matter with the Committee of Members' Interests or the Standing Committee on Procedure. 4I4McLeay, Leo, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Chief Opposition Whip!2651809:50:0026518SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On 29 March 2001 the member for Cowan asked me a series of questions about a painting by Charles Dixon entitled The Landing at Gallipoli. I have ascertained that the painting was given to the Commonwealth by Austin Taylor in 1917 and became part of the Parliament Gift Collection. The painting was on public display in Old Parliament House until 1988. It is now hanging in the office of the Minister for Aged Care, who has agreed to a request from the President of the Senate and me that the painting be placed on public display in this building for a period of time on either side of Anzac Day.4I4McLeay, Leo, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the Chief Opposition Whip.2651809:51:0026518SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On 3 April the member for Griffith asked me a question regarding the overhead sound reinforcement system which distributes proceedings of the House throughout the chamber and into the galleries. I can inform the House that a full calibration and system check is conducted by technical staff every six months. Additionally, the same staff check the system again at the beginning of each sitting fortnight. Before each sitting day begins, the sound operators who run the system conduct further operational checks. Balancing the sound in the chamber is a complex and often subjective task and the sound operators controlling the system during proceedings are constantly monitoring and adjusting sound levels. In relation to occupational health and safety standards for sound, these are a function of both loudness and length of exposure to specific sound levels. While I appreciate that occasionally for short times noise in the chamber seems considerable, there are no indications that occupational health and safety levels are exceeded.Miscellaneous2651809:52:0026518Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I wonder if it is appropriate for me to convey my appreciation for the action you have taken in relation to the painting Gallipoli.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Cowan.Committees26518265182651809:52:0026518Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—As required by resolution of the House, I wish to table copies of notifications of alterations of interests received during the period 6 December 2000 to 4 April 2001.Bills26518R127226518Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.2651809:53:0026518Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.I rise today to introduce two bills that give effect to the harmonisation and streamlining of the collection of statistical information across the financial sector. While existing legislation provides for the collection of financial information, those powers are currently unwieldy and often uncertain. This legislation will clarify the regulators' powers in this area as well as provide a welcome reduction in the red tape associated with duplicate data collections in this field. When the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, APRA, was established on 1 July 1998, it inherited a variety of data collection tools and analysis systems. These tools and systems were tailored to meet the data needs of APRA's predecessor organisations, the Insurance and Superannuation Commission, the Reserve Bank of Australia, state supervisory authorities and the Australian Financial Institutions Commission.Three major problems can be identified with the existing arrangements.First, the existing data collection framework is fragmented, cumbersome and, in some areas, outdated. Presently, APRA collects 153 forms, comprising 17,000 data items. In some cases, the data collected are inadequate or no longer relevant to the performance of APRA's functions.The second problem concerns the inflexibility and inconsistency of the current data collection and publishing powers. APRA's current data collection powers work in conjunction with its data publishing powers and both are contained in a variety of industry specific legislation and regulation.Finally, the current situation means that there is a significant overlap in reporting duties imposed on entities to provide similar data to different government agencies such as APRA, the Reserve Bank and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.These bills aim to facilitate the modernisation and increase the relevance of financial sector data collections, thereby ensuring that APRA collects the data it requires for prudential purposes. The data APRA collects will also continue to facilitate the formulation by the Reserve Bank of monetary policy. Secondly, they aim to harmonise and increase the flexibility of the data collection and publishing regimes and, finally, to create a central point for the collection of financial data.Overall, the proposed regulatory measures are designed to streamline and simplify the current data collection methods and systems.Improved data submission mechanisms and a reduction in the frequency of certain key collections will contribute to a substantial decrease in the amount of data required to be provided in total to APRA, the Reserve Bank and ABS, leading to a reduction in the compliance costs and time required to fulfil data providing duties. Financial institutions will not have to spend additional time providing similar data to the three agencies; instead, APRA will be the one-stop shop, or data collection point.The modernisation and harmonisation of collections across the three agencies will facilitate easier compliance with APRA's requests for data, as these will be more commercially aligned. The harmonisation of APRA's data collections with public disclosure requirements of provider institutions and with the financial collections of the ABS and Reserve Bank will make it simpler for institutions to comply.The proposals will reduce by around 30 per cent the reporting burden on authorised deposit-taking institutions, measured in terms of the number of data items of this nature that are submitted to APRA, the Reserve Bank and the ABS. By ensuring that these three bodies work cooperatively in this endeavour, substantial savings in financial institution, human and systems resources will be effected over time.The Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Bill is modest in the context of the overall financial sector reform package undertaken by this government. Nevertheless, it is an important step in the government's commitment to maintain a world-class regulatory framework for the Australian financial sector: a framework which assists the financial sector to be efficient, responsive, competitive and flexible, but which retains the principles of stability, prudence, integrity and fairness. I will now turn to the bills in more detail.APRA may determine reporting standardsThe Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Bill proposes to establish a two-tiered regulatory system that will streamline the data collection processes for both APRA and the institutions it supervises.At the top level, the bill contains broad principles and powers to enable the collection of information.At the second level, the detailed reporting requirements for financial institutions will be set out in `reporting standards' which will be subordinate to the legislation and will be made by APRA. The reporting standards will be disallowable instruments.The reporting standards will be introduced progressively over the next two to three years, commencing with the authorised deposit-taking institution, ADI, sector from 1 July 2001. APRA will continue to hold in-depth consultations with industry groups on the detailed requirements of the reporting standards before they are introduced.OffencesData needs to be received in a timely manner to permit the identification of financial institutions at risk and for the Reserve Bank's monetary policy purposes. Undue delays in receiving data of this nature can harm the ability of the regulatory bodies to carry out their statutory responsibilities. Late lodgment of statutory returns can seriously compromise APRA's ability to supervise effectively. In order to allow the regulator to work effectively, protecting the interests of depositors, fund members and policy holders, regulated institutions must provide necessary financial data in a timely fashion. Accordingly, it is considered to be appropriate and necessary for there to be significant disincentives for late lodgment.The Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Bill facilitates the application of the Commonwealth's Criminal Code to offences. It is not intended to apply these powers in cases where there are minor or inadvertent infringements, for example, when returns are just a few days late, which will most likely be the majority of cases. Accordingly, the bill proposes the introduction of administrative penalties that could be used in lieu of the offences set out above.The Financial Sector (Collection of Data—Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill will repeal the Financial Corporations Act and consequentially amend all of APRA's industry supervision acts—as well as several other acts to simply update references to the proposed new act—to remove their current data collection provisions. It also amends APRA's power to publish data received from financial institutions. It is proposed that APRA will generally only publish data in aggregate form, although some individual data will continue to be provided to the marketplace for market share analysis consistent with current practice.Disclosure is necessary for effective market operation and to the minimal extent that APRA will publish prudential data, it will be required to consult with industry and obtain industry agreement.Consultation on this package of reform is being undertaken in two parts. APRA has already consulted major finance industry bodies on the general package of reforms and has received wide ranging support. The next stage of consultation, which is currently in train, builds on this initial phase by consulting with industry on the content of the bills.The government considers it important to provide industry groups with time to consider the details of the bills. The government will therefore take into account comments received even though the bills need to be introduced into parliament today to ensure we can meet industry-wide expectations of commencement on 1 July 2001.These bills not only build on the financial sector reforms already undertaken by this government, they emphasise our commitment to ongoing reform which will ensure that Australia is at the forefront of world's best practice in financial market regulation.The financial sector is a key driver in the economy. The benefits that these bills will provide are clear. The measures will further enhance access to data collected by APRA and foster more efficient regulation, leading to better prudential oversight of the financial industry. Furthermore, benefits will accrue to the users of financial services through greater confidence in financial services, greater safety for depositors, fund members and policy holders and a stronger financial sector.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills26521R127326521Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.2652110:03:0026521Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.I refer to my earlier second reading speech for the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Bill 2001 and I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill, the Financial Sector (Collection of Data—Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2001.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills26521R125626521Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.2652110:04:0026521Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Today I introduce a bill to modernise the regulation of the Australian financial services industry. The bill will directly benefit the 330,000 people employed in the industry and will directly benefit the 17 million consumers of financial products. Importantly, this bill provides the financial services industry with an unprecedented opportunity to become a major exporter of services to three billion people in Asia and other jurisdictions around the world.The bill will introduce a harmonised regulatory regime for market integrity and consumer protection across the financial services industry.The comprehensive package of reforms proposed in the Financial Services Reform Bill 2001 will facilitate the development of a financial services industry that is both globally competitive and consumer focused.The reforms proposed in the bill are at the cutting edge of global regulatory practice.The bill constitutes the third tranche of the government's legislative response to the financial system inquiry, FSI, report.The FSI report—also known as the Wallis report—concluded that the complex and fragmented regulatory framework was creating inefficiencies for financial service providers and confusion for consumers.It recommended the introduction of a single licensing regime for all financial sales, advice and dealing and the creation of a consistent and comparable product disclosure framework.It argued that these changes would generate substantial benefits for both the industry and consumers.This bill is the vehicle that will enable financial service providers to reap the efficiencies and cost savings identified by the FSI. It will do so by introducing a harmonised licensing, disclosure and conduct framework for all financial service providers.It will establish a consistent and comparable financial product disclosure regime. It will create a streamlined regulatory regime for financial markets and clearing and settlement facilities. The bill recognises that it is no longer possible for different financial institutions, services and products to be regulated under separate regulatory frameworks.The bill will ensure that Australia's regulatory framework keeps pace with current developments in the financial services industry.The bill will remove regulatory barriers to the introduction of technological innovations and assist Australia's financial services industry to meet the technological challenge posed by the spread of e-commerce.It will ensure that Australian financial service providers that seek to compete in the global marketplace are not disadvantaged under Australia's domestic regulatory framework.The streamlined regulatory regime proposed in the bill will reduce the compliance costs associated with carrying on a financial services business. The bill will bring particular benefits to financial institutions that seek to provide their clients with a full range of financial services and products. However, it has been carefully crafted to ensure that specialist providers and small businesses will not be disadvantaged.Consumers will benefit from the introduction of a consistent framework of consumer protection.The bill will enhance the capacity of consumers to understand and compare different financial products and evaluate financial advice. It will also ensure that consumers can access appropriate complaint handling mechanisms for resolving disputes with financial service providers.Whilst most industry participants have welcomed this bill, and many are keen for the new arrangements to commence at the earliest opportunity, a minority has resisted any change to the current regulatory arrangements. The government has listened very closely to the arguments of these industry participants, and has sought to address as many of their concerns as possible.However, for the benefit of industry and consumers as a whole, it is necessary for these participants to move outside their `comfort zone' and become part of a highly dynamic and rapidly changing financial services industry.The bill's overall objective is to harmonise, rather than increase the intensity of the current regulatory framework. Many financial service providers are already subject to regulatory frameworks governing licensing, disclosure and other conduct obligations. However, these frameworks vary across different industry sectors. This fragmentation increases compliance costs and reduces industry efficiency.The bill seeks to harmonise these diverse requirements within a single overarching framework that will apply to all financial service providers. The bill will replace a substantial amount of existing legislation, hence its size.It is important to emphasise that harmonisation does not equal uniformity.The new framework will protect individual and small business consumers without imposing higher costs on wholesale transactions between sophisticated professional investors that operate in a competitive global market.The framework will also be capable of flexible implementation so that it can apply differently to different products where this difference can be justified within the overall objectives of the regulatory framework.Basic deposit products will be subject to less intensive regulation than more complex investment products.This will ensure that the bill will not jeopardise the cost-effective provision of basic banking services, especially in rural and regional areas.The bill will also provide financial service providers with the flexibility to adopt corporate structures and distribution channels that best meet their commercial objectives.Furthermore, it is anticipated that industry codes will play an important role in fleshing out standards for meeting the requirements of the new regime. The bill is the product of an extensive process of consultation that has been widely applauded by both business and consumer representatives.Discussion papers setting out the major reforms proposed in the bill were released for public comment in December 1997 and March 1999.An exposure draft of the bill was released for public comment in February 2000. Over 120 submissions were received in response to the exposure draft.This exposure draft was also considered by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities, and I thank the members of the committee for their report.I would also like to thank the members of the government's Business Regulation Advisory Group for their participation in the consultation process.The bill has been refined in response to issues identified by stakeholders, as well as by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Securities and the Business Regulation Advisory Group.In addition, I have consulted the relevant state and Northern Territory ministers about these reforms in accordance with the corporations agreement and have obtained the approval of the Ministerial Council for Corporations for those amendments included in this bill for which the council's approval is required under that agreement.I will be asking the parliamentary joint committee to consider the final form of the bill that I am introducing today, focusing particularly on the changes that have been made and other elements of the bill that have not previously been considered.Coverage of the regimeThe bill will cover a wide range of financial products: shares and debentures, derivatives, managed investment products, general and life insurance products—other than health insurance—superannuation products and retirement savings accounts, deposit products, non-cash payment facilities and some foreign exchange transactions—where contracts are not settled immediately.Credit will be expressly excluded from regulation under the bill. Consumer credit will continue to be regulated under the Uniform Consumer Credit Code (UCCC).Financial service provider licensingA person who carries on a financial services business will be required to hold an Australian financial services licence.A licence can be sought to provide all financial services in relation to all financial products or a more limited class of services and products. The licence criteria will be applied having regard to the scope of the licence being sought.Licensees will be able to authorise natural persons or corporate representatives to act on their behalf. However, licensees will be responsible for the conduct of their representatives.The new licensing provisions have been carefully crafted to accommodate existing representative structures. They will provide industry participants with the flexibility to structure their distribution arrangements in a manner that best meets their commercial objectives.The bill contains a mechanism for professional bodies, whose members in the course of carrying on their profession give financial product advice, to come within the licensing regime through a mechanism referred to as the declared professional body.Financial service provider disclosure and conductThe financial service provider disclosure obligations contained in the bill will ensure that retail clients receive sufficient information to make informed decisions about whether to take up a financial service and whether to act on the advice they receive.In particular, advisers will be required to disclose information on any conflicts of interest, including commissions, that might reasonably be expected to influence the advice provided. Additional requirements will apply where advice recommends the replacement of one financial product with another. These provisions, particularly as they apply to risk insurance products, have been the subject of much debate in the consultation process. Modifications have been made to the original proposals.There are still some in the industry who oppose the approach adopted in the bill. However, I remain convinced that we have got it right. To go further would compromise one of the key objectives of the bill, of moving away from inefficient product based regulation to a harmonised regulatory framework across the financial services industry.Financial product disclosureThe bill will establish a regime for disclosure throughout the life of a financial product: from point of sale disclosure to confirmation of transactions, ongoing disclosure and periodic reporting.In relation to point of sale disclosure a dual approach is taken. Shares and debentures will remain subject to the fundraising provisions that are contained in chapter 6D of the proposed Corporations Act. These provisions were recently reformed by the Corporate Law Economic Reform Program Act 1999, and it would have been inappropriate to subject them to further change.All other financial products, including managed investment products, will be subject to a new point of sale disclosure framework based on a product disclosure statement.The product disclosure statement will be required to provide retail clients with key information relevant to a particular product as well as any other information that is known to the issuer that might reasonably be expected to influence a retail client's decision to acquire the product.The bill's approach to financial product disclosure is intended to ensure that retail clients receive sufficient information to make informed choices in relation to the acquisition of financial products and that this information is provided in a concise and readily understandable format that facilitates comparisons between financial products.The bill will also require product issuers that are not licensees to provide retail clients with access to internal and external dispute resolution procedures.Markets and clearing and settlement facilitiesThe bill introduces a simplified approach to the regulation of financial markets and clearing and settlement facilities.The seven routes to authorisation for securities and futures exchanges under the current Corporations Law will be replaced with a single licensing regime based on the Australian market licence. Similarly, the two current routes to authorisation for clearing and settlement facilities will be replaced with a single Australian clearing and settlement facility licence.The new regulatory structure contained in the bill will clarify the roles and responsibilities of market and facility operators, the minister and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.Under the new licensing arrangements, licensees will have primary responsibility for the operation of markets and facilities.The minister will have overall responsibility for licensing financial markets and clearing and settlement facilities.ASIC will be empowered to advise the minister in relation to the minister's licensing responsibilities under the new framework, and the minister will be required to have regard to ASIC's advice. ASIC will also be required to undertake annual assessments of the adequacy of market and facility licensees' supervision arrangements and will assess their compliance with their obligations under the new regime.The bill will provide market operators with greater flexibility in developing market supervision and compensation arrangements to meet their obligations under the new regulatory regime.The compensation arrangements in the bill are largely based on existing provisions in the Corporations Law. However, during the consultation process fundamental issues arose about the approach to compensation arrangements. Given the significance of the issue, I have asked the Companies and Securities Advisory Committee to consider the matter with a view to implementing further changes, if necessary, in the future. Given structural changes in clearing and settlement both in Australia and globally I am considering how best to ensure that the Reserve Bank of Australia has an appropriate role in relation to systemic risk matters. I propose to consult with clearing and settlement facilities before introducing some amendments to the provisions of the bill that regulate clearing and settlement facilities in the winter sittings.The bill will apply a `fit and proper person' test to a range of persons involved in licensed financial markets and clearing and settlement facilities.The current five per cent shareholding limitation applying to the Australian Stock Exchange Ltd will be removed. In its place the bill applies a shareholding limitation of 15 per cent to financial markets and clearing and settlement facilities that are prescribed as being of national significance. However it will be possible for the minister to approve a larger shareholding in relation to a market or facility where this in the public interest. The explanatory memorandum to the bill contains guidelines for assessing whether a market or clearing and settlement facility is of national significance.Market and other misconduct provisionsThe provisions relating to market and other misconduct in the current Corporations Law will be streamlined and extended, as appropriate, to apply to all financial products and markets. A number of market misconduct provisions will become civil penalty provisions. This means that contraventions will be subject to both civil penalties and criminal consequences.Telephone monitoring during takeover bidsThe bill will amend the regulatory framework covering takeovers to provide greater protection for target shareholders. It will require bidders and targets to record all telephone conversations with target shareholders during the bid period. Privacy safeguards to protect the information will also be required. This measure will enhance ASIC's capacity to investigate and take enforcement action in these situations. Commencement of the regimeThe government had been aiming for commencement of the regime on 1 July 2001. However, the delay in the introduction of the bill while we negotiated a secure constitutional basis for corporate regulation with the states now means that this is no longer possible.We need to allow sufficient time to consult on the regulations under the bill and for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission and industry to prepare for commencement. Industry is keen to have this bill commence. I will be taking all the steps I can to expedite the passage of the bill so that the transitional provisions can commence with the bill on 1 October 2001.The proposed transitional provisions relating to the commencement of the new regulatory framework will be contained in a separate bill dealing with transitional and consequential amendments that I intend to introduce in the winter sittings. A two-year transitional period will generally apply in relation to the new regulatory framework. To facilitate a smooth transition to the new regime, existing licensees will generally be able to exchange their current licence for a new licence, enabling them to carry on their existing businesses. Existing licensing and registration regimes will be preserved during the transitional period and will continue to apply to persons until they make the transition to the new regime. In relation to the potential tax consequences for current industry participants in moving to the new licensing regime, the government is calling for submissions from industry to determine the precise nature and extent of the issue. These submissions need to be submitted by 31 May 2001. Following an assessment of these submissions, the government will consider whether legislation is necessary to deal with any identified tax consequences of the FSR bill. In relation to product disclosure, there will be a two-year transitional period. However, a product issuer or seller may opt in to the new regime at any time during the transitional period. In relation to superannuation products that will be subject to the choice of fund regime, special transitional provisions will be prescribed in regulations once the timing of choice legislation is known. Existing approved exchanges will be issued with a licence under the new regime that will permit them to carry on the activities for which they are currently authorised. However, approval would be needed to undertake new activities. The operators of markets which are subject to exempt market declarations will have two years in which to obtain an Australian markets licence. A similar transitional regime will apply in relation to clearing and settlement facilities, except that those facilities that are currently operating but do not currently require approval will have two years to obtain a licence. This is an historic bill that is going to have a profound impact on seven per cent of the Australian economy, which is the financial services industry. I commend the bill to the House, and I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills26526R128526526Bill presented by Mr Hockey, and read a first time.2652610:25:0026526Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of this bill is to make consequential amendments to certain offence provisions in legislation administered by the Treasurer to reflect the application of the Criminal Code Act 1995 to existing offence provisions from 15 December 2001.The bill proposes amendments to the range of taxation legislation, the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints Act) 1993 and aspects of the Trade Practices Act 1974 that required consultation with the states. For reasons of convenience, the bill also includes proposed amendments to the Trade Practices Act 1974 in relation to provisions administered by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts. The Treasury Legislation (Application of Criminal Code) Bill (No. 1) 2001 has previously been introduced and would make amendments to the Financial Sector Shareholdings Act 1998, Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975, Insurance Act 1973, Life Insurance Act 1995, Prices Surveillance Act 1983, Productivity Commission Act 1998, Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997, Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993 and aspects of the Trade Practices Act 1974 which did not require consultation with the states.It is proposed to introduce a final bill in the winter sittings to make consequential amendments to the Corporations Law, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 1989. This bill provides for amendments which clarify the physical elements of an offence and corresponding fault elements where these fault elements vary from those specified by the code and which specify whether an offence is one of strict or absolute liability. In the absence of such an amendment, offences previously interpreted as being one of strict or absolute liability would be interpreted as not being one of strict or absolute liability. In addition, any defences to an offence are being restated separately from the words of the offence. Use is being made of this opportunity to convert penalties expressed as dollar amounts to penalty units. The bill does not change the criminal law. Rather, it ensures that the current law is maintained following application of the Criminal Code Act to Commonwealth legislation. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson) adjourned.Bills26527R127726527Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time.2652710:28:0026527Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill amends legislation in the Immigration and Multicultural Affairs portfolio to harmonise existing criminal offence provisions with chapter 2 of the Criminal Code.It is one of a series of government bills designed to apply the Criminal Code on a portfolio by portfolio basis.Chapter 2 of the Criminal Code, contained in the Criminal Code Act 1995, establishes the general principles of criminal responsibility. It provides a standard approach to the formulation of Commonwealth criminal offences.The Criminal Code will apply to offences against a law of the Commonwealth on 15 December 2001.Many offence provisions in migration legislation predate the Criminal Code and there is a possibility that the application of the code will change their meaning and operation.The purpose of the bill is to make all the necessary amendments to offence provisions to ensure compliance and consistency with the general principles of the Criminal Code. However, the offence provisions, as amended by the bill, will not change in operation or meaning. The bill harmonises offence provisions in migration legislation in several ways. First, the bill makes it clear that the Criminal Code applies to all offences against migration law.Second, the bill replaces references to certain general offence provisions in the Crimes Act 1914 with references to the corresponding provisions of the Criminal Code.Third, the bill clarifies the physical and fault elements of offences. This will improve the efficient and fair prosecution of offences. I anticipate that this measure alone will save many hundreds of hours of court time otherwise spent in complicated, and sometimes inconsistent, interpretation of offence provisions.Fourth, the bill amends migration legislation to remove unnecessary duplication of the general offence provisions in the Criminal Code. For example, it removes the ancillary offence of attempt and the defence of lawful authority. Reliance is instead placed on the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code. Finally, the bill amends certain offence provisions to expressly provide that they are offences of strict or absolute liability. If an offence is not expressly stated to be one of strict or absolute liability, then the prosecution will be required to prove fault in relation to the physical elements of the offence. The amendments in the bill are necessary to ensure that the strict or absolute liability nature of certain offence provisions is not lost after the application of the Criminal Code. Without these amendments, the offences would become more difficult for the prosecution to prove and almost unenforceable. I would like to emphasise that the bill does not create any new strict or absolute liability offences. Overall, the bill will bring greater consistency and clarity to Commonwealth criminal law. It is one step in a process that will give Australians greater certainty, protection and confidence under the criminal law. It is important that the amendments in the bill are made prior to 15 December 2001 in order to ensure that there is a seamless transition.I look forward to the bill receiving the support of the opposition. I commend the bill to the chamber and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson) adjourned.Bills26528R128626528Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time.2652810:32:0026528Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The main purpose of this bill is to bring the Migration Act and the Australian Citizenship Act into line with the Electronic Transactions Act.The bill establishes a legal framework that is sufficiently robust for the Immigration and multicultural affairs portfolio to pursue, with integrity, the government's commitment to provide services online.The Electronic Transactions Act gives effect to the validity of electronic communications.That act will apply to all Commonwealth legislation from 1 July 2001.Australia, and the world, is rapidly being transformed by technological advancements and innovations.These advances have already been recognised, and are being used, within the Immigration and Multicultural Affairs portfolio.In 1996, for example, the introduction of the electronic travel authority visa, also known as the ETA, substantially facilitated travel to Australia of overseas tourists.The ETA is the most advanced and streamlined travel authorisation system in the world.It enables visitors to obtain authority to enter Australia at the same time they book their travel arrangements.The ETA is issued within seconds by computer links between my department, travel agents, airlines and specialist service providers around the world.This has greatly benefited the tourism industry and Australia in general.This bill will enable my department to further avail itself of developments in information technology and business processing, in several ways.First, the bill facilitates electronic communications by removing existing impediments in the current legislation that may prevent the use of electronic transactions.Second, the bill establishes a framework to allow for the use of computer programs to make decisions in the migration and citizenship context.The approach taken is similar to that under the Social Security (Administration) Act. Electronic lodgement of applications and computer based decision making will provide new opportunities for clients who have previously been restricted by office hours. Where services are available online, clients will be able to lodge electronic applications 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.This will provide greater convenience for clients in submitting applications.Visa and citizenship services will only be provided electronically after all security and integrity risks are satisfied.For example, systems will be carefully designed to guard against fraud.As such, computer based decision making will have a limited field of operation.In the migration context, a computer program will only make decisions on certain visa applications where the grounds for grant are objective and where the criteria lend themselves to automated assessment.A decision to cancel a visa will not be made by a computer program. Computer based processing is not suitable in these circumstances because these decisions require an assessment of discretionary factors.Nonetheless, the legislative framework is sufficiently flexible to allow for technological advances which may occur in the future.The challenge, however, is to have legislative strategies that allow for the use of these advances while providing adequate safeguards for both the integrity of government processes and achieving equity for clients.To this end, safeguard measures have been incorporated into the bill.Should a computer program not function correctly because of a computer related error, the minister may substitute a more favourable decision for one made by the computer program.This will ensure that adverse decisions can be corrected without inconveniencing the applicant.I would like to emphasise that existing merits review rights of applicants will not be affected by these amendments. All review decisions will continue to be made by a tribunal member.Third, the bill provides the ways in which the minister, the Migration Review Tribunal and the Refugee Review Tribunal may give documents to persons.The amendments also determine the time when the document is taken to have been received and allow for the transmission of documents electronically, to comply with the requirements of the Electronic Transactions Act.These amendments essentially consolidate into the Migration Act existing provisions found in either the Migration Act or the migration regulations.They clarify when notification of a decision occurs and on what date.This is critical for review mechanisms, as an application for review must be made within a specified period, or the case is out of time.Finally, the bill corrects some minor technical errors and misdescribed amendments in the Migration Act.In summary, this bill facilitates electronic communications, embraces a new approach to decision making and consolidates legislative provisions for the giving and receiving of documents.It is an important bill, and one which will ensure that my portfolio can give effect to the government's commitment to enable expanded use of electronic communications, while maintaining the integrity of Australia's immigration controls.I commend the bill to the House. I table an explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson) adjourned.Bills26529R128326529Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time.2652910:38:0026529Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I move: That the bill be now read a second time.The Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill 2001 is an integral part of a range of strategies which the government is introducing to ensure that immigration detention centres are safe environments for all persons within them, be they detainees, visitors or staff.In this speech, a reference to detention centres includes both immigration reception and processing centres and immigration detention centres.Since 1999, we have witnessed an unprecedented increase in the number of unauthorised boat arrivals on Australian shores.People-smuggling has become a major international phenomenon. Sophisticated, highly organised criminal networks ply this lucrative and relatively low risk trade.People-smuggling is estimated to be worth many billions of dollars a year. The issues surrounding unauthorised arrivals and immigration detention in Australia are complex.It is a legal requirement in Australia that unlawful non-citizens be detained. This requirement for mandatory detention has bipartisan support, having been first introduced by the Labor government in 1992.Mandatory detention is tough public policy but it is an essential element in dealing with the complex dilemmas and challenges facing us from unauthorised arrivals organised by people smugglers.It is sound policy and, indeed, some other countries also facing this issue are strengthening their approach to detention of unlawful arrivals.When people arrive in Australia unlawfully, we must find out who they are, where they have come from, and why they cannot return to their country of origin. We need to carry out health and character checks.Many unauthorised arrivals dispose of their documentation before they arrive in Australia. Establishing the identity of these people can take considerable time, but it is essential in order to determine whether Australia owes them protection obligations.It is also essential to ensure that people are not granted visas and released where they represent a real danger to the community because of security or criminal concerns.Whilst I have always defended the policy of mandatory detention as part of an overall policy designed to protect the integrity of our borders, I have also always asserted that detention must be humane.While we are obliged to and do provide suitable accommodation and facilities for detainees, they in turn have a responsibility to behave appropriately.Increased unauthorised arrivals has meant that the detainee population has grown in number and changed in nature. This has presented new challenges in managing immigration detention centres.It is apparent from recent incidents at detention centres that many detainees have unrealistic expectations of what would occur on arrival and the processes in Australia. These expectations arise from the misinformation provided to them by people smugglers.It is both alarming and regrettable that in recent times there have been a number of major incidents of antisocial and violent behaviour at immigration detention centres.Members will recall that there have been major disturbances at the Woomera, Curtin and Port Hedland immigration reception and processing centres. In fact, yesterday there was a major disturbance at the Curtin immigration reception and processing centre.There have been violent protests, burning of buildings, assaults on officers and other detainees, and mass escapes.The violent actions of some detainees have endangered both other detainees and staff, and caused considerable damage to Commonwealth property.We need enhanced powers to discourage and, where necessary, to more effectively manage this inappropriate behaviour in detention centres.Whatever its reason, violent and threatening behaviour by immigration detainees, which would be unacceptable in the Australian community, cannot be tolerated in these centres. We respect the dignity and cultural values and beliefs of detainees, and we expect that they in turn will respect the rights of fellow detainees, staff working at detention centres and the Australian community.The measures in this bill will provide assistance in ensuring the safety of all persons within detention centres. The bill amends the Migration Act 1958 to:strengthen the criminal offence of escape from immigration detention and to introduce a new offence relating to the manufacture and possession of weapons in immigration detention;introduce an additional power to search immigration detainees for weapons or things which may be used to inflict bodily injury or assist in an attempt to escape from detention;permit searches of immigration detainees held in state or territory prisons or remand centres in accordance with the relevant state or territory laws; andintroduce additional security measures for visitors entering immigration detention centres.Criminal offences dealing with immigration detaineesThere have been many incidents where some detainees have sought to intimidate other detainees, or to incite detainees to damage property or to escape. This has caused significant disruption and uncooperative behaviour. We have had numerous incidents where detainees have fashioned weapons from materials obtained within detention centres. Examples include razor blades melted into toothbrushes, a shard of mirror attached to a piece of wood to make a knife, and a ballpoint pen with a needle fastened to its centre.These objects have only one purpose—to inflict harm or to threaten others. They represent a serious danger to both staff and detainees. State laws provide some coverage; however, they do not adequately address these circumstances. The government believes it is highly desirable that there be a uniform offence and maximum penalty applicable to the manufacture, possession, use or distribution of weapons in immigration detention.The bill seeks to deter such behaviour by introducing such an offence, with a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment. The bill also increases the maximum penalty for escape from immigration detention from two years to five years imprisonment. This is consistent with the Crimes Act 1914, which contains an offence of escaping from custody other than immigration detention.In addition, the bill brings forward the Criminal Code offence of inciting or urging the commission of an offence against any law of the Commonwealth. The maximum penalty for this offence depends on the penalty for the offence incited.Additional power to search detaineesFrequently, detainees have hidden items, such as those I have mentioned, in their clothing or on their person, that have later been used for self-harm, to injure others or to attempt to escape. Existing search powers do not permit the removal and examination of items of clothing without the detainee's consent. The inability to examine clothing for concealed weapons is of serious concern. It places all persons in danger, particularly as detention centre staff are unarmed.I emphasise at the outset that strip searches will not be undertaken as a matter of routine. There must be strong reasons for undertaking such a search. It is a measure of last resort, to be used only in exceptional circumstances. A search may only be undertaken where there is a reasonable suspicion that the detainee has a hidden weapon or other thing capable of being used to inflict bodily injury—including to the detainee himself or herself—or to help the detainee or any other detainee to escape. Before the search is conducted, the detainee will be advised about the nature of the search.These search provisions have been designed to reflect a reasonable balance between preserving a detainee's dignity and privacy, while providing for the protection of the detainee community as a whole, the centre staff and the Australian community.I emphasise that the proposed power does not extend to an internal examination of a detainee.There are many safeguards built into the legislation. These safeguards and the supporting draft protocol, which will set down directions in relation to such searches, will ensure that the power is not abused and officers are accountable for its use. The draft protocol, which will be settled in conjunction with the Attorney-General, sets out the principles to be incorporated into a section 499 direction which will be binding on departmental officers.In addition, the draft protocol will be further articulated and expanded in migration series instructions and operational orders.I will now mention some of the safeguards contained in the bill.First, an officer must suspect on reasonable grounds that there is hidden on the detainee a weapon or other thing capable of being used to inflict bodily injury or to help the detainee, or any other detainee, to escape from immigration detention. That same officer must also have a reasonable suspicion that it is necessary to conduct a strip search to recover the weapon or other thing. Secondly, specific approval must be sought and obtained before a strip search is conducted. Only a senior departmental officer specially authorised by the secretary can provide this approval. It is intended that only senior officers employed outside detention centres will be so authorised. Departmental managers on-site at detention centres will not be able to authorise strip searches. The senior officer approving the strip search must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for conducting the search. Only a limited number of members of my department's Senior Executive Service and some of my department's state or territory directors will be authorised to approve the conduct of a strip search.Thirdly, a strip search can only be conducted by an authorised officer. Before conducting a strip search, the authorised search officer must assure himself or herself that the permission to search has been properly sought and provided.As an additional safeguard, the senior departmental officer approving the strip search cannot conduct the search.The draft protocol on the use of the strip search power provides further safeguards, including the provision of information to detainees who are to be strip searched. The draft protocol also provides that both those authorised to approve a strip search and those authorised to conduct such a search must be given appropriate training.To ensure accountability written records of all searches must be kept. In addition, I will provide a report twice a year to parliament on use of the power.As usual, detainees will also have access to both internal and external complaints mechanisms, including the Commonwealth Ombudsman and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.Immigration detainees held in state or territory correctional facilitiesDue to serious behavioural problems or other reasons that may threaten the security, or order in immigration detention centres, it is sometimes necessary to hold immigration detainees in state or territory correctional facilities, even if they are not serving custodial sentences. This only occurs as a last resort. The bill puts beyond doubt the ability of the states and territories to use their legislative powers to search immigration detainees being held in their facilities.This will ensure that state and territory authorities will be able to apply search powers consistently to all persons being held in their facilities so that the order and security of the prison or remand centre is not compromised.My department is developing memoranda of understanding with appropriate state and territory authorities governing the transfer and maintenance of immigration detainees in their correctional facilities. The government will seek to ensure that these memoranda of understanding cover search powers, including appropriate reporting mechanisms, when strip searches are conducted on immigration detainees held in state and territory facilities.Entry of visitors to immigration detention centresThe bill also introduces additional security measures for visitors entering immigration detention centres. These measures are essential to the effective management of security at detention centres.There are grounds for concern that some visitors to detention centres might bring into the centre aids for escape. They could also bring in items, including weapons, which could endanger the safety of detainees or staff, or disrupt the order or security arrangements at the centre.The bill provides that officers may request visitors to detention centres to walk through screening equipment and to allow things in their possession to pass through screening equipment or to be examined by X-ray. These screening arrangements are similar to those existing at airports or, indeed, Parliament House, and are not intrusive.Additionally, an authorised officer can request a person seeking to enter the centre to allow closer inspection of any items in their possession or to leave items at the entrance to the centre for the duration of their visit. The visitor does not have to comply with any of the requests but, if they do not comply, can be refused entry. ConclusionThe government cannot ignore the violent and threatening actions of some immigration detainees. The government has a duty of care to all detainees and other persons who are in its detention centres.The measures contained in this bill serve to protect all members of the detainee population, including detainees who may intend to harm themselves.Criminal action in Australia by any person is unacceptable. The actions of a number of detainees, such as assaults, arson, riots and escapes will not be accepted by the government. We have taken great care to strengthen the legislative tools available to manage immigration detention, while building in safeguards against abuse. Before I conclude, there is one more matter that I would like to mention. When I tabled the Flood report on 27 February, I announced the establishment of an Immigration Detention Advisory Group to assist me in the consideration of detention matters. The group is chaired by the Hon. John Hodges, a former Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs. I am pleased to announce that the group is holding its first meeting here in Canberra today.I believe that group will provide valuable assistance to the government on detention policy issues.I commend the bill to the House and hope that, in the context of the very difficult issues we are dealing with, the more recent incidents we have seen, it will receive a cooperative and speedy passage. I table the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson) adjourned.Bills26534R128226534Bill presented by Dr Kemp, and read a first time.2653410:56:0026534Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.It is now widely recognised that innovation is one of the keys to economic prosperity and will be a major driver of economic growth in the 21st century. That is why we must grasp the opportunity now available to further develop the partnerships between the education, research, business and government sectors necessary for Australia to generate and act on ideas. This bill is an important step in the implementation of a comprehensive strategy that will see Australia harness its talents and resources to remain a nation at the forefront of innovation.Innovation can be described as the process of developing skills, generating new ideas through research and turning those ideas into successful commercial outcomes. Government has two roles to play in a successful innovation system. Firstly, it must provide the economic, tax and educational framework that will allow innovative businesses to operate effectively and to ensure that people have the right skills and knowledge. Secondly, it must provide direct targeted support in areas where private sector funding is not appropriate or available. This government is delivering on both these fronts.During the term of this government our economy has enjoyed an unprecedented period of economic growth, averaging 4.5 per cent in the last three financial years, coupled with low inflation and impressive employment and productivity performances. We now have an internationally competitive taxation system, with low company tax rates and a GST to replace the former inefficient indirect tax system. We will soon have a new capital gains tax system that will encourage entrepreneurial behaviour. On the education side, the real value of the Commonwealth's investment in education has risen from $9.4 billion in 1995-96 to $11.1 billion in 2000-01.In January this year, the Prime Minister announced a package of measures, the government's innovation action plan, Backing Australia's Ability, that are the next steps in the government's strategy to directly encourage and support innovation. The current bill deals with the elements of the innovation action plan that are to be delivered through Australia's high quality higher education sector.Universities have a vital role in the innovation system. They are the nation's leading providers of training for our future research work force and generate much of the new knowledge that drives innovation. Although our investment in higher education research and development as a share of GDP is already high by international standards, the government has recognised that further investment in higher education research, research infrastructure and skills development is needed.This bill provides the first instalment of the $1.47 billion in additional funding being provided over the next five years to boost research and higher education in Australia. This funding will be critical to strengthening our already strong research base and to developing and retaining Australian skills. Together these elements will ensure the flow of the new ideas which underpin innovation.The government's innovation strategy includes doubling funding for the national competitive grants administered by the Australian Research Council over the next five years. The extra $736 million will improve the competitiveness of researchers' salaries and increase the support available under the discovery and linkage elements of the ARC's grants program. The additional funding will be focused on areas in which Australia enjoys, or wants to build, a competitive advantage. Complementing this substantial increase in grants funding will be a total of $583 million over five years in extra funding to maintain and build up the research infrastructure in our universities. Three hundred and thirty-seven million dollars will provide the infrastructure needed to support project funded research from ARC and National Health and Medical Research Council grants. Two hundred and forty-six million dollars will be available to upgrade the basic infrastructure of universities, such as scientific and research equipment, libraries and laboratory facilities. The government also seeks to strengthen Australia's skills base, encourage a wider interest in science, mathematics and technology and retain and attract back to this country the best Australian researchers. Our strategy includes building Australia's capacity in key enabling technologies such as information and communications technology and biotechnology.This bill encompasses two key components of the strategy. The bill establishes the new Postgraduate Education Loans Scheme, PELS. PELS is designed to encourage life-long learning and to help Australians upgrade and acquire new skills. It is expected that the loans provided under this scheme will amount to some $995 million over the next five years and will assist about 240,000 students in their aspirations to undertake further advanced education.The bill also provides the initial years of the $151 million over five years for additional university places in the priority areas of information and communications technology, mathematics and science. The new funding will support an additional 2,000 university places each year, rising to nearly 5,500 places a year, as students continue through the system; or 21,000 equivalent full-time student places over the five years.A component of the doubled ARC funding will be used to support 25 new Federation fellowships each year to retain, or attract back, the very best Australian researchers. Each fellowship will be worth an internationally competitive $225,000 a year in salary for five years. The bill will also introduce some amendments to the Higher Education Contribution Scheme and related schemes to streamline their administration and provide important protections in relation to the public's investment in these schemes. The bill will give the minister the discretion to impose a cap on the maximum amount of debt students can accumulate to discourage irresponsible use of the schemes and excessive fee increases. Other provisions in the bill will make it easier for universities to operate in an electronic environment consistent with the requirements of the Electronic Transactions Act 1999.The bill includes a minor amendment to the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education) Assistance Act 2000 to ensure that the government's commitment to maintaining special education per capita funding levels is honoured. A minor increase in funding will ensure that the full level of funding required is available so that independent schools are not disadvantaged by the new arrangements for special education per capita funding introduced in the act. The bill also amends the States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Act 2000 by increasing the funding for establishment assistance to new non-government schools for the 2001-04 program years, in line with current estimates of demand.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson) adjourned.Bills26535R127926535Bill presented by Mr Brough, for Dr Wooldridge, and read a first time.2653511:05:0026535Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. This bill contains amendments relating to four areas in the health portfolio: the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, the recognition of specialist medical practitioners, payment of Medicare benefits where cheques made out to general practitioners are not presented within a defined period of time and the 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance scheme. Two changes have been sought to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare Act 1997. The first concerns members of the board, who are currently appointed on the recommendation of a limited group of bodies specified in the act. It is proposed that the bodies that can make those recommendations instead be prescribed by regulation and that appointments not be limited to such nominations. This will ensure a greater flexibility in the appointments, though it will not change either the number of board members or the knowledge and expertise for which the members are appointed.In 1992 the institute's responsibilities were broadened to include welfare related functions. The second amendment to the institute's act is an essentially technical one to remove an inability to release identifiable welfare related information for statistical purposes. The release will be under the same strict conditions that currently apply to release of health related information.The second area being amended by this bill relates to the recognition of specialist medical practitioners. The amendments are primarily designed to simplify the process for recognising medical practitioners as specialists, though the criteria for recognition will be unchanged. The changes will result in administrative efficiencies.Thirdly, this bill will also amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 to allow the Health Insurance Commission to pay Medicare benefits directly to general practitioners where `pay doctor via claimant' cheques made out to general practitioners are not presented within 90 days of issue. Under the act, Medicare benefits are payable only to the person who incurs medical expenses, that is, the patient. Where a patient has not paid the medical expenses, the patient can request that a cheque for the amount of the Medicare benefit be drawn by the Health Insurance Commission in favour of the medical practitioner who rendered the professional services. These are referred to as `pay doctor via claimant' cheques. As it is the patient who receives the service, the act requires that the cheque be sent to the patient. The patient is then expected to forward the `pay doctor via claimant' cheque and any patient contribution to the practitioner. The great majority of patients do present the `pay doctor via claimant' cheques to their doctors in a timely manner. However, some cheques are received very late and some are never presented, leaving doctors with unnecessarily long delays or ultimately bad debts for medical services already provided in good faith. This amendment will allow for payment of the amount of benefits to be made directly to a general practitioner where the cheque has not been presented within 90 days from the date of issue.The fourth set of amendments relates to the coalition's very successful 30 per cent rebate on private health insurance scheme. Under current arrangements, where funds require reimbursement for claims made late or low, the payment is via an act of grace. This cumbersome procedure will be revised to allow the Health Insurance Commission to make those payments. Other minor amendments include clarification of the premium reduction calculation for the rebate and removal of redundant items from legislation. I commend the bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Laurie Ferguson) adjourned.Bills26536R128126536Bill presented by Mr Brough, for Mr McGauran, and read a first time.2653611:10:0026536Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 makes a number of relatively minor but important amendments to the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992.These amendments relate to:· high definition television programming;· the allocation of additional commercial television licences in underserviced remote or regional markets; and· antisiphoning arrangements to facilitate the coverage of certain sporting events on pay television.There are also some technical amendments to certain provisions relating to datacasting services.Currently the Broadcasting Services Act requires that any HDTV programming must be exactly the same as standard definition television programming. There is no flexibility to allow some limited differences between HDTV and SDTV programs, as there is between SDTV and analog programs.The bill will enable the Australian Broadcasting Authority to grant an exemption authorising broadcasters to `time shift' HDTV programs—that is, to show the HDTV version of a program at a different time to when the SDTV/analog versions are shown. The exemption could be provided for up to one year, with the ability to apply for renewal. This would enable good quality HDTV to be demonstrated during the day. Retailers can use this material to show consumers the benefits of HDTV receivers at a point of purchase.To ensure that this measure does not encourage broadcasters to create HDTV material not available in SDTV format, broadcasters will be required to show these HDTV programs in SDTV within seven days prior to or after the HDTV version is shown. However, if these different HDTV programs are repeated within the week they are shown, only one showing will count towards the HDTV quota.The bill will also allow broadcasters to provide different advertising in the HDTV version of a television service in the first two years of digital television broadcasting. This will provide time for broadcasters to make the necessary investment and put in place the necessary equipment to provide the same range of HDTV local advertising as they provide in SDTV.These changes increase the flexibility of the digital television framework with respect to HDTV without undermining the integrity of the simulcast and HDTV quota rules.Section 38B of the Broadcasting Services Act provides a mechanism for the incumbent broadcasters in licence areas where there are only two commercial services to seek a licence to provide a third service in digital mode. The act currently provides that the broadcasters may, within a specified period:· jointly seek the licence;· apply alone if the other declines to seek the licence; or· in the absence of an agreement, bid for the licence at auction.The current provisions require both broadcasters to indicate their intention in a joint statement to the ABA. If either broadcaster refuses to respond, the other is unable to proceed to allocation of the licence. This means that the individual broadcasters are in a position to prevent the allocation of a licence for a third service in these underserviced areas through non-participation in the joint election process for a third licence.The bill amends the act to ensure that a third licence can be allocated under section 38B, by enabling the existing licensees to apply either jointly or separately.In addition, section 73A provides an exemption from the normal control provisions which limit a broadcaster to owning only one licence in a licence area where the broadcaster has been allocated a section 38B licence to provide a third digital service in the same licence area. However, in a limited number of cases involving overlapping licence areas section 73A does not provide an exemption from the control provisions for all licensees.The bill amends section 73A of the act to ensure that an incumbent broadcaster allocated an additional licence under section 38B would not be in breach of the control provisions in these situations. The bill also provides for the introduction of automatic six-week delisting of events under the antisiphoning regime. The objective of the parliament in establishing the antisiphoning regime was to prevent subscription broadcasting licensees from acquiring the exclusive rights to broadcast important events that should be freely available to the public.The Broadcasting Services Act does, however, give the minister discretion to remove an event from the antisiphoning list. The minister is able to delist events where, for example, free-to-air broadcasters have had an opportunity to acquire the right to televise an event, but none of them has acquired the right within a reasonable time.In practice, events on the antisiphoning list are unlikely to be delisted until it can be demonstrated that free-to-air broadcasters have declined offers to obtain the rights. It follows that pay TV operators cannot finalise their own program arrangements until the outcome of negotiations for free-to-air rights is known and the subsequent delisting has been authorised. This can limit the ability of pay TV operators to schedule and promote forthcoming events. Under the current antisiphoning provisions, events are automatically delisted one week after the event has been held. This ensures that pay TV operators may provide secondary coverage of listed events without restriction.The government's public policy objective of making available certain major sporting events free to the general public would not be served by removal of the antisiphoning provisions of the act at this time. Currently, there are a total of 1.2 million subscribers to Australia's major pay TV services. This compares with six million homes that are reached by free-to-air television. However, there is scope for amendment to the existing antisiphoning regime to assist pay TV operators to gain prompt access to broadcasting rights, where free-to-air broadcasters have had a reasonable opportunity to acquire these rights. This is not intended to affect the availability of major sporting events to the general public. The bill, therefore, provides for listed events to be automatically delisted six weeks before commencement. Automatic delisting six weeks before the event will maximise the time free-to-air broadcasters have to negotiate rights, while providing an adequate time prior to the event for subscription services to acquire and promote the event. If free-to-air broadcasters oppose the delisting of an event and can successfully demonstrate to the minister that they have not had a reasonable opportunity to acquire the free-to-air broadcasting rights before that date, the minister may override the automatic delisting by publishing a declaration that the event continues to be listed.This bill provides for enhancements to the simulcast regime for HDTV in Australia in the light of experience, for improvements to the arrangements for the provision of a third commercial television service in currently underserviced regional and remote areas and for the introduction of more streamlined delisting procedures under the antisiphoning regime.The government remains committed to ensuring the transition from analog to digital broadcasting is as smooth as possible for viewers. This bill allows broadcasters sufficient scope to demonstrate the appeal of HDTV, and allows viewers to make informed choices about digital television products during the simulcast period. The implementation of automatic delisting of events six weeks before they are to occur will streamline the administration of the antisiphoning regime. It directly addresses the problems identified by pay TV operators with the current delisting scheme, while protecting access by free-to-air broadcasters to broadcasting rights for listed events and, thus, does not diminish opportunities for the public to enjoy free-to-air coverage of listed events.I commend the bill to the House and I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills26539R127626539Bill presented by Mr Brough, for Mr Anderson, and read a first time.2653911:19:0026539Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Aviation Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 will amend several aviation related acts within the Transport and Regional Services portfolio. These amendments are contained within the three schedules to the bill.Schedule 1 of the bill streamlines International Air Services Commission processes through amendments to the International Air Services Commission Act 1992.In 1992 the International Air Services Commission was established to act as an independent body for allocating capacity available under Australia's air services agreements to Australian airlines.The government's success in negotiating significantly increased capacity has created opportunities for the Australian community, particularly in regional Australia. The changes have also increased opportunities for Australian airlines, provided that they can respond more quickly to changes in what is an increasingly global market.Therefore, the bill simplifies the process of allocating capacity to ensure that Australian airlines are not unduly delayed by commission procedures from putting Australian capacity into the market to compete with foreign airlines.The government will retain the commission's role of assessing the viability of airlines applying for capacity to operate international air services. It is reasonable to seek evidence from applicants that they are capable of using the resources that are allocated to them, and this act provides that commissioners be selected for specific skills that are directly relevant to this assessment.Further, there is an obligation for a government each time it licenses a services provider. The government needs to be satisfied that the licensee can actually provide the services it is licensed to perform.The next major component of the bill, schedule 2, initiates a program of reform to improve and modernise Australia's regulatory standards for aviation security.Aviation security is aimed at protecting major commercial airline passengers against acts of unlawful interference, such as aircraft hijack or aircraft sabotage. Aviation security allows Australians to place confidence in the aviation industry by reducing the threat to members of the travelling public and the business community.Schedule 2 will pave the way for the introduction of a centralised and specialised set of regulations made under the act: in essence, a dedicated set of aviation security standards. These regulations are proposed as the Aviation Security Regulations 2001. Schedule 2 will support the new regulations by providing three packages of amendments to the Air Navigation Act 1920.Schedule 2 will introduce a statutory framework for the handling of aviation security information. This framework is designed to encourage industry to provide regular and accurate information to government on how it complies with the aviation security standards. The receipt of this additional, targeted security information will assist the government to deal with and resolve compliance problems within the industry in a timely and effective manner.Schedule 2 also reforms the regulation of the carriage of munitions and implements of war on board civil aircraft. The amendments will eliminate duplication and bureaucratic approval processes, whilst maintaining standards.Finally, Schedule 2 will repeal a number of remaining provisions in the act that would conflict with the new security standards under the Aviation Security Regulations 2001. In summary, the new security standards to be initiated under schedule 2 to the bill will be focused on the security outcomes to be achieved by Australia's civil aviation industry and will support an effective industry compliance program.Schedule 3 proposes that the Federal Airports Corporation Act 1986 be repealed and that any remaining contracts, assets and liabilities of the corporation be transferred to the Commonwealth.The Federal Airports Corporation, FAC, ceased trading in September 1998. All airports previously owned and operated by the FAC are now operated either by private lessee companies or Commonwealth owned corporations. There is, therefore, no need to retain the legislation on the statute books. With some minor exceptions, the transfer of assets and liabilities to the Commonwealth was completed in September 1999. It was, however, not possible to transfer residual liabilities in relation to head office employees who did not transfer to the privately leased airports. The proposed amendments will transfer any residual contracts, assets and liabilities in relation to these employees to the Commonwealth. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Swan) adjourned.Bills26540R124526540Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment.Ordered that the amendment be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendment—Schedule 1, item 45, page 16 (lines 9 and 10), omit the item.11:24:0026540Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the amendment be agreed to.When the Electoral and Referendum Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001 was presented to the Senate on Tuesday, 3 April for the second reading debate, the Australian Democrats proposed an amendment which was supported by the Australian Labor Party. The amendment, as proposed by the Democrats and supported by the ALP, is to oppose schedule 1, item 45, page 16, lines 9 and 10 of the Electoral and Referendum Bill (No. 1) 2001. This amendment means that section 311A of the Commonwealth Electoral Act is not to be removed from the legislation.The government will not be opposing this amendment. Section 311A requires that each government department must include in its annual report particulars of amounts paid by or on behalf of the Commonwealth department to advertising agencies, market research organisations, polling organisations, direct mail organisations and media advertising organisations.You would be interested to know that the Special Minister of State is writing to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit on the matter. The minister will be asking the joint committee to give consideration to recommendation 48 of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters report on the conduct of the 1998 federal election with the intention to include this provision in the JCPAA reporting guidelines. The government proposes to give effect to clause 45 of the Electoral and Referendum Bill (No. 1) 2001 and repeal section 311A in the upcoming electoral reform bill.This is one of those matters in which the government has in fact bowed to the realities of the numbers in the Senate. We did prefer the pre-existing situation, but it is a fact of life that the legislation as submitted to the Senate by the government was not going to be carried and, as a result of that, we have accepted this amendment, albeit reluctantly. The amendment, however, does not destroy the principal intentions that the government had in the bill and our aim, of course, is to continue to improve the integrity of the electoral process.2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr Brough—It is so important.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—It is important, particularly with an election coming up towards the end of the year, and it is absolutely vital that the people of Australia should have confidence that the result as declared following polling day in fact represents the collective will of the Australian people. That is the reason this government does not resile from or apologise for our continued efforts, at times frustrated by the Australian Labor Party, to improve the integrity of the electoral process. As one of the oldest democracies in the world, we in Australia are rightly proud of our electoral record. But that does not mean that we should not continue to seek to improve the process or to continue to ensure that we have integrity of the electoral system so that we are in fact able, on behalf of the Australian community, to maintain confidence by the community in the electoral process, our system of government and indeed the way we are governed. As the Minister for Community Services has now arrived in the House I will not—2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr Brough—He is a great supporter of democracy. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—He is a great supporter of democracy, as the Minister for Employment Services at the table points out. I will not continue further, except to say that I very strongly urge the House to support the motion which has been moved in the House this morning.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills26541R113626541Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced.Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 1 (line 19), omit “Schedules 1 and 4 commence”, substitute “Schedule 4 commences”.(2) Clause 2, page 2 (line 4), omit “Schedules 2 and 3 commence”, substitute “Schedule 3 commences”.(3) Schedule 1, page 4 (line 2) to page 15 (line 15), omit the Schedule.(4) Schedule 2, page 16 (lines 2 to 17), omit the Schedule.(5) Schedule 8, page 46 (lines 2 to 11), omit the Schedule.11:29:0026541Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The government proposes that amendment No. 5 be disagreed to and that amendments Nos 1 to 4 be disagreed to but that amendments be made in place thereof. I suggest, therefore, that it may suit the convenience of the House to first consider amendment No. 5 and, when that amendment has been disposed of, to consider Nos 1 to 4. I move:That amendment No. 5 be disagreed to.The government opposes the Senate amendment, which is to omit schedule 8 to the bill. The amendment fails to address concerns expressed to the Child Support Agency by both resident and non-resident parents. These concerns are that privacy can be breached unnecessarily by the current requirements and that the other party to child support assessment be given copies of supporting documents to an application for a change of child support assessment. These concerns were addressed in the original amendments in schedule 8. The proposal to restrict access by parents to documentation used during the change of assessment process was rejected by the non-government parliamentarians on the basis that this would be a denial of natural justice. I must stress that the application and response forms used in the change of assessment process request comprehensive information from both parties. The complete forms are provided to both parents and contain all the information that is relevant to the consideration of a change of assessment. This information will still be provided to both parents, satisfying the requirements of natural justice. However, in applying for a change of assessment, parents are also invited to provide information to corroborate their claims. In some cases they provide copies of everything from grocery receipts to telephone bills, utility bills and credit card statements. Parents may also provide very personal and sensitive information about third parties, including medical reports, about new partners or children or business records showing details of suppliers and purchasers. These documents are useful to the decision makers as a corroborative tool and assist the CSA in the verification process. The government considers that parents will be more likely to provide documents to support their claims when they know this personal and sensitive information will not be provided to the other parties. 11:33:0026542Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Labor supported seven of the 10 measures in the original bill. Amendments have been made in the Senate, one of which we are discussing now. Unfortunately, I have had only about 20 minutes to look at the proposals that have come back to the House, so I am not going to respond in detail here today. That will occur in another place at a future time. I will not be seeking to divide the House over any of these measures. That may also occur, depending on whether agreement can be reached with the government on these matters, in the upper house at another time. I would like to put on the record that our side of the House supports reform of the Child Support Scheme, including seven out of the 10 measures. In particular, Labor has supported measures in the legislation that have assisted second families, and it has even put to the government that they should consider separating these important measures from the rest of the bill if we cannot reach agreement on other matters. I would certainly like to restate my support for the principle of shared care. Recent research, for instance, conducted by Henman and Mitchell has thrown a bit more light on this issue. That indicates that, as commonsense would tell us, non-custodial parents do incur additional costs as a result of having contact with their children. What is important about their work is that they show that the costs to both separated parents sharing care are higher than the costs of care for intact families. This means that reform of the Child Support Act, when it seeks only to shift the balance of resources between custodial and non-custodial families, does not really address the problem. This is one of the sticking points, as the minister is very well aware. We will continue in discussions with the government about all of the contentious measures, including the one before us at the moment. It would certainly be my hope that we could reach agreement in these matters, but that remains to be seen. We reserve our right to amend the bill in the Senate after we have considered in detail the government's latest proposals.Question resolved in the affirmative.11:35:0026542Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I present the reasons for the House disagreeing to Senate amendment No. 5 and move:That the reasons be adopted.Question resolved in the affirmative.11:36:0026542Anthony, Larry, MPMr ANTHONYXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—I move:That amendments Nos 1 to 4 be disagreed to and government amendments Nos 1 to 8 be made in place thereof:(1) Clause 2, page 1 (after line 18), after subclause (1), insert: (1A) Part 1 of Schedule 1 and items 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 commence on whichever of the following days applies: (a) if this Act receives the Royal Assent on or before 1 July 2002—on 1 July 2002; (b) otherwise—on a day or days to be fixed by Proclamation. (1B) Items 18, 19, 20 and 21 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 commence on whichever of the following days applies: (a) if this Act receives the Royal Assent on or before 1 December 2001—on 1 December 2001; (b) otherwise—on a day or days to be fixed by Proclamation.(2) Clause 2, page 1 (line 19), omit “Schedules 1 and 4 commence”, substitute “Schedule 2 commences”. (3) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 1 and 2), omit “1 July 2001—on 1 July 2001”, substitute “1 January 2002—on 1 January 2002”.(4) Clause 2, page 2 (line 4), omit “Schedules 2 and 3 commence”, substitute “Schedule 4 commences”.(5) Clause 2, page 2 (lines 6 and 7), omit “1 January 2001—on 1 January 2001”, substitute “1 July 2001—on 1 July 2001”.(6) Clause 2, page 3 (line 8), after “paragraph”, insert “(1A)(b), (1B)(b),”.(7) Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 4), insert:Part 1—Lower child support percentages(8) Schedule 1, page 15 (after line 15), at the end of the Schedule, add:Part 2—Amendments relating to family tax benefitA New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 199918 Subsection 3(1) (subparagraph (b)(i) of the definition of FTB child)Omit “and 25(1)(b)”, substitute “and 25(1)(b), (1A)(b) and (1B)(b)”.19 Paragraph 22(7)(c)After “subsection 25(1)”, insert “, (1A) or (1B)”.20 After subsection 25(1)Insert: (1A) If: (a) the Secretary is satisfied that there has been, or will be, a pattern of care for an individual (the child) over a period such that, for the whole, or for parts (including different parts), of the period, the child was, or will be, an FTB child of more than one other individual in accordance with subsection 22(2), (3), (4), (5) or (6); and (b) one of those other individuals makes, or has made, a claim under Part 3 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 for payment of family tax benefit in respect of the child for some or all of the days in that period; and (c) the Secretary is satisfied that the child was, or will be, in the care of that last-mentioned individual for not less than 10%, but less than 30%, of that period; and (d) that last-mentioned individual, by written declaration given to the Secretary, waives the individual's eligibility for family tax benefit in respect of the child for some or all of the days in that period;the child is to be taken, despite that subsection, not to be an FTB child of the last-mentioned individual on any day covered by the declaration. (1B) If: (a) the Secretary is satisfied that there has been, or will be, a pattern of care for an individual (the child) over a period such that, for the whole, or for parts (including different parts), of the period, the child was, or will be, an FTB child of more than one other individual in accordance with subsection 22(2), (3), (4), (5) or (6); and (b) the Secretary is satisfied that, if one of those other individuals was to make a claim under Part 3 of the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999 for payment of family tax benefit in respect of the child for some or all of the days in that period, the Secretary would be satisfied that the child would have been, or would be, in the care of that individual for not less than 10%, but less than 30%, of that period; and (c) that last-mentioned individual, by written declaration given to the Secretary, waives the individual's eligibility for family tax benefit in respect of the child for some or all of the days in that period;the child is to be taken, despite that subsection, not to be an FTB child of the last-mentioned individual on any day covered by the declaration. (1C) If an individual has given the Secretary a written declaration under subsection (1A) or (1B), the individual may, by further notice in writing given to the Secretary, revoke the declaration with effect from a specified day, not being a day earlier than the date of the revocation. (1D) A written declaration referred to in subsection (1A) or (1B), or a revocation of such a declaration, must be made in a form and manner required by the Secretary.Note: The heading to section 25 is altered by omitting “10%” and substituting “30%”.21 Subsections 25(2) and (3)After “subsection (1)”, insert “, (1A) or (1B)”.A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 199922 Subsections 23(6) and 24(4)Omit “and sections 225 and 226 (which deal with tax debts)”, substitute “, sections 225 and 226 (which deal with tax debts) and section 227 (which deals with child support debts)”.23 At the end of subsection 66(2)Add: ; and (f) section 227 (about deductions from family tax benefit to repay certain child support debts).24 After section 226Insert:227 Payment of deductions to Child Support Registrar (1) The Secretary must, in accordance with a notice given to the Secretary under subsection 72AB(3) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 in relation to a person: (a) make deductions from instalment amounts of family tax benefit that the person is entitled to be paid under section 23; or (b) make a deduction from an amount of family tax benefit that the person is entitled to be paid under section 24;and pay amounts so deducted to the Child Support Registrar. (2) However, the Secretary must not deduct an amount under subsection (1) in contravention of section 228. (3) If the Secretary deducts an amount under subsection (1), then: (a) on the day the amount is deducted, the total amount of the child support debts of the person (being debts referred to in subsection 72AB(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988) is taken to be reduced by an amount equal to the amount deducted; and (b) on the day the amount is deducted, the person is taken to have been paid an amount of family tax benefit equal to the amount deducted. (4) A deduction under subsection (1) may result in the family tax benefit that the person is entitled to be paid being reduced to nil.228 Maximum deduction (1) This section applies if a notice is given under subsection 72AB(3) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988 to a person that specifies: (a) an amount to be deducted from family tax benefit that the person is entitled to be paid on a day or days specified in the notice; or (b) a method of working out such an amount. (2) The amount deducted on a particular day must not exceed the total amount of the child support debts of the person on that day, being debts referred to in subsection 72AB(2) of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988. (3) If,on a day specified in the notice, the person has at least one FTB child for whom the person is eligible for family tax benefit who is not a designated child support child of the person, the amount deducted on that day must not exceed the difference between: (a) the amount of family tax benefit that the person is entitled to be paid on that day; and (b) the amount of family tax benefit that the person would be entitled to be paid on that day, assuming that each designated child support child of the person was not an FTB child of the person on that day. (4) If,on a day specified in the notice: (a) each FTB child for whom the person is eligible for family tax benefit is a designated child support child of the person; and (b) an income support payment or an income support supplement is payable to the person;the amount deducted on that day must not exceed the difference between: (c) the amount of family tax benefit that the person is entitled to be paid on that day; and (d) the forgone amount in respect of the person's income support payment or income support supplement. (5) For the purposes of subsection (4), the forgone amount, in respect of a person's income support payment or income support supplement, is the amount that represents the difference between: (a) the amount of the income support payment or the income support supplement that would have been payable to the person if the person had not been entitled to be paid family tax benefit on that day; and (b) the amount of the income support payment or the income support supplement payable to the person on that day. (6) In this section:designated child support childof a person has the same meaning as in section 72AB of the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988.income support payment has the same meaning as in the Social Security Act 1991.income support supplement has the same meaning as in Part IIIA of the Veterans' Entitlements Act 1986.Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 198825 Subsection 4(1) (after paragraph (c) of the definition of appealable refusal decision)Insert: (ca) a decision under subsection 72AB(3);26 After section 72AAInsert:72AB Deductions from family tax benefit (1) This section applies to a person if: (a) the person is entitled to be paid family tax benefit under a determination under section 16 or 17 of the Family Assistance Administration Act; and (b) the FTB child, or at least one of the FTB children, for whom the person is eligible for family tax benefit is a designated child support child of the person. (2) An FTB child of a person is a designated child support child of the person if: (a) the person has a registrable maintenance liability of a kind mentioned in section 17 in respect of the child; and (b) an amount payable under the liability is a child support debt; and (c) the day on which the debt became due and payable under section 66 has passed, and the debt remains unpaid in whole or in part. (3) If this section applies to a person, the Registrar may give a written notice to the Secretary directing the Secretary: (a) to deduct from each instalment amount of family tax benefit that the person is entitled to be paid under section 23 of the Family Assistance Administration Act an amount specified, or worked out as specified, in the notice; or (b) to deduct from an amount of family tax benefit that the person is entitled to be paid under section 24 of the Family Assistance Administration Act an amount specified, or worked out as specified, in the notice. (4) A notice under subsection (3) must: (a) specify the person's name and the name of each designated child support child of the person; and (b) set out sufficient particulars to enable the Secretary to identify the person and each designated child support child of the person; and (c) be in accordance with section 228 of the Family Assistance Administration Act, which sets out the maximum amount that can be deducted; and (d) specify the day or days on which deductions are to be made. (5) In this section:Family Assistance Act means the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999.Family Assistance AdministrationAct means the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999.family tax benefit has the same meaning as in the Family Assistance Act.FTB child means an FTB child in relation to family tax benefit within the meaning of the Family Assistance Act.The effect of the four amendments is to omit schedules 1 and 2 to the bill and the contact measure and the lower cap. Where parents share the care of their child, both parents are incurring costs in caring for their child. The contact measure does not take money away from the children; it merely redistributes some of the available funds according to where children are living. In fact, this measure results in $11 million more going to children. These changes will make the Child Support Scheme fairer and will help non-resident parents to keep seeing their children. This is good for these children. These changes are aimed to enable and encourage non-resident parents to stay involved in parenting. Research shows that, following separation, ongoing involvement of both parents in the lives of their children is good for the children. And, as the shadow minister has mentioned, we hope that in the short period of time available there can be agreement reached between the government and the opposition parties.Further, this measure extends rather than changes current child support policy. Under the current child support formula, the liabilities are calculated based on the amount of contact a non-resident parent has with his or her children. However, the current formula only recognises the costs of contact when non-resident parents exercise contact between 30 and 40 per cent of the nights in the year. The measure also distinguishes for the first time between the liabilities of those non-resident parents who have significant and ongoing contact and those who have little or no contact. For example, a current non-resident parent who has contact every second weekend and half the school holidays, which approximates 22 per cent care, receives no recognition of this under the current arrangements. Currently, the parent with that amount of contact is recognised exactly the same as a parent who has no contact at all.The measure is also consistent with the findings of the 1994 Joint Select Committee on Certain Family Law Issues report that the 30 per cent threshold created a cliffhanger effect for parents. The JSC recommended that a stepped approach should be introduced. The government is also concerned to improve the fairness of the Child Support Scheme by reducing the cap on income used to calculate child support liabilities. Under the cap at its current level, most high income non-resident parents are paying more than the measured costs of children. For example, research conducted by NATSEM into the costs of children shows that most payers earning more than, say, $65,000 are paying more than the costs of children in an intact family. The fundamental principle of the scheme is that both parents share the costs of supporting their children according to their capacity to contribute. Child support payments are the non-resident parents' contribution towards the support of their children. However, where a non-resident parent is contributing more than 100 per cent of the costs of the children, this leads to the view that the excess payments are transfer of funds for the support of the resident parent. This is not the intended purpose of the Child Support Scheme. The Child Support Consultative Group, which designed the formula, and the JSC both recommend that the cap be set at a lower level. The measure to lower the cap effectively achieves these recommendations.The government puts forward today amendments that are the result of thorough and genuine investigation of the concerns expressed by non-government parliamentarians during the consideration of this bill. The government amendments provide new measures that are of direct benefit to resident parents. They are offered on the basis of a genuine compensation to resident parents for any perceived disadvantage in the original measures that I have outlined today. These amendments provide for two new measures relating to family tax benefit and change the commencement provisions for some measures in the light of the delayed passage of the bill. The first new measure allows a non-resident parent with 10 per cent to 30 per cent contact with his or her child to waive eligibility for family tax benefit for a period so that the resident parent may receive the full amount of the family tax benefit of the child. This is clearly beneficial to the group potentially affected by the original proposals, especially in the case in which the resident parent cannot be paid family tax benefit because of high income. An amount of family tax benefit that could not previously be paid to either parent may now, under these amendments, be available to the resident parent. This measure would commence on 1 December 2001. (Extension of time granted) The second new measure allows an outstanding child support debt of a person who is entitled to be paid family tax benefit to be recovered from the person's family tax benefit entitlements. This directly responds to concerns expressed by resident parents whose family tax benefit is reduced because of contact by non-resident parents with the child even if the non-resident parent defaults on his or her child support. This measure would commence on 1 July 2002.The measures in the bill for which the commencement dates will change, due to the delayed passage of the bill, are—assuming there is agreement: the lower formula percentage for payers exercising contact, schedule 1, will now commence on 1 July 2002, formerly 1 July 2001; the lower cap on payer income, schedule 2, will now commence on 1 January 2002, formerly 1 January 2001; and the assessment of income for child support payments for people undertaking overtime or second jobs, schedule 3, will now commence on royal assent, formerly 1 January 2001. The commencement dates for all other measures in the bill are not to change. I table the supplementary memorandum.11:43:0026547Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—We will consider that measure the Minister for Community Services has just spoken about. For my part, I would like to reiterate that Labor are supportive of measures that encourage both parents to play a part in the upbringing of their children. There are certainly good arguments to provide additional financial assistance to encourage this. But we have a problem with the shared care measure in that it delivers benefits to the non-resident parent at the expense of the other parent. This has been the basis of our discussion. So we were prepared to support the lower formula percentages on the condition that the government passed a simple amendment to social security law. This amendment would have ensured that children were protected from any reduction in child support from the lower percentages by improving family payments. I would like to continue to discuss those matters with the government, and I hope that we can reach a satisfactory result in the interests of resident and non-resident parents.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills26547R120626547Debate resumed from 4 April, on motion by Mr Reith:That the bill be now read a second time.11:44:0026547Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00— When this matter was being discussed before the adjournment last night, I was making the point that the Commonwealth scheme is a very effective and efficient scheme with very low premiums—in fact, the lowest premium rate of any scheme in the country—and with a declining number of claims as a percentage of employee numbers. Given that background, we could not see the motivation or the need for the far more restrictive definition as proposed to be given to injury and illness in the amendments and therefore will not be supporting those changes. I have an additional comment in relation to that specific point from my contribution last night and it flows from the reference to Brian Howe's speech in 1988, which has been cited as an example of why the government amendments are in keeping with a long-held view. At the time Labor proposed those provisions, Commonwealth expenditure on workers compensation had increased by over 700 per cent in a 10-year period. However, the workers compensation scheme is now self-funded, but premiums, as I said, are the lowest in Australia and claims are falling. It is quite understandable why Brian Howe, in 1988, would hold the view he expressed in his second reading speech against a background of cost increases at a rate of 700 per cent over 10 years. Clearly, the 13 years since have demonstrated that the new system that was put in place has addressed those cost pressures. I think the government needs to advance a much stronger case in relation to the restrictions on injury and illness than it has today.I turn now to the issue of non-economic loss. On its face, the present act does not permit employees to claim compensation for injuries occurring before 1 December 1988, if compensation was not payable under the 1971 act. On that basis, an employee who suffered non-economic loss prior to 1 December 1988 would never be able to claim compensation because that was not covered in the 1971 act. This bill seeks to limit statutory claims for non-economic loss to permanent impairments occurring on or after 1 December 1988. Claims for impairments arising before that date are only valid if an application for compensation is made before the introduction of the bill. The purpose is clearly to reverse what I think would be described as a liberal interpretation given to the provisions relating to non-economic loss which has allowed claims for impairments before 1 December 1988. However, we will not support those provisions in their current guise. We oppose these provisions as they are an attempt to restrict old act claims for non-economic loss whilst, at the same time, continue to use the old table of rates for compensation, which has not been indexed. It does seem to be a `heads we win, tails you lose' arrangement, and the government might like to revisit that issue. Certainly, until such time as that table has been indexed, we think the proposal is too one-sided and we will not support it.I now move to the question of stress claims. Currently, under the act, an injury does not include an injury, disease or aggravation caused by `reasonable disciplinary action taken against the employee' or `failure by the employee to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with his or her employment'. That definition is to be amended by this bill to include other activities which are regarded as `normal managerial activities'. The new subsection 5B(1) provides that a disease, injury or aggravation shall not be an injury for the purposes of the act if it is suffered as a result of, firstly, reasonable appraisal of the employee's performance or, secondly, any reasonable counselling actions taken in respect of employment or any reasonable suspension actions or, thirdly, any reasonable disciplinary action, whether formal or informal or, fourthly, a failure to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit.The government did attempt to amend these provisions in 1996. Essentially, those amendments sought to preclude stress claims if they arose predominantly out of reasonable managerial or administrative actions that were undertaken. At the time, Labor's spokesperson, Bob McMullan, opposed the amendment and made these comments:First, the changes to the circumstance in which compensation can be claimed are too severe. The changes will exclude many legitimate claims both for stress related injury and for other injury for which the Commonwealth, as the employer, should have an obligation to pay compensation. Second, the justification the minister has put forward for the changes—that the cost attached to stress claims has grave implications for the future sustainability of the scheme—does not seem to have any validity. Three years on from that contribution by my colleague Bob McMullan there is confirmation of his assessment at the time that there were no cost pressures that would justify this change. I might say at the outset that this proposal did have some initial attraction, and I can understand the superficial attraction of removing as a compensable injury or illness something arising from what is described as normal management activities. However, if you take the time to consider where that leads us, it provides a serious degradation of the operation of the compensation scheme. There are many quite reasonable, normal managerial activities that would be required of workers in a whole range of environments—that is, the management is not acting in an improper way or seeking to have the workers perform duties that would not be reasonably expected of them. Notwithstanding the fact that the management activity is reasonable and normal, it is not uncommon for an illness or an injury to occur in the actual conduct of those duties. If the parliament is going to make an exemption so that workers do not get compensation on the grounds that the activity they were undertaking was in pursuit of normal management activities, then frankly we open a door that would totally undermine the fabric of the compensation system. So we have some serious concerns about the road that this amendment would take us down and again would not support it. I congratulate the government on their initiative in the bill to bring up to speed, or at least closer to the mark, the provisions with respect to hearing loss. The bill provides greater access to compensation for employees who suffer hearing loss. Presently an employee requires a hearing loss of more than 20 per cent before that loss is compensable. This bill will reduce that to 10 per cent. That 10 per cent figure is comparable with Victoria, Tasmania and Western Australia. However, we note that South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory operate a five per cent threshold, and that New South Wales operates a six per cent threshold. Therefore we believe, with a scheme that is clearly operating on a more cost-effective basis than any other in Australia, it is not unreasonable for the Commonwealth scheme to offer the same benefit as most of the states—South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory—and certainly closer to New South Wales, and we will be moving an amendment to alter that to five per cent, although it has to be acknowledged that the reduction from 20 per cent to 10 per cent is clearly an improvement.We will also be opposing the government's attempts to have a requirement that, after that initial hearing loss is made, claimants have to suffer hearing losses in increments of five per cent. We do not consider that, just because an initial claim is made, a worker who suffers a further four per cent loss should be precluded from getting any compensation for that additional loss. I do not think there is any sensible administrative reason behind that. I am not sure what the rationale for that particular adjustment is. But I make this observation about how I think it will operate in practice, if indeed it is introduced. I think you will find, remarkably, that doctors will certify people as having lost hearing in increments of five per cent. I say this genuinely to the government. I am not quire sure what the motivation is for picking a five per cent threshold for subsequent claims, but whatever that motivation is I think in practical terms it will not work. I cannot see the justification for it. As I said, if someone has a four per cent additional loss of hearing I do not see why they should not get compensation for that four per cent loss. I do not see why five per cent is a magical figure. But if indeed that is applied I would be willing to wager that most claimants will, quite miraculously, discover that their hearing loss has been in increments of five per cent anyway. I think it is an unenforceable provision and unjustified. So I strongly urge the government to rethink that.Finally, I want to make a quick comment about the question of consultation. I did give my thanks at the outset for the consultation and the briefings that were made available to the opposition and I repeat those thanks again here. However, the explanatory memorandum does comment that there was wide consultation with bodies involved. I put on the record that that is not our understanding. Our advice is that there was very little, if any, consultation with the ACTU—the trade union movement—about this bill. I understand that some considerable time ago there had been some discussion, but in terms of the matters that have been brought before the parliament now it is not the case that consultation occurred. That may have been an oversight. It is in everybody's interests in matters of this kind that the departments, the people who administer these things and the people who are involved in representing the interests of the workers should all be consulted. My advice—contrary to the assertion in the explanatory memorandum—is that this did not occur. There are a number of other provisions in this bill which the Labor Party will support, and I imagine it will be a matter for some discussion in detail in the Senate—although I will during the consideration of the bill in detail in this House be moving a series of amendments to give effect to those matters that I have raised in the second reading debate. I would anticipate that there will be a careful scrutiny of these issues in the Senate. There may be further evidence, information and argument that the government want to advance in respect of those matters that we have flagged. I should say, however, that we are not minded to restrict access to compensation for workers without very strong and good cause. We are certainly not minded to do that against a background of a scheme which, by any measure, has not only operated very effectively in addressing the occupational health concerns of the Commonwealth but also done that efficiently in a very low-cost manner. I think the government will need to revisit those issues if it wishes to see those aspects of the bill looked on with any favour.11:57:0026550Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—Today we are discussing the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. This bill amends a couple of different pieces of legislation. I want to speak most directly about the amendments that this bill makes to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, which provides the legislative basis for the Commonwealth Public Service workers compensation scheme.The SRC Act provides compensation and rehabilitation for injuries and diseases leading to death, incapacity or impairment. That is its basic function. It provides the capacity for such things as weekly incapacity payments, lump sum compensation for permanent impairment, lump sum compensation for non-economic loss, lump sum compensation and benefits for the dependents of the deceased, and the provision of household and attendant care services and rehabilitation.Of course, the benefits that accrue to workers under this scheme are based on the degree and duration of the incapacity. It is appropriate then, when looking to make amendments to these bills, that the government seeks to balance a fair system of compensation together with a fair system of assessing that compensation. The government is to be congratulated for taking a responsible attitude to that and also for making a fair assessment of its own responsibility to provide a scheme that is funded adequately and that represents good value to the taxpayers of Australia who want to see injured workers properly compensated and want to see an effective system of compensation in place.In looking at the background to this bill, I note that prior to the establishment of the act that is currently in place, the SRC Act, there was an earlier act in 1971. That particular act had a different style, a different modus operandi, when it came to assessing people's capacity to access compensation and those other benefits that are provided by the compensation scheme. It is interesting to note that, under that 1971 act, between 1976 and 1986 expenditure on compensation by the Commonwealth increased by 700 per cent, from $25.04 million to $203.29 million per annum. This was the period under that 1971 act, the Compensation (Commonwealth Government Employees) Act 1971. Under that act, a worker needed only to demonstrate that their employment was a contributing factor to the contraction of a disease. You can see that that particular wording is quite loose, and I think it is fair to say that having that fairly opaque and non-prescriptive description of the involvement of a worker's employment in their capacity to access compensation was very much a contributing factor to the subsequent blow-out in the expenditure on workers compensation. This illustrates very clearly the obligation that remains on the government to try and balance access to that area with the natural requirements of a government to be very frugal with taxpayers' dollars and to use those dollars responsibly; in other words, to have an effective compensation scheme but not to have it operating in some sort of profligate way. In some of the documentation that has been circulated among members looking at this particular bill, it is interesting to note that the number of claims being received by Comcare, which is the body that administers the SRC Act on behalf of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission, between 1995-96 and 1999-2000 has actually fallen by more than half. There were 15,657 in 1995-96 and 6,488 in 1999-2000. If we divide that up and look at some of the specific areas, stress claims fell from 1,846 to 620, which is about a third of that 1995-96 figure. That is a significant fall. Occupational overuse syndrome—I suppose RSI is what they are referring to there—fell from 1,550 to 795 and back injuries from 2,709 to 1,037. Obviously there has been a significant falling away of claims, and it is interesting to speculate as to what the reason might be. In trying to come to grips with this, I looked at the table and it struck me that there was one column, multiple injuries, where there was not that direct or general slide downwards in terms of the number of claims. Multiple injuries, for example, began in 1995-96 at the number of 49 and completed the term at 41. In the interim it had gone up and down to numbers like 20 and 60; it was all over the place.It seems that some of these things are affected by not only the manifestation of the illness but also the culture of the workplace. I think that some of these issues—about whether people are aware of occupational overuse syndrome, for example, or whether they believe that stress is a big issue—can impact on the number of claims. I think it is very positive to note that overall decline in the number of claims. I do not think that you can make the same generalisation about multiple injuries, however, so it is interesting to compare the different rates of the number of claims being received.One of the tables that was shown in the Bills Digest was very interesting with regard to cultures. The table provided in the Bills Digest on page 29 assesses the incident rate of injuries by jurisdiction and duration per thousand employees. It is interesting to note that the highest rates, by quite a margin, of injuries by jurisdiction and duration per thousand employees were in the ACT. That includes injuries that persisted for a period of five days or more, 30 days or more or 60 days or more. In all of those three categories, the rates are significantly higher in the ACT than in any other jurisdiction.Interestingly, at the other end of the scale was the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth had the lowest numbers in all of those three categories. It is interesting to see the difference in culture that applies over that time. There is some reason why the ACT is more prone to having a higher number of injuries and a longer duration of their impact, and there is a reason why the Commonwealth's rate is lower; I would submit that it is largely cultural. It behoves the people administering the schemes—in other words, the governments in particular—to strive to maintain a culture in which the period of injury is reduced and the process back into rehabilitation and back into the workplace is expedited. That is something that clearly the Commonwealth is doing a very good job of, certainly in recent years.I would like to go to a second table—the table on page 28, which covers in particular the Commonwealth scheme profile. Bear in mind what a wonderful record—according to the table on page 29—the Commonwealth has; it is obviously doing something very right. But, when we look at the performance of the Commonwealth over the period and, particularly, at the total workers compensation costs, as a gauge of what is going on, we see that the total workers compensation costs increased every year in the period from 1990 through to 1994-95 and then declined right through from 1995 to 1999. There is a little bit of a kicker at the end in 2000, where it is marginally up, but it is an interesting demonstration of the overall health of the system and the way in which it is operating. When costs are going up like that, there is a very real danger that the administration of the scheme can go beyond the pale and slip out of control, and it is necessary that governments watch it very carefully. So I am naturally very proud, as a member of this government, to be able to say that the period at which it transferred from sliding upwards in terms of costs to coming back down occurred at the time when this government was elected. I believe that this government has been very effective in getting the culture right of how people deal with these issues. You do no want to deny someone the right to be able to access adequate compensation, particularly rehabilitation, to get back to work should they desire it, should they need it. Anyone injured in the workplace has a right to be able to get that. You do not want frivolous claims to come forward, and you want to be sure that people, when they are in the workplace, are keen to be there to work, to proceed, to provide for their families and to do all those sorts of things, and not to be worried about the consequences of an ill-administered scheme. You do not want some members to be tempted by some thought of malingering or to move off into a scheme because of the potential payouts they see that they might get. It is that culture of the workplace that this government has got right and that I think is overwhelmingly reflected in the figures I have just referred to.The changes that are being made under this bill to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act basically clarify benefits for employees through amendments to that act. It enables earnings to be deducted from compensation that otherwise would be payable. It enables the normal weekly earnings of employees no longer employed to be indexed so as to standardise the calculation of the first 45 weeks entitlement to incapacity payments. It enables changes to the definition of the words `injury' and `disease', in particular to establish a requirement that it be demonstrated that employment made a material contribution to the condition. It also means that compensation is not payable for injury resulting from reasonable counselling in relation to performance. In other words, if there has been counselling to an employee about their performance, that should not result in compensation being payable.It is unfortunate that, as things stand at the moment, it is possible for an employee who is underperforming and who receives counselling from their employer to make a claim. But what else would you expect if that were the case? It behoves the employer to tell their employee what problems they may have with their performance. If, as a result of that the employee claims it is stressing them out and a claim is issued, the way things stand at the moment, compensation can be paid. I do not think that is necessarily right. We cannot have a situation where underperforming employees are never told and are allowed to continue to underperform. There has to be a degree of rigour in the workplace and it is wrong that, in the process of giving counselling or, indeed, terminating employment at the end of it all, a claim can be made. As things stand at the moment, if a termination occurs it can result in a claim for compensation because of the stress, difficulty, high blood pressure or whatever else the employee may say has been brought about in their system. I do not think that is right at all.It is right that this bill should set out to try to clarify that and to make it clearly understood on all sides. It means that there would be no access to lump sum payments for economic loss from impairment prior to December 1988. It also enables—and this is quite significant—those employees over 63 years of age to receive benefits. We are obviously recognising that age is not a barrier to employment and older employees should be entitled to benefits. That is something that this bill facilitates. It provides greater access to benefits for impairment caused by hearing loss. I heard the opposition spokesman applauding that move, and suggesting some additional changes that he would like to make. Whichever way you look at it, recognising hearing loss as an important area of impairment is a good outcome, and is something that should be dealt with adequately. It allows the dependants of a deceased worker to take common law action, and it ensures that people providing rehabilitative treatment and services meet necessary standards and that Comcare will oversee the establishment of the standards that those people would be required to meet. Standards across the system and accountability for those standards are becoming more clearly recognised, and it is appropriate that they should apply in this area. One other thing is that we do have changes in the licensing arrangements, with a generic licence replacing five specific licences. In itself, I do not think that is significance, but it is worthy of note. The bill does make changes to the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989 but, as I understand it, those changes are mostly technical and minor.The bill sets about endeavouring to balance the cost of work related injury with access to fair compensation and rehabilitation for injured workers. I believe the change being introduced by the government will keep the system accountable and effective. If there is going to be an effective compensation scheme, it has to work hand in glove with the needs of the employees themselves, and I think this legislation recognises a lot of those difficulties that currently exist and targets them for change.I note the comments in the Bills Digest from the Public Sector Union lament the fact that, because the system is currently operating in a financially stable manner, there is no need to make those changes. I do not think that is an appropriate way to look at the situation. It is important that we continue to look at our obligations and, regardless of the stability of the scheme, look at making the scheme better. I think that is the aim of this bill and that it is going about it in an effective and practical manner, and I certainly commend the bill to the House.12:17:0026553Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. I would have to say, though, that I cannot agree with the contribution of the member who spoke before me, because I do not think that the bill, as presented to this House, is about making the compensation scheme governed by the bill `better', which was the word that he used.When we deal in this place with issues in relation to workplace rights and the rights of employees, I think we often find a fairly substantial gap between the rhetoric of this government and the way in which it actually acts. There is always a division between what is said and what is done. I was interested to see the comments—I actually read the transcript; I did not hear the comments on air—of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, Mr Tony Abbott, when he expounded on the philosophy of this government in relation to the treatment of employees. He did that fairly recently—on Sunday, 11 February—on the show Background Briefing, which is produced by Stan Corey and is heard on Radio National. As a premise, if you like, a foundation stone, to my contribution on this speech, I would like to go to the enunciated view of the minister about the way in which employers and employees should treat each other. On that radio show the minister said:The basic view of human nature on which the industrial system was built is one that I don't think modern circumstances justify. See, we have moved on a long way over the last 100 years; people are better educated, there is much better regulation of health and safety and hours; the culture has changed so much in that time. We are not in the era of robber baron capitalism, we are not in the era of Karl Marx and the international workers of the world, and this view of human nature which says that basically workers are stupid, and basically employers are vicious, that is the view of human nature which underlies the industrial system, that is the view of human nature which says that workers and managers can't run their own operations together, can't work out their own arrangements, that's the view of human nature that says you've got to have courts and commissions to hold people's hands. Now I think we have gone well beyond that, I think that the average Australian worker is intelligent, creative, flexible, adaptable, dependable, and I think that the average Australian boss is sensible, reasonable and understands that everyone's got to get a fair go. The minister goes on:The relationship between employers and employees should really be the kind of relationship which exists between partners in an enterprise, partners in an operation. It should really be something akin to the relationship which exists between the members of an extended family, the interest that they have in common has got to be the over-riding goal, the success of the entire enterprise has got to be the thing that is generally uppermost in people's minds.So there we have the minister, on behalf of the government, announcing a philosophy in relation to the treatment of working people that working people and employers are all to be viewed as members of a great big happy family and that they are going to resolve any differences between them in the way in which families do over the dinner table. But when we test that rhetoric of family enjoyment, the Brady Bunch sort of approach to industrial relations, we find that a very different philosophy applies when this government actually comes to put those things into operation. I would have thought it was axiomatic that one of the things you would do for members of your family was look after them and extend to them the maximum possible care and concern when they were sick, injured or suffering from a disease. But, despite the rhetoric of happy families, this government has not been very good at that. When we come to look at the details of this bill, in many of its parts it indicates an intention to not treat people as family members but to treat them fairly badly.I go to one example in the compensation area which I think shows that this government's family rhetoric, its happy family industrial relations rhetoric, and the reality are not the same. It is a related compensation question and it deals with the way in which the preclusions period is calculated for social security purposes. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure that, like me, you are frequently approached by working people who have been injured at work and, under state based compensation schemes, have got a lump sum and find themselves precluded from payment of social security for a period. That period has to be calculated according to a mathematical formula. The way in which that is calculated is that the lump sum is divided by a figure that is calculated to be $1 more than the maximum income allowable before the pension is cut off. So you divide the lump sum by that divisor and you come out with a number of weeks of preclusion.The problem with the way in which this division works is that there was a change in the value of that divisor between the pre-GST period and the post-GST period. The system was changed so that, in recognition of the factoring in of the GST, the figure of $1 more than the maximum income allowable before the pension is cut off moved from a figure of $428 to a figure of $543.63. You do not have to have studied mathematics for too long to know that the larger the divisor sum the fewer the number of weeks that result. So it is of greater advantage for someone to have their lump sum divided by the post-GST divisor than by the pre-GST divisor.I have been approached by members of the public caught up in the system who are being dealt with very unfairly because of this change. In this example, the constituent in question received a compensation lump sum in May—the GST came into effect on 1 July and in May he received a compensation lump sum. He is going to be expected to live off that compensation lump sum, predominantly in a GST affected environment—that is, by definition, as soon as he got to 1 July, he started paying for the GST. So the time in which he is expected to provide for his own sustenance and support out of this lump sum is almost wholly in a GST affected environment, but the divisor that was used was the pre-GST divisor.So in those circumstances he has got an extra long preclusions period—a longer preclusions period than he would have got if his lump sum had been paid in July, August or September—even though as he goes and spends his lump sum on all of the ordinary goods and services that one needs he is encountering, day in, day out, GST on those products. I draw that anomaly to the House's attention, because it is an indication of the gap between the rhetoric—the rhetoric of happy families—and the reality. The reality is that if you can chisel a little bit out of someone's welfare then this government seems entirely predisposed to do that, and that is a local example of where that has happened. I turn to consideration of the compensation scheme that is dealt with in this bill. When we look at it we find that there is a reduction in entitlements being contemplated in this bill, and it is a reduction that will come about by dealing differently with the definitions of `injury' and `disease'. We need to note that in the compensation environment small changes of wording are not just technical matters; they actually affect substantive rights. We know that this bill will affect substantive rights, because when we look at the explanatory memorandum to the bill it tells us that the definitional changes relating to the words `injury' and `disease' are expected to save for the compensation scheme $17 million. So these are not technical changes of no real effect except some form of clarity for lawyers or what have you; these are substantive changes which mean that $17 million which would have flowed to employees who have got compensation now no longer will flow. So it is a change of substantive rights.That change of substantive rights in the definition of disease and injury area is achieved through three different changes. Firstly, there is a change in the definition of `disease'. When this legislation was last amended, in 1988, the test regarding disease inserted into the act was that there needed to be a close connection between the employment and the disease. The meaning of these words has been considered in court cases, as one would expect with a compensation scheme, and the way the test is now working has led, as we know, in the scheme to financially acceptable results and acceptable claims rates. Notwithstanding that the current test appears to be working well and that there are no substantial problems with this compensation scheme, this bill heralds the government's intention to change the test to limit compensable circumstances to those where there is a material contribution by the employment to the employee's disease. Then `material contribution' is further defined as a `close connection'. So we go in this circle.This is about defeating the intention of various court cases which have put a particular construction on the words in the current legislation, and that construction really has been to allow people to make application for and successfully receive compensation if there is a connection between the employment and the disease. Now this is a tightening of the test. So, as we know, $17 million to be saved. This is heralding the circumstance where, if this bill is passed, some workers who would have been compensated under the current legislation will no longer be compensated.Secondly, there is a negative change for employees relating to the intersection of injury and disease. Currently, an injury is compensable if it occurred at work. That definition remains, and it would be pretty odd if that definition was not there in a workers compensation scheme. But—and it is an important `but'—if that injury occurs as a natural progression of a disease, the injury will be deemed not to be an injury. What does that all mean in plain English? That means that an employee who has had a heart attack or a stroke at work will no longer be able to receive compensation unless they can establish that the employment contributed in a material degree to that condition, the heart attack or the stroke.When we look at that change we have got to ask ourselves how will courts, first of all, make the decision about whether or not there is a connection between the condition that manifested—maybe the heart attack, maybe the stroke—and work. The bill actually provides some guidance on that and says the factors that should be taken into account include the duration of employment and the medical predisposition of the employee. The wording there—`medical predisposition'—is very important. In considering how this will operate in practice, it is very important to note that it actually smashes two pretty important and, indeed, historic principles of workers compensation. The first principle that it smashes is the obvious principle that what happens at work is compensable. So it disregards that which has really been the foundation stone for our compensation arrangements. The second principle that it throws out is the principle that you basically take the employee as you find him or her, and you do not exclude people because of their medical predispositions. This principle has been important. Clearly we are aware that there are some categories of employees who, for good reason, face medical testing before they are given a job. But, as an ordinary rule for most ordinary occupations, people present at work and, if they are capable of doing the job, they are given the job and there is no forensic inquiry made of their family history, of lifestyle factors, of diet, of sexual practices, of substance abuse practices or of anything else which would result in a medical predisposition towards some particular conditions. I think the reasons for that are particularly clear: one, people would find such inquiries incredibly invasive in a privacy sense, and, two, they open up a huge potential for discrimination. It is of concern to me that, at a time when genetic technology is giving us a greater and greater capacity to forensically examine medical predisposition issues, the government in this bill is proposing to throw out the window that principle so that people can be excluded from work on the basis of a predisposition or their medical predisposition be taken into account in calculating their compensation rights. I ask members in this House: what is a rational manager in the Commonwealth Public Service supposed to do if this bill is passed into law? Prudent managers will want good information on what are the medical predispositions of the employees that they manage. If an employee that they manage has a heart attack at work, a stroke at work or what have you, the manager would want to be in a position to say, `Work did not cause that heart attack; work did not cause that stroke. That employee had a heart attack or stroke because they had a medical predisposition towards such a condition. I have the evidence of that; here is the medical predisposition evidence, so that means that that condition is not compensable.' So they would collect that medical predisposition evidence to have it in their kitbag against future compensation claims. I think we have to say, `Well, how will people ascertain whether or not people have a medical predisposition?' Are we contemplating huge surveys about what your father died of, what your father's father died of and what your father's father's father died of to determine these things that are used to calculate risk factors for various cancers and conditions? I think we are all aware of the genetic predispositions that one can have if one has a family history of certain conditions. Or do you go a step further as the genetic technology becomes more available in our community and say to the employee, `Go and get tested and I will look at that genetic material and see if you are genetically predisposed towards stroke conditions, heart attack conditions, breast cancer conditions or what have you'? I think there is a whole minefield here that arises because this bill does not accept the sort of foundation stone principle that, for ordinary occupations, you basically accept the worker as you find him or her and that, if they develop a condition, if they have an injury or a disease which manifests at work, it is compensable.Third, this bill seeks to extend the exemption from compensation for injury or disease if that arises from managerial action, so it is an extension to an exemption taking out a pool of workers from circumstances which would otherwise be compensable. Currently the act seeks to prevent compensation claims being used to obstruct legitimate management action and contains an exclusionary provision. It provides that compensation is not payable in respect of an injury which arises from reasonable disciplinary action or a failure to obtain a promotion, transfer or benefit in connection with the employment. This bill seeks to extend that and to amend it so that what are exempted are actions which are to be regarded as normal management responsibilities—for example, an injury resulting from a reasonable appraisal of the employee's performance; a reasonable counselling action, whether formal or informal; a reasonable suspension action and the like. It is pretty easy when dealing with this issue to call to mind some very negative stereotypes of the public service and to sort of offhandedly say, `Well, why should someone be entitled to compensation if they become stressed arising from being chastised by their manager?' That was the sort of picture that was being drawn for us by the member who spoke before me. I think we need to free up our thinking a bit and say that, when you look at who this compensation scheme actually operates for, there are lots of circumstances which are far more serious and where the issues about managerial action and its reasonableness are far more vexed. I note in particular that this compensation scheme applies to the Australian defence forces. I think we are all aware in this House that there have been some problems faced by the defence forces in terms of the culture that applies within the defence forces, including the treatment by superiors of subordinates. I do not put that as being every section of the defence forces, but there certainly are sections that have been very publicly examined where there have been very substantial problems. I think we are all aware that very recently a $2,000 fine was applied to a major of the 3rd Battalion Royal Australian Regiment as a result of an incident involving a subordinate which occurred during exercises in Malaysia. We have got a problem with those sorts of culture questions and, given that the defence forces have recently been required to attend a two-hour discussion on bastardisation issues, I think it is on the public record that there are those problems. And, given that it is on the public record that there are these problems, it is not that hard to imagine that, in some sections of the defence forces where there remain issues with these kinds of cultural problems, in an informal disciplinary setting a superior could treat a subordinate in a way which not only causes stress, alarm and fear for that subordinate but might actually result in a manifest visible injury. I think that is not too far from where we have been in terms of the public debate. I think we can all imagine that happening, given some of the problems of culture that we have been well advised of in the defence forces. If these amendments are accepted, that subordinate, no matter how injured, would not be able to make a claim for compensation unless he or she could show that the action taken by the superior was unreasonable. We can obviously all envisage circumstances which every human being would say were unreasonable, but I think we have to recognise that in this area there is a big area of grey and some of that grey is of a very dark shade when we are dealing with workplaces which have got the sorts of cultural problems which appear to persist in sections of our defence forces. So I think we have got to be fairly careful about this amendment, and I would say that it is simply not justified.Finally, I come to a comment that was made by the member who spoke before me, which was that there was a blow-out, I think was his word, in compensation costs. That is simply not true when we are looking at this compensation scheme. The number of claims lodged is going down, the number of claims accepted is going down, and this is a fully funded scheme. Consequently, there is no need for the government to act. The scheme is in satisfactory form at the moment in respect of these issues about which I have spoken.12:37:0026557St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise to support the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 and the importance of this bill to good government. The fact is that we really propose amendments to two acts: the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988, the SRC act, which is the legislative basis for the Commonwealth public sector workers compensation scheme; and the Industrial Chemicals (Notification and Assessment) Act 1989, the ICNA act, which establishes a scheme to assess industrial chemicals imported to and manufactured in Australia for their health and environmental effects. The amendments to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act proposed in this bill will improve the operation of the Commonwealth workers compensation scheme while at the same time ensuring that the act reflects the government's commitment to balancing the costs of work related injury with access to fair compensation and effective rehabilitation for injured workers. Again, it is about good, strong government. The amendments are largely of a housekeeping nature. They include amendments based on advice from the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and amendments which rectify unintended legislative anomalies. The bill proposes to streamline the act's currently complex and prescriptive licensing arrangements while closely paralleling existing arrangements. The five categories of licence now available will be replaced with a single generic licence, which will provide scope for both self-insurance and claims management. Applications for licences will still be determined by the commission but within a far less prescriptive framework.Amendments are also proposed to streamline the funding arrangements for regulation of workers compensation and occupational health and safety in the Commonwealth jurisdiction by providing for one regulatory contribution. The Commonwealth scheme recognises the importance to both the employee and the employer of arranging a safe return to work as quickly as possible. I think that all of us who have employed people over a period of time are aware of how necessary and important it is to get people safely back to work as soon as possible. Particularly in small business—as you would know, Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, having come out of small business—if there is some sort of an accident where someone is away, they are always a valuable employee and, as a valuable employee, you do not want them away; you want them back at work, bringing their skills and their contribution back to the business to enable it to continue to grow. For those of us who may have only five, six, seven or eight employees, it is absolutely imperative that assistance is provided to get those people safely back to work as soon as is possible. The act currently gives Comcare the responsibility of ensuring that rehabilitation providers have the qualifications, proven effectiveness, availability and cost efficiencies to deliver quality services to both employers and employees. The approval provisions protect injured employees by ensuring that persons providing treatment and services meet acceptable standards. Again, that will make a very strong contribution in enabling the work force to come back safely to work, which is what is important. The bill proposes to improve the current processes for approving new rehabilitation providers, provide a statutory basis for existing guidelines, enable a fee to be charged to cover the costs of the application process and ensure that the approval can be revoked if a rehabilitation provider is no longer able to meet the standards required, thus providing a safety valve to make sure that the best possible service is provided for the people needing rehabilitation to get them back to work safely. Other amendments will standardise the basis by which compensation is calculated for the first 45 weeks of a claim and clarify that dependants of deceased employees have access to common law—and we know how important that is. This bill also includes minor or technical amendments to four other acts. The Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999 is amended to correct a technical anomaly arising from the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Act 1999. The Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 is amended to enable taxation information to be provided to Comcare as well as to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. The National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act 1985 is amended to reflect the change of name of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. The Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991 is also amended, consequential upon the amendments relating to collection of premiums under the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988 which are proposed elsewhere in the bill. This bill is yet another example of this coalition government helping employees in a practical and non-threatening way to employers. I think this demonstrates to the Australian business community and to those who are employees of that business community that there has to be a fair and equitable system in operation and one that provides good government. This side of the House feels that that is enormously important and has demonstrated that successfully over the last 5½ years or so. This bill implements what was parliament's original intent at the time the legislation commenced operation, during the previous Labour administration. The original act requires a material contribution by employment to a disease before compensation is payable. However, case law indicates that the act has not achieved the parliament's original intent and this bill therefore includes an amendment to restore this intent by making it very clear that an employee's employment is not to be taken to have contributed in a material degree to his or her disease unless there is a close connection between the employee's employment and the disease. We all know how important it is to provide good government to make sure we provide adequate and proper assistance and rehabilitation to people who are injured at work, and to make sure they return to work as quickly and as safely as is possible. I commend the bill to the House.12:46:0026559Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—It gives me great pleasure to be taking part in the debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. This is a very complex bill. What does it do and why? Leaving aside the industrial chemical section, which is generally fairly minor and very technical, I will concentrate on issues relating to safety, rehabilitation and compensation. The bill makes a number of changes to the compensation regime for Commonwealth employees. Some of these changes Labor is supporting and some we are opposing. I said in a speech in this House in June 1997 that—again, referring to employees who come under this legislation—of all the benefits the trade union movement has won for the working people of this country over a long period, there are certainly none more important than workers compensation. This bill gives me the opportunity of striking a blow for the trade union movement, particularly in view of the major attacks on trade unions and on the people involved with them that we hear every question time. In view of that, it is worth while recognising the valuable work that the trade union movement does in relation to workers compensation.This bill covers, principally, 206,000 employees of the Australian government, Telstra, Australia Post, the Australian defence forces and the ACT government. I have some concerns that some of the changes being proposed in this legislation are designed to reduce the basic safety net entitlements of workers compensation. In the speech that I have referred to that I made in 1997, I spoke about the government's intention to change the safety, rehabilitation and compensation legislation to make it harder to claim compensation, and this legislation has proved me correct. We must remember that this bill is specifically aimed at Commonwealth employees and no-one else. I feel that government members often forget that they are the employers of more than just their own personal staff. They are employers of the entire Commonwealth Public Service, and the political decisions that they take affect those employees, and this bill certainly does.This probably comes back to the stress related issues that are contained in this bill and to our reluctance on this side of the House to compromise in the area of stress, because stress, whether it is caused by a decision of an immediate employer or whether it is caused by a government decision, is stress. If stress happens in the workplace, irrespective of the reasons, we believe it should be fully compensatable—which I think is the current decision—and the government is trying to alter that.Some of the other changes proposed in this bill clearly demonstrate that, as employers, the government and government members care little about the rights of their employees to fair compensation for work related disease and injury. However, I am willing to grant that there are some positives in this bill. Labor is supporting measures such as extending access to workers compensation to people aged 63 and over. It is an anomaly in the legislation that currently all workers compensation for Commonwealth employees ceases at 63. This arbitrary age is a puzzling one. I would question why the drafters of the legislation chose it but, seeing that we are now changing it in this bill, the question is moot. Labor is supporting the changes to the hearing loss rules. At present a person must suffer 20 per cent loss before they are compensated. This bill changes that to 10 per cent and brings it in line with Victoria, Western Australia and Tasmania. The shadow minister has moved an amendment to this legislation to reduce that figure to five per cent. Five per cent of hearing loss is compensatable in South Australia, the Northern Territory and Queensland, and six per cent in New South Wales. Whatever the final figure is—whether it is five per cent or 10 per cent—it will be better than the current 20 per cent hearing loss required at present. However, there are a number of other measures within this bill that the Labor Party will not be supporting. We will not support the erosion of workers' rights. It is as simple as that. Let me just say that, because of my background in the trade union movement, I feel very strongly about protecting what we have won over a long period of time. Once again, in defending the role of trade unions, and even the role of people who were previously trade union officials and are now in this place, I make the observation that there are more lawyers on the government side of the House than there are union officials on our side. Given the choice of union official or lawyer, I know which one I would choose. I know which profession cares more about people, about their working conditions and about their financial situation, their safety and their wellbeing—and, of course, union fees are a lot cheaper than legal fees.Government members and ministers who spend much of their time bashing the trade union movement and the people who work in it should remember that there are a lot more lawyers here than there are union officials. As a representative of my constituents and as someone who has fought most of his life for the rights of workers, I will not stand idly by and watch the achievements gained over many years eroded by this heartless government. What this legislation does in a very technical way is reduce access to workers compensation for workers incapacitated as a result of their employment. This legislation makes changes to the definition of what a disease is and what an injury is. It gets very technical in defining each term. It also makes the onus of proof that any such disease or injury is indeed work related, and therefore compensatable, that much more difficult.Currently, the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act sets out separate tests for establishing entitlements to compensation for disease and injury. A disease requires employment to be a material contribution before it is compensatable, whereas an injury is only required to occur at work. Court decisions have held that a natural progression of disease which causes a disease at work is compensatable. The easiest example of this is someone with a history of heart attacks who has a heart attack at work. That would be compensatable under the act.This bill seeks to overcome these court decisions, and any injury caused as a natural progression of a disease not associated with work would not be considered an injury under the act and there would be no workers compensation payable. The government are claiming that the reason that they are doing this is that the original intent of the legislation introduced by Labor in 1988 has been subverted by the courts. The obvious question I would ask is: why is the government so interested in enforcing Labor's intent? When have they ever been interested in making sure Labor's policies have been introduced and enforced in full?There must be another reason, and there is. It is the sheer bloodymindedness of an ideologically driven government that seeks to destroy the entitlements and rights that workers and their unions have achieved over a period of time. It must be, because there is no economic argument for making it harder to claim compensation. In the 10 years before the introduction of the act in 1988, Commonwealth expenditure on workers compensation had increased by over 700 per cent and there was a real problem. However, now the situation is very different. The scheme is self-funded and the premiums are the lowest in Australia, currently at one per cent. In Western Australia and the ACT they are over three per cent and in New South Wales, South Australia and Tasmania they are all nudging the three per cent mark. Only in Queensland are they less than two per cent: currently they are around 1.8 or 1.9 per cent. We must also realise that the number of claims is already dropping, and has been since 1991. Recent figures bear this out. In 1996 there were 28,807 claims; in 2000 there were fewer than 20,000 claims. This was not achieved by making it harder to claim via legislation, such as this is attempting to do; it was achieved with the introduction of occupational health and safety legislation and the subsequent action on that issue. The focus shifted away from compensation and into prevention, which, as we all agree, is always better than cure. There is no need for these changes: the scheme is not under threat.Another problem with going into such detail and complexity, as the government does with this legislation, is that the victim's costs of claiming compensation will go up. The more technical you are and the more demands you place on determining the connection between the injury or disease and the employment, the more you are reliant on medical assessment—expensive medical assessment. How is a `contributing factor', a `close connection' or a `material degree' different from each other? Who decides? There will be the employee's doctor and the employer's doctor and of course they will not agree, so there are other experts to be called in, all at great expense.The amendments in this bill will result in a more restrictive regime than any of the states currently have. This legislation will result not only in a blow-out in medical expenses but also in a blow-out in legal expenses. When the rules are made very complex and technical, more disputes will arise as people disagree over whether or not they qualify for compensation: one doctor says one thing and another doctor says another thing. Where does it wind up? It winds up in the court of law as challenges to rulings are made. The more complex the definitions and legislation are, the more lawyers will charge to sort them out and the individual cases will last longer, which again adds to the expense.Here we can use the current situation in New South Wales, where its government is attempting to redraft its WorkCover legislation. One of the major problems there, and I quote from an article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 28 March, is that lawyers now earn almost as much as injured workers from WorkCover, taking $422 million a year—compared with $438 million in benefit payments—almost equal to the amount of money that the workers get out of being injured. That, I would suggest, is one of the difficulties that we may also find in this piece of legislation, that the legal costs will explode.Lost productivity and costs are also associated with properly conducting a court case. Some years ago, as a union official, I witnessed an industrial accident and I volunteered to be a witness for the injured worker. I was invited to go down to the workers compensation tribunal. I went down there on three or four mornings, a couple of afternoons, a day here and a day there. It all added up to lost productivity as far as I was concerned, and also for my employer. In the end, I was not called to give evidence. So that shows you that there is some inefficiency in how workers compensation is carried out on the legal side. This legislation has the potential to exacerbate the situation that I have just referred to. We currently have a compensation regime that is more efficient and costs less than the state schemes, but this bill will make the compensation scheme harder and more costly to access. It does not make any sense without looking at it from a purely ideological point of view. There are many within the government, particularly cabinet members, that are far greater ideologues than anyone on our side of the House. They say, `Damn the torpedoes. Let's just get the worker.' I think that relates to the previous minister for industrial relations, the new Minister for Defence, who seems to forget that no business can function without somebody working there. Workers create the profits for the companies—it is as simple as that. Yet this government at every turn seeks to destroy the wages, conditions and entitlements and protection that workers have won over a number of years. Some of this legislation is good and some of it is very technical but, like much of the government's agenda, it is mostly anti-worker.My contribution so far relates to my own experience and is based on the information that we have been provided through the shadow minister, the trade union movement and the Bills Digest. I once again recognise the role that the trade union movement plays in all aspects of the industrial legislation, particularly in compensation. I notice that in his contribution the shadow minister commented that the trade unions had not been greatly involved in drawing up this legislation. If that is the case, that is certainly a shame.I would like to finalise a couple of points that relate generally to workers compensation, particularly for people who work for the government. One issue that has caused confusion amongst people who receive a settlement for a compensatable injury is the difference between compensation for non-economic loss, which is for pain and suffering and loss of quality of life, and compensation for economic loss. There are two clear distinctions here: non-economic loss and economic loss. Compensation for non-economic loss is made solely for the pain and suffering and expenses resulting from an injury. It also is paid for loss of limb or impairment and for loss of enjoyment of life. It does not contain any amount to compensate the person for lost earnings or lost capacity to earn as a result of an injury. Compensation for economic loss is for exactly that—the loss of income. Many compensation cases are based on a lump sum out-of-court settlement. In such cases, it is usually taken that 50 per cent of the lump sum is for economic loss and 50 per cent is seen as compensation for medical expenses, legal fees, pain and suffering. That 50 per cent economic loss component is then divided by a single person's cut-off figure under the pension income test—currently $543.63 per week—to set the number of weeks for which this sum provides replacement earnings. A number of my constituents who have received out-of-court settlements for injuries are not aware that 50 per cent of that settlement will be used as income replacement, which will affect their social service payments. It seems to be a weakness in the system that injured workers are not advised of this, and in many cases they go away from the court feeling as though they have got a lot more out of it than they actually have. On other occasions, they spend a lot of the money they receive for economic loss on maybe fixing up the house, on family related expenses or on other things only to find that they have not got sufficient money to actually see their way through. Many such people agree to a settlement under duress, in that they are advised that the figure offered is the maximum they can get and that if they proceed with a court settlement they may get less. This is something that would cause considerable stress also. The worker who has been involved in a case for a long period of time reaches the point where they have got to make that decision, and they act then on the advice of their advisers. Whether it is right or not, I do not know.The period for which income replacement applies is referred to as the `preclusion period'. The member for Lalor, in her contribution, raised this point. It does appear that this problem is fairly widespread. Injured workers whose preclusion period spans the introduction of the GST also suffer a further economic loss in that their preclusion period is based on the pre-GST income test rate of $422.90 per week and no adjustment is made to take into account the post-GST income test rate of $543 per week, which would result in a reduction in the preclusion period and therefore an earlier entitlement to social security if they were unable to continue work. This seems to be a major concern amongst workers, and for those people whose precluded period spans the introduction of the GST there is certainly a disadvantage. This, once again, shows how the GST is affecting many aspects of the lives of working people. It is quite possible that this was unintended initially, but the government has been asked to fix it up. I have actually put a motion on notice regarding this issue. (Time expired)Debate (on motion by Mr Sciacca) adjourned.Bills26563R125026563Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 12), at the end of the clause, add: (7) The amendment of the Excise Tariff Act 1921 made by item 18 of Schedule 1 to this Act is taken to have commenced on 4 April 2001.(2) Page 13 (after line 10), at the end of Schedule 1, add:Part 6—Amendments having effect on and from 4 April 200118 Item 1 of the ScheduleRepeal the item, substitute: 1BEER; OTHER EXCISABLE BEVERAGES OF AN ALCOHOLIC STRENGTH BY VOLUME NOT EXCEEDING 10%(A)As prescribed by By-lawFree(BB)Beer produced for non-commercial purposes using commercial facilities or equipment7% of the rate applying to goods classified to sub-item (C)(C)Other Beer(1) packaged in an individual container not exceeding 48 litres(a) not exceeding 3% by volume of alcohol$44.08 per litre of alcohol calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15(b) exceeding 3% but not exceeding 3.5% by volume of alcohol$37.42 per litre of alcohol calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15(c) exceeding 3.5 % by volume of alcohol$32.22 per litre of alcohol calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15(2) packaged in an individual container exceeding 48 litres(a) not exceeding 3% by volume of alcohol$15.96 per litre of alcohol calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15(b) exceeding 3% but not exceeding 3.5% by volume of alcohol$17.33 per litre of alcohol calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15(c) exceeding 3.5 % by volume of alcohol$22.68 per litre of alcohol calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15(D)Other Excisable Beverages of an alcoholic strength by volume not exceeding 10%$32.22 per litre of alcohol13:38:0026564Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I understand it is the wish of the House to consider the requested amendments together, and on that basis I move: That the requested amendments be made. These amendments incorporate the Excise Tariff and Customs Tariff proposals introduced into the House by me on Wednesday evening to the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001 and the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 respectively. The tariff proposals to be incorporated into these bills by these amendments reduce the rate of excise on certain draught beer, leading to lower prices for beer served over the bar. The Labor Party, having determined on a policy of obstruction in the Senate, stated that it would vote against the original proposals of the government on beer excise contained in these bills.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—The ones that broke your promise.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—The government wanted to keep its promise, as the member opposite knows, and the Labor Party has sought and has actually prevented, through its numbers in the other place, the government from keeping its promise to the Australian people. We want to keep our promises, whereas of course the Labor Party has a history of promising things to the Australian people prior to an election—it is prepared to do anything and say anything to crawl into office—and once it gets into office breaking those promises. Just remember its promises not to sell Qantas and the Commonwealth Bank and remember the l-a-w tax cuts that did not actually occur.Madam Deputy Speaker, the Labor Party, in its fairly shoddy approach to this particular matter, has been acting as an agent of the breweries, seeking to minimise their tax liability and to obtain a windfall gain. The Australian Democrats have also indicated their opposition to the bills in their original form. Of course, one of the attributes of being successful in politics is being able to understand where the numbers are and it simply was mathematically impossible for the government to obtain the numbers in the Senate—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—The ones that broke your promise.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—No, we wanted to keep our promise. Because we were unable to secure our legislation in the other place, we have sat down and talked with the Australian Democrats in order to reduce the rates of excise and customs duty as they apply to draught beer to secure the support of the other place for these bills.It is also instrumental to know that the Labor Party did want to return the $115 million to the breweries. But the government wants to allocate the extra excise collected on draught beer since 1 July 2000 to an independent foundation which will focus on preventing alcohol and other licit substance abuse. The Prime Minister has been able to sit down with Senator Meg Lees, the Leader of the Australian Democrats, and has been able to reach an agreement on allocating the additional excise to a new alcohol education and rehabilitation foundation. This charitable trust, which is independent, will have the resources to make a significant contribution towards the prevention of alcohol and other licit substance abuse, including petrol sniffing. The ALP wanted to give the money back to their friends in the breweries but the government and the Democrats have been prepared to sit down and come to an arrangement which will see cheaper prices for beer over the bar, and also we will have this $115 million for setting up a foundation for alcohol education and rehabilitation. There has been a memorandum of understanding between the government and the Democrats, and it is particularly important for this to be an independent foundation. There will be very substantial benefits to the entire Australian community as a result of the understanding entered into by the government and Senator Meg Lees, the Leader of the Australian Democrats—an understanding which is much better than the Labor Party could have achieved, because they simply wanted to return the money to the brewery companies.The amendments will reduce the excise rates applying to draught beer, effective from midnight on 4 April 2001. The excise rates applying from 1 July 2000 until 3 April 2001 remain unchanged and are validated by this bill. This is an example of how the government is prepared to sit down and look at a situation to bring about real and meaningful outcomes. I commend the amendments to the chamber.13:13:0026565Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00— These are the beer backflip bills. There is no question about it. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration who has just spoken can obfuscate as much as he likes, but this is because the government has been forced by Labor to honour a promise. I think that the explanation we have just heard from the parliamentary secretary shows him up as a disgrace in this place. For him to come and argue that rubbish in this chamber just goes to show how pathetic a person he is. You would think he would have enough pride in his job to actually prepare a better defence. But no, he is the lazy one. He has been fobbed off with the task of having to sell the backflip because the Treasurer has not got the courage to come into this place and do it himself. Baldrick, with all his cunning plans, has not got the ticker to come into the House and announce his backflip so he sends the parliamentary secretary in his place with the most pathetic excuses that I have ever heard in my life.Let us go through them one by one. He said that Labor obstructed the government delivering on its promise. I will tell you what the government's promise was. On 14 August 1998, just before the election, John Howard said:Across the board there is virtually no change in relation to alcohol. A tiny CPI equivalent rise in relation to ordinary beer. Perhaps a small reduction for low alcohol beer.Again on 14 August 1998, a South Australian business luncheon was told:... I think there will be a slight reduction, very slight reduction in the price of low alcohol beer.And then on the John Laws program on 23 September, he said:There'll be no more than a 1.9 per cent rise in ordinary beer.He went on to say:... we have taken care to ensure that there is no significant increase in the price of alcohol and will be no greater ... in relation to beer for example, than the normal CPI increase.So what was he telling John Laws? That there would be a 1.9 per cent increase in ordinary beer. If that is not enough in terms of public radio, he also told his party room meeting—and we have that in the words of Ian Cameron, a defeated Liberal member. When this shameful deceit of the government had been exposed, he went on radio on 25 February 2000 and said: But we were always told and I've got this from reliable information and I've checked it. It would be around 1 to 2 per cent. So for the parliamentary secretary to have the gall to come into this place and accuse Labor of stopping the government implementing what he has promised is an absolute deceit. It is just continuing the deceit. They should be ashamed for saying it.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—You are misleading the parliament.10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—Order!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The Prime Minister said that the price of ordinary beer would go up 1.9 per cent, yet he oversaw a program that put it up more than 10 per cent. That is a shameless explanation on your part, Parliamentary Secretary. Why don't you lift your game? You are a disgrace to the parliament—to come in and assert that the Prime Minister's promise was at 1.9 per cent. He goes into the election campaign, and you were with him, saying that it would be 1.9 per cent.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Who are you referring to as `he'?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I am talking about the parliamentary secretary.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Name him by name, thank you. It is the parliamentary secretary.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Peter Slipper is his name.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! Thank you. You may continue.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—It is a pleasure. Maybe you can ask him to refrain from making his interjections, if we are talking about the forms of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—I will deal with the circumstances in the chamber.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Good. I am just making the point, and reinforcing it, that the Prime Minister gave an absolute watertight guarantee that the price of ordinary beer would go up only 1.9 per cent, and it is Labor that has forced him to honour that promise. Make no mistake about it. Labor said, `You can't go to the last election promising one thing and come into the House and do another.' We have insisted that he honour that promise. So we claim victory, Madam Deputy Speaker, in terms of these bills that come back into the chamber. For the beer backflip bills, thank Labor. It is Labor that has driven this campaign. It is Labor that has secured the commitment. It is Labor that has forced the government, kicking and screaming, to honour what the Prime Minister said at the last election. (Extension of time granted)There was another point made that Labor would have given back to the breweries the money which was given to the charities as a result of the wrongfully collected excise. Again, what a shameful deceit. 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr Slipper—It's true. Admit it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Madam Deputy Speaker, do I have to put up with this rabble from this lazy person? We had always said that the money that had been unlawfully collected should go to charities. Indeed, there is actually a press release, if this lazy parliamentary secretary had bothered to get briefed on it, that sets out the sorts of programs that we believe this unlawfully collected money should go to.At the time the government was not even contemplating this, because it was really saying through the Treasurer, `We can't do it. It's impossible to do.' We have forced the government to do the impossible, but what it really highlights is that you cannot believe a thing the Treasurer says. To say that something is impossible and then to have legislation brought in on his behalf that shows it is possible not only highlights the lack of ticker on the part of the Treasurer; it also highlights the fact that he cannot be believed on anything that is said about the GST. We were proposing that the funds go into a mechanism for distribution to the charities. We never argued that the money should go back to the breweries. For the parliamentary secretary to assert that is just arrant nonsense, it is a continuation of the deceit and it is part of the government's denial.There is another dimension to this whole thing, and it is the way the government treats the parliament with contempt. This was a Prime Minister who argued that he was going to lift the standards in this place: he saw the parliament as a great institution, he wanted it to debate properly, he wanted it to have access to information. When this legislation was brought into this House on Tuesday night, we had no advance notice of it. We had not been told of any of the details that had been negotiated. We are expected to debate it sight unseen. We have been required to come into this place now, knowing that a message was coming across from the Senate, and again, sight unseen, are expected to deal with another explanatory memorandum, this time taking account of amendments made in the Senate. But the government has refused to produce the Treasury figures that were relied upon to arrive at the backflip. What has this government got to hide? Why won't it allow Treasury to produce the figures on which its calculations are made? We are entitled to know, having secured victory, whether all of the money unlawfully obtained through the excise is returned to them, because that is what the Democrats assert. They are asserting that all of the money that was collected—effectively unlawfully, because this did not have the authority of the parliament—should be returned. But has it all been returned? How can we tell unless we have got the actual figures from the Treasury? The government is hiding them yet again. It is not the first time, because we have also asked for the calculations from the government on how it arrived at its assessments on what the petrol excise would yield.Madam Deputy Speaker Gash, you will remember that we were arguing that the return to Australian motorists could be funded because the government was collecting a windfall from moneys that it had never budgeted for in relation to petrol excise. The government still refuses to have Treasury release those figures, and it is at it again in relation to beer excise. How were the calculations arrived at? That is the question that we want to continue to pursue. We will claim victory for having forced the government to honour its promise; we want to know whether all the ill-gotten gains have been returned.It was not just Treasury that was involved in this exercise; Econtech was brought in. Econtech happened to be the Prime Minister's preferred modeller. It is his modeller of choice. He is not using Treasury figures, or he is hiding them, but he is using Econtech as his preferred modeller to have work done for the Democrats in arriving at the basis for a negotiated outcome. (Extension of time granted) What we have really got is not Treasury setting the rate, by the look of things, but a private modeller setting the rate, yet the information is still not available to us. I am highlighting that for this simple reason: when the government was forced on the back foot and knew that it was facing defeat in the Senate over its broken promise on beer, it was arguing that the budget would take a hit. The figure that came out in terms of the hit to the budget was $185 million. Members would probably be aware of that figure because it was in the media in advance of this whole debate. Effectively, what has been given back, as far as we can ascertain, is $155 million. In other words, there is a missing $30 million on the face of it.We want to get to the bottom of this. We want to know on what basis Treasury have relied for their calculations. Where are their calculations, what are their parameters and what are their assessments? We want to know on what basis Econtech was used to whittle away these figures, because we have a missing $30 million. If it is borne out that there is $30 million missing, that too should be returned to the beer drinkers of the country. Understand the symbolism of this: here we have the Democrats and the government, the co-authors of the dirty deal on the GST, being forced to capitulate together. Do we know whether they have capitulated in full or has there been some attempt to claw back more of it and not pay the full weight? Not only the Democrats did the deal in relation to this; the Australian Hoteliers Association were also involved in the negotiations. I think they have an obligation to explain to their membership whether or not there is $30 million missing. I cannot answer these questions here and now. This debate and the amount of time allowed for it is not going to allow us to go away and do the calculations. I think there is still a serious issue here. The government, together with its co-authors, have been forced to capitulate, but have they clawed back some of it? In the process of getting a deal have they denied beer drinkers full return? I made this point on the night the Democrats announced the outcome. They said that the price of an ordinary strength middy of beer would come down by 11c. Calculations that we saw in the lead-up to the announcement suggested that, if the Prime Minister's promise was delivered in full, there should have been a reduction of about 15c for a middy of beer—in other words, there is a missing 4c.I think it is incumbent on the government to come clean on this issue. We want to know. We are claiming victory for having forced them to honour their promise but we want to know if they have delivered it in full. The amount of time allowed for the debate as well as the fact that the government have given us no access to the basis for calculations or the basis upon which the deal was cut leaves us suspicious, because the people who were involved in this were Econtech—the Prime Minister's preferred modeller—the Democrats, Australian hoteliers and the government. Labor, having forced the government's hand, was not even included in the discussions. We are entitled to know and to not be treated as shabbily as the government continue to treat us in relation to this issue.I know they are sore losers and I know they do not like having to do the backflips, but we will continue to force them to do them. This is more GST roll-back. This is a win for the beer drinkers of Australia and it also attests to the commitment on the part of the Australian Labor Party to actually stand up for ordinary people and not have them deceived by the government or let them believe that the government can get away with it. We have stood up for them, we have delivered for them and we have forced the government to roll back the GST in relation to beer. We have delivered a huge win for the beer drinkers of the country, but the government hides the detail so that we still do not know whether they are being paid in full. (Time expired)13:25:0026568Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—What a bag of wind. The member opposite huffed and puffed and filled in 15 minutes of the time of parliament. The Labor Party claims on the one hand that it is interested in fiscal rectitude and the continuation of surpluses, but on the other hand it is prepared to plunder the budget on behalf of its friends in the brewing companies. It is obvious that packaged beer comprises some 75 per cent to 80 per cent of the total beer sales, and the new tax system package was absolutely explicit on the commitment with respect to packaged beer. What the Australian Labor Party has done by refusing to support government legislation in the Senate is to force the government to break a promise it made to the Australian people—a promise, incidentally, that was one of the bases on which the Australian people continued to trust the government with the keys of office post the last election.The Member for Hotham also is contradictory. At some stage he talks about our collecting excise unlawfully. Then he claims it is wrongfully and then he returns to unlawfully. I want to reassure the parliament that the government has not acted unlawfully. As the member opposite knows, the Excise Act provides for excise rates on tariff proposals to be the basis for collection and provides for explicit protection. These mechanisms have been in place since 1901. The Excise Act requires formal validation of proposals within 12 months and that is what this legislation does. Summing up, the government has accepted the realities that we do not have the numbers in the Senate. The Labor Party has forced us to break our promise. The member opposite has misled the House. He ought to apologise. At the end of the day, I commend the motion I have moved to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills26569R124926569Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith.Senate's amendments—(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 6), at the end of the clause, add: (5) The amendments of the Customs Tariff Act 1995 made by items 23, 24 and 25 of Schedule 1 to this Act are taken to have commenced on 4 April 2001.(2) Page 30 (after line 10), at the end of Schedule 1, add:Part 4—Amendments having effect from 4 April 200123 Subsection 19(1) (table)Repeal the table, substitute: Table of related Customs Subheadings and Items and Excise ItemsColumn 1Customs Subheading or ItemColumn 2Excise Item2203.00.311(D)2203.00.392(H)2203.00.611(C)(1)(a)2203.00.621(C)(1)(b)2203.00.691(C)(1)(c)2203.00.711(C)(2)(a)2203.00.721(C)(2)(b)2203.00.791(C)(2)(c)2204.10.231(D)2204.10.292(H)2204.10.831(D)2204.10.892(H)2204.21.301(D)2204.21.902(H)2204.29.301(D)2204.29.902(H)2205.10.301(D)2205.10.902(H)2205.90.301(D)2205.90.902(H)2206.00.521(D)2206.00.592(H)2206.00.621(D)2206.00.692(H)2206.00.741(C)(1)(a)2206.00.751(C)(1)(b)2206.00.781(C)(1)(c)2206.00.821(C)(2)(a)2206.00.831(C)(2)(b)2206.00.891(C)(2)(c)2206.00.921(D)2206.00.992(H)2207.10.002(H)2208.20.102(A)2208.20.902(C)2208.30.002(D)2208.40.002(F)2208.50.002(H)2208.60.002(H)2208.70.00 2(G)2208.90.201(D)2208.90.902(H)2401.20.006(B)2401.30.006(B)2402.10.207(A)2402.10.807(B)2402.20.208(A)2402.20.808(B)2403.10.306(A)2403.10.706(B)2403.91.006(B)2403.99.2092403.99.806(B)2707.10.0011(H)(1)(c)2707.20.2911(H)(1)(c)2707.20.8911(H)(1)(c)2707.30.2911(H)(1)(c)2707.30.8911(H)(1)(c)2707.50.3911(H)(1)(c)2707.50.8911(H)(1)(c)2709.00.8111(E)(2)2709.00.8911(E)(1)2710.00.1411(G)(3)2710.00.1511(G)(2)2710.00.2011(C)(2)(a)2710.00.3311(B)(1)(b)2710.00.3411(B)(2)(b)2710.00.3911(B)(2)(a)2710.00.4011(A)2710.00.6011(D)2710.00.7111(H)(2)(a)2710.00.7211(H)(2)(b)2710.00.7911(H)(2)(c)2710.00.8311(I)(2)(b)2710.00.8411(I)(3)(b)2710.00.8911(I)(3)(a)2710.00.9115(A)2710.00.9215(C)2902.20.9011(I)(3)(a)2902.30.9011(I)(3)(a)2902.41.9011(I)(3)(a)2902.42.9011(I)(3)(a)2902.43.9011(I)(3)(a)2902.44.9011(I)(3)(a)3403.11.1015(C)3403.11.9015(A)3403.19.1015(C)3403.19.9015(A)3403.91.1015(C)3403.91.9015(A)3403.99.1015(C)3403.99.9015(A)3811.21.1015(C)3811.21.9015(A)3817.10.9011(I)(3)(a)3819.00.0015(A)50B15(A)24 Subheadings 2203.00.8 to 2203.00.89 of Schedule 3Repeal the subheadings, substitute: 2203.00.6--Other, packaged in an individual container not exceeding 48 L:2203.00.61--Having an alcoholic strength by volume exceeding 1.15% vol but not exceeding 3.0% vol$44.08/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15NZ:$44.08/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15PNG:$44.08/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15FI:$44.08/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15DC:$44.08/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.152203.00.62--Having an alcoholic strength by volume exceeding 3.0% vol but not exceeding 3.5% vol$37.42/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15NZ:$37.42/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15PNG:$37.42/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15FI:$37.42/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15DC:$37.42/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.152203.00.69--Other$32.22/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15NZ:$32.22/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15PNG:$32.22/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15FI:$32.22/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15DC:$32.22/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.152203.00.7--Other, packaged in an individual container exceeding 48 L:2203.00.71--Having an alcoholic strength by volume exceeding 1.15% vol but not exceeding 3.0% vol$15.96/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15NZ:$15.96/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15PNG:$15.96/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15FI:$15.96/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15DC:$15.96/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.152203.00.72--Having an alcoholic strength by volume exceeding 3.0% vol but not exceeding 3.5% vol$17.33/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15NZ:$17.33/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15PNG:$17.33/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15FI:$17.33/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15DC:$17.33/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.152203.00.79--Other$22.68/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15NZ:$22.68/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15PNG:$22.68/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15FI:$22.68/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15DC:$22.68/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.1525 Subheadings 2206.00.7 to 2206.00.79 of Schedule 3Repeal the subheadings, substitute: 2206.00.7--Beer, other than that of 2203, containing hops, packaged in an individual container not exceeding 48 L, NSA:2206.00.71--Having an alcoholic strength by volume not exceeding 1.15% volFree2206.00.74--Having an alcoholic strength by volume exceeding 1.15% vol but not exceeding 3.0% vol$44.08/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15NZ:$44.08/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15PNG:$44.08/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15FI:$44.08/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15DC:$44.08/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.152206.00.75--Having an alcoholic strength by volume exceeding 3.0% vol but not exceeding 3.5% vol$37.42/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15NZ:$37.42/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15PNG:$37.42/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15FI:$37.42/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15DC:$37.42/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.152206.00.78--Other$32.22/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15NZ:$32.22/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15PNG:$32.22/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15FI:$32.22/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15DC:$32.22/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.152206.00.8--Beer, other than that of 2203, containing hops, packaged in an individual container exceeding 48 L, NSA:2206.00.81--Having an alcoholic strength by volume not exceeding 1.15% volFree2206.00.82--Having an alcoholic strength by volume exceeding 1.15% vol but not exceeding 3.0% vol$15.96/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15NZ:$15.96/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15PNG:$15.96/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15FI:$15.96/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15DC:$15.96/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.152206.00.83--Having an alcoholic strength by volume exceeding 3.0% vol but not exceeding 3.5% vol$17.33/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15NZ:$17.33/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15PNG:$17.33/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15FI:$17.33/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15DC:$17.33/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.152206.00.89--Other$22.68/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15NZ:$22.68/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15PNG:$22.68/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15FI:$22.68/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.15DC:$22.68/L of alcohol, calculated on that alcohol content by which the percentage by volume of alcohol of the goods exceeds 1.1513:30:0026575Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the requested amendments be made.The debate contributed to by the member for Hotham and me with respect to the previous bill, the Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001, also generally speaking covers the matters currently before the chamber. I will not delay the House further, but I do wish to commend the requested amendments to the House.13:31:0026575Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—We agree. These amendments are part of the beer backflip package, which Labor has forced on the government in terms of more GST roll-back. Of course, we welcome them.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bills26575R120626575Debate resumed.13:32:0026575Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—In view of the debate I have just been witnessing, it is a great victory for the beer drinkers of Australia that they have been saved, with the efforts of the Labor Party. I am here this afternoon to speak generally in support of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. However, there are a few provisions contained in the bill which I am concerned about. I will go into those as I go through my speech. I understand that the provisions will be referred to a Senate committee for careful scrutiny and perusal before the bill is ultimately resolved in the parliament. The purpose of the bill is principally to amend the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1998. Five other acts have minor technical, non-controversial amendments which I support. They include the Industrial Chemicals (Notification of Assessment) Act 1989, the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Act 1999, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, the National Occupational Health and Safety Commission Act 1985 and the Occupational Health and Safety (Commonwealth Employment) Act 1991.The SRC Act covers Commonwealth public sector employees and employees of licensed corporations under the age of 65 years and is the basis of the compensation scheme for these workers. The original SRC Act provides for weekly incapacity payments; lump sum compensation for permanent impairment; lump sum compensation for non-economic loss; compensation and benefits for dependents of deceased employees; and the provision for domestic and attendant care services and rehabilitation for injuries and diseases connected with or arising out of employment. Comcare administers the SRC Act under the auspices of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission. Under the bill, employers are able to self-insure against liabilities if they are licensed to do so. The SRC Act will be amended to replace five categories of licences with a single generic licence. As before, the licence applications will continue to be determined by the commission under a less regulatory framework. This bill also contains other amendments in relation to licensing arrangements.The bill also works to streamline the funding arrangements for the regulation of workers compensation and occupational health and safety under the Commonwealth jurisdiction by providing for a single contribution. The bill includes amendments to ensure that Comcare's financial arrangements are consistent with the requirements of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997.A number of improvements are made to benefits under the SRC compensation scheme, including augmented access to compensation for employees who have suffered hearing loss. The bill reduces the hearing loss requirement from more than 20 per cent hearing loss to more than 10 per cent hearing loss. I support Labor's amendment to reduce this to more than five per cent hearing loss to bring it in line with the laws of South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory. All workers covered by the SRC act can receive compensation after 65 years of age if they are injured after the age of 63. Claimants may have the cost of treatment from a wider range of health practitioners than at present without having to seek referrals from a medical practitioner. Under the legislation the basis by which compensation is calculated for the first 45 weeks of a claim will be standardised. Compensation payments for former employees will be sustained at 70 per cent of indexed normal weekly earnings. The bill also ensures that normal weekly earnings are updated in line with the prescribed index, which is proposed to be the ABS wage cost index. These are good amendments. I acknowledge that the government has initiated them. Obviously, I support them.I turn to the provisions that particularly concern me. I refer to amendments in relation to the definition of injury or disciplinary action. Comcare claimed in its most recent annual report that it has:... reduced injury frequency rates per 100 employees a further 6 per cent, met the majority of the Commission's claims management performance indicators, and improved performance on others, introduced a new OHS self-assessment and audit tool for employers and exceeded the national average durable return to work rate by 10 per cent.The Howard government's reasoning for amending this legislation is questionable. Given that the workers compensation scheme is self-funded, the premiums are the lowest in Australia—one per cent—and that claims are falling, these amendments are completely unnecessary. Firstly, the bill contains a proposal to amend the circumstances in which a claim for compensation may be payable under the SRC Act by amending the definition of `disease' and `injury'. In relation to the distinction between diseases and injury, the 1971 act defines an injury as `any physical or mental injury, including aggravation, acceleration or recurrence but not a disease'. A disease was defined to include any physical or mental ailment, disorder, defect or morbid condition. In theory, this meant that any injury was subject to compensation but disease would not be compensated. In contrast, the SRC Act defines disease as any `ailment' to which employment has contributed `in a material degree' and injury is defined to include a disease.The High Court and the Federal Court have both established that employees should be compensated for injuries at work partly arising out of an underlying disease, provided that the injury is not an inevitable cause of the disease. Under the amendments, the definition of disease is expanded to reflect the original intention behind the act and clarify the relationship between injury and disease. At present, the definition under the SRC Act is that there needs to be a `material contribution by employment to a disease before compensation is payable'. However, if the bill is passed by the parliament in its present form, it will have a more restrictive definition. Compensation will only be payable on the basis that an employee's employment is not to be taken to have contributed in a material degree to his or her disease unless there is a close connection between the employee's employment and the disease. A close connection will need to be established through length of employment, type of work tasks completed, existence of medical predispositions, unrelated activities of the employee and any other matters affecting the employee's health. I am concerned that these changes will make it more difficult for workers to prove their claims.The SRC Act seeks to prevent compensation claims being used to thwart management action and contains an exclusionary provision. It provides that compensation is not payable in respect of a mental injury which arises from reasonable disciplinary action taken against an employee or a failure by the employee to obtain a job promotion and so on. The bill will amend this provision to include other activities seen to be normal management practices. I am opposed to this amendment recycled by the government. They attempted to pass it in 1996. I believe that Commonwealth workers covered by the SRC Act should have access to stress claims if they are justifiable.Madam Deputy Speaker, what is stress? I worked for a long time in the Commonwealth public sector before arriving in this chamber. In my possession this morning I have a document which was produced by the CSIRO on stress in the workplace. They posed the question: what is stress? They defined stress as a biochemical response to performance which is caused by work—workplace, career; knowledge; family; environment; health, both physical and emotional; values and beliefs; travel; finances; and social relationships. The paper goes on to say that stress consists of five components: stressors, for example organisational change—humans like things to be predictable; feelings—how do I feel about myself and am I in control; general adaptation syndrome—fear from presentations, manifested by sweaty palms and excessive use of the toilet, and reactions to floods, earthquake and famine; thoughts—denial, lack of control over change issues; and behaviour—negative thoughts trigger physiological effects, for example temper. The paper goes on to also pose the question: what are the symptoms of stress? It says that positive responses to stress include performing better, acting faster, running harder, thinking quicker. Some of the symptoms of negative stress can include low morale, aggression, bad decisions, disorganisation, hair loss, eye twitches, neck stiffness, sleeplessness, increased tiredness, increased palpitation, increased smoking, stomach upsets, eating disorders, physical sickness, headaches, increased blood pressure and so on. The long-term effects, according to the paper, can result in ulcers, heart attack, nervous breakdown, weight gain or loss and dependence on alcohol, pills, drugs and smoking. These are very serious consequences of the stressful life that we all lead, but particularly in the public sector. I will talk about some of my experiences when I was there, and the implications for employees with the stressful environment that is so apparent today. This paper also gives some very interesting statistics. It says:Reported cases of stress-related illness have almost doubled in the Australian Public Service since 1989-90 and are growing at a rate of 20% a year. The average liability associated with a stress claim is more than double that involved with other forms of work-related injuries. The estimated cost to the Commonwealth is $50 million. Research by Comcare has revealed that people with stress related illnesses have longer periods of absence and that their rehabilitation costs about $25,000 compared with $9,000 for other illnesses. The research also indicates that the cost of stress-related absences is likely to increase, and the number of cases may double again before the year 2000. That is past, as we know, and this paper, having been prepared before the arrival of the year 2000, certainly covers that period before I left the public sector. The paper continues:The most common cause of stress related absences are classified in this document as `workplace conflict situations'. The Comcare research breaks down the incidence of these situations as follows: interpersonal conflict (24 per cent), work pressures and deadline (24 per cent), anxiety caused by organisational change (22 per cent), and verbal or physical abuse (17 per cent). Add to this the pressure of family life and the usual stress of day-to-day existence, and it's easy to see why the problem seems overwhelming. Recent discussion suggests that stress is a global phenomenon largely affecting post-industrialised societies, however, a certain amount of stress has always been a part of the human condition. This part of the paper concludes:In CSIRO, work-based change is the main cause of stress. Staff are feeling less comfortable with their workplace because they have lost control over events involving them.Staff are certainly not relaxed and comfortable. I am very heartened to see today that after question time we are having a matter of public importance debate and the Prime Minister in waiting, Mr Beazley, the Leader of the Opposition, will be talking about `the social and economic consequences of the government's failure to deliver on its promise to make Australians comfortable and relaxed'. That is a very important debate that will take place in this chamber, because there are certainly a lot of people who are not comfortable and who are not relaxed, as promised by the Prime Minister.As I said earlier, I worked in the Commonwealth public sector for 28 years before arriving in this place. The last job I had was at the Public Service and Merit Protection Commission, running the grievance program in New South Wales. I had first-hand experience in almost all grievances lodged. I had to interview and deal with aggrieved applicants first-hand or manage their cases at the commission. Quite plainly, the decisions that have been made by the Howard government in terms of staff cuts and reductions in resources put enormous stress on employees in the public sector. It is my belief that most stress is genuine. Yes, I know that this bill, to be fair to the government, is trying to deal with what at times we thought, when I worked at the commission, was the medicalisation of a work related problem and someone then putting in a claim for something which was possibly unrelated to the work environment, but this in the overwhelming number of cases from my experience was very, very rare. When I was working in the public sector, very senior managers would come along and lecture us and lecture the people that I saw who were suffering stress and they would simply say, `Well, you've got to work smarter; you've got to do more with less.' Quite plainly, many of these senior managers right up to, unfortunately, some secretaries of government departments had no insight into their own condition. When you are running a large organisation like the public sector, which services the work that we do in this parliament, and you savagely reduce by tens of thousands the numbers employed in the public sector, of course you are going to have stress. There is no escaping stress. Stress is an ineluctable force. The other thing that many public servants have had to deal with in recent years is the incredible technological changes. We have all had to deal with those things in the public sector and in our working lives. About the only thing that is constant in all our lives, and certainly in the public sector where I came from, is change. Change is the only constant. I am very, very concerned, and I will be scrutinising what the Senate does with this legislation when it goes to the other chamber, to make sure that those hardworking public servants who are working more hours than normal, are taken away from their families and their friends and are suffering severe symptoms of stress are properly cared for. It is all too easy to label public servants as bludgers, because there is a perception out there in the community—and it is a wrong perception—that public servants do not work hard. I would put to you that the enormous number of claims of stress is a clear confirmation of the stressful environment that we now work in. Unfortunately, I do not see it getting any better and, quite plainly, if the government continues to shed staff as it has done since 1996 and to contract out a lot of the work that historically was done by public servants, we are just going to see even more stress.I think it is very, very important that this legislation, when it is examined by the Senate, is not made so tough that the very, very many people who suffer stress will not get the adequate compensation from Comcare that they so richly deserve. I have experience of many people whose lives have been torn apart because of the stress of work and whilst, yes, there were other contributing factors, in the main it was work and pressure in the public sector that brought about the manifestation of stress. (Time expired)13:52:0026578Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—In contributing to the debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 I will limit my comments to the amendments it proposes to the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. The act provides a framework for a fully funded workers compensation and rehabilitation scheme for Commonwealth employees under the age of 65. That includes employees of government departments and agencies and of the ACT government and employees of licensed corporations, previously Commonwealth authorities.The act is administered on behalf of the Commonwealth by Comcare. As I understand it, Comcare's motto is `Working with you to keep you working'. While the electorate of Calare probably does not have the same number of Commonwealth employees or employees of licensed corporations as do many other electorates, it still does have significant numbers working, for example, in the ABC, ADI, Australia Post, Telstra and Network Design and Construction, otherwise known as NDC. Compared to other areas of Commonwealth responsibility, I have to say that I have received fewer complaints about Comcare than about any other government agency. However, one local case brought to my attention recently has made me seriously question just how well Comcare is adhering to its seemingly admirable motto. This case, which I will go into in a little bit more detail in a moment, has caused me in the context of this bill to look closely at what has been happening within Comcare's handling of workers compensation claims. According to the minister's second reading speech, the amendments in the bill, which the explanatory memorandum says will save Comcare some $31 million, are apparently largely of a housekeeping nature. Some of the changes the bill proposes are beneficial to employees, but some I believe are not. The bill seeks to make amendments to 11 different parts of the act and a number of other miscellaneous ones. Notably, the bill seeks to clarify the circumstances in which compensation can be paid by amending the definitions of `injury' and `disease'. This is perhaps the most controversial amendment in the bill and appears designed to wind back the circumstances in which workers can receive compensation. I will be looking closely at the opposition amendments in this regard. I note in the Bills Digest the statement: ... many injuries that are currently compensable will not be compensable under these amendments. It all depends upon what may be included within a `natural progression' of a disease. I want to see the government further justify these definitions. The bill also seeks to alter the way payments to workers no longer employed are indexed. Currently, compensation payable to an employee is determined as a percentage of the normal weekly earnings of the class of employees. The proposed amendment seeks to ensure that, where employees leave the Commonwealth sector, their payments are linked into the normal weekly earnings that apply to the position they had when they were working. I have no problem with that proposal but note the criticism by some that the provision is not specific enough regarding the index to be used to calculate a claimant's normal weekly earnings. I wonder whether, in the interests of simplicity and fairness, it may have been better to simply link payment increases to the AWOTE—that is the average weekly ordinary time earnings index now used for calculation of increases to parliamentarians' salaries.The bill also seeks to clarify provisions used to calculate compensation, by standardising the calculation for the first 45 weeks of the entitlements, and removes an apparent loophole which has allowed claimants in receipt of payment but with work outside the Commonwealth to receive their compensation as well as wages. Currently, those who continue working with the Commonwealth whilst receiving a payment have any wages deducted from their entitlement. The bill also seeks to ensure there will be no entitlement to lump sum payments for non-economic loss compensation for permanent impairment occurring prior to December 1998, except if the claim has been lodged before the introduction of the bill, to enable all employees covered by the act to receive weekly compensation payments beyond age 65 for a maximum of 104 weeks if injured after age 63. It will streamline the act's licensing provisions by reducing five specific licences to one general licence and will lower the hurdle a claimant must reach to succeed in a claim for permanent impairment for hearing loss. They are all pretty unobjectionable amendments, I would suggest. I do not intend to discuss these amendments in detail but rather to draw the House's attention to some of the overall trends arising in Comcare's handling of workers compensation cases on behalf of the Commonwealth.But first up I want to share with the House the ongoing experience of one constituent with a claim currently before Comcare. My constituent has agreed to my raising her case in parliament because she is absolutely frustrated by treatment she has received from the Commonwealth's alleged model provider of compensation and rehabilitation services. Margaret Grimley was a former employee of Australian Defence Industries, ADI, at its Lithgow small arms factory. In 1986 she sustained injuries to her right wrist in the course of her employment. She has been in receipt of compensation from Comcare since that time and has undergone surgery to her wrist, including insertion and removal of steel screws and an operation on the tendon to her thumb. She has significant scarring to her wrist and hands as a result of this. Ms Grimley claims she has kept Comcare involved at all relevant times about any employment she has had since her injury. She has done this by disclosing the information in the claim form submitted to Comcare. But it appears Comcare have sought to use this information against her. They have sent out investigators to film her performing the work she has already admitted she performs, such as wheeling a wheelbarrow, and have used this evidence to treat her claim as a fraudulent one. I want to read part of a letter from her solicitor, Higgins and Higgins, to me dated 26 February 2001:Our client has disclosed to the Commonwealth at all material times that she earns money from lawn mowing, and she believes if she does not take some steps in her own rehabilitation she would go crazy.I do not think anyone in the House would disagree with the need for people suffering from such disability to be able to get out there and do something worth while to rehabilitate themselves in the workplace. I will leave my further remarks until after question time, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—It being 2.00 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The debate may be resumed at a later hour, and the member for Calare will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Questions Without Notice265802658014:00:0026580Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, do you recall attending the dinner organised by the Australian Society for Medical Research on 8 June last year? What did you say at that dinner about the Australian AIDS vaccine consortium and funding from the US National Institute of Health? Are you aware that the following morning Virax made inquiries of the chair of the management committee of the AIDS vaccine consortium to ask what the minister had said the previous night? Can you confirm that your office received email inquiries about what was said? What answers did you or your office give?26580Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I am aware of the dinner. I remember the honourable member was there herself, along with about 700 other people. I did not mention the AIDS consortium at all, because I did not know about the AIDS consortium at the time. What I mentioned was the NIH looking for partnerships in Australia.2658014:01:0026580Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—My question is to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House how the government's record of strong economic management has improved the welfare of Australian families and small business? What comparisons are available to confirm the benefits secured for all Australians?26580Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Dunkley for that question. When I visited the honourable member's electorate I met many hundreds of people who were indeed appreciative of the strong economic management of the government. They also had very strong recollections of the disastrous economic management of those who now sit opposite. All the people I saw when I visited places like Frankston in the honourable member's electorate would have been absolutely staggered if they had been confronted with the statement that was made by the Leader of the Opposition this morning at his regular doorstop in which he said:What I say to those who have concerns about us is this: we were good economic managers in this country for 13 years. That is out of the mouth of the man who presided over unemployment of 11.2 per cent. I wonder if the Leader of the Opposition remembers the release that was put out on 10 December 1992 that says `Little change in unemployment during November'. It came from the now Leader of the Opposition, and it recorded the fact that the unemployment rate increased in November by 0.1 per cent to 11.4 per cent in seasonally adjusted terms, according to figures released on that day by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. That, of course, was the human tragedy face of the recession that was brought about by the incompetent management of the Australian economy, where you drove the economy into the ground by running an aggressive policy of ratcheting up interest rates and you had a Treasurer who boasted about a recession the country had—and you were a senior minister in that government.Can I remind the House that not only is there manifest evidence of the benefits of the good economic management of this government but there is a rich load of comparison to be made between the economic credentials of this government and the economic performance of those who sit opposite—a reminder not only of the high interest rates and the high unemployment but of the $85 billion of national government debt that you ran up when you were the Minister for Finance. In their last five years, Labor delivered budget deficits of $11.6 billion, $17 billion, $17.1 billion, $13.2 billion and $10.1 billion—not a bad effort in five budgets.By contrast, under the coalition the living standards of Australians have improved markedly. GDP per capita has increased at an annual average rate of 2.8 per cent; real household disposable income has grown by 3½ per cent; the real wealth of Australians has grown by an average of eight per cent; and recent ABS data indicates that this has not been at the cost of greater income inequality. One of the constant mantras of those who sit opposite is that the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer under this government. Unfortunately for those who mouth that mantra, the ABS income distribution survey for 1999-2000—the latest one available, I understand—found quite the opposite. It found that the proportion of couples with dependent children and who are reliant on welfare support for more than 90 per cent of their income has fallen from 8.4 per cent in 1995-96, the last financial year of the Labor administration, to 7.2 per cent in 1999-2000. So not only have we boosted the real incomes of average Australians, not only have we cut their interest rate by $300 a month, not only have we seen their living standards rise right across the board; we have also actually seen a significant fall in the measured poverty of the lower income people of this country. That completely gives the lie to the nonsense pedalled.In the area of real wages, the coalition has presided over an economy that has delivered increases in real wages for Australian workers. Wages have increased by more than nine per cent over the last four years. This is compared with a total rise of just 3.6 per cent in the 13 years of your allegedly good economic management. Under the coalition, workers on the federal minimum wage have seen their real wages rise by around nine per cent. In contrast, under Labor's accord, the equivalent wage is estimated to have fallen by something like five per cent in real terms. So I would say to the member for Dunkley and to those he represents so well in this place that there is plenty of evidence of the good economic management credentials of this government. They have delivered benefits to Australian families. The contrast with the record of those who sit opposite is obvious and compelling, as demonstrated by the figures that I have used in this answer.2658114:07:0026581Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is addressed again to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. I was not present at the dinner last year. On the morning following the dinner, are you aware that Virax made inquiries of the chair of the management committee of the AIDS vaccine consortium to ask what the minister had said the previous night? Can you confirm that your office received email inquiries about what was said? What answers did you or your office give? 26582Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—No, I am not aware because I had never heard the name Virax until 28 March when the NIH made the announcement. I had no connection with Virax before or since. It is not a company that I am aware of. Personally, I certainly did not get any email traffic.2658214:08:0026582St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the reaction to yesterday's cut in official interest rates? Also, how does the maintenance of good fiscal policy contribute to a low interest rate environment?26582Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the member for New England for his question. I can inform the House that, by and large, the public of Australia and business welcomed yesterday's interest rate cuts. The deputy national secretary of the Master Builders Association said that the latest cut—the third this year—and the government's first home owners $14,000 grant will bolster the fundamentals for a housing recovery. The Housing Industry Association said:The outlook for new home buyers has improved considerably over the past few months. We have been receiving many positive reports for the month of March with inquiries and sales up some 100 per cent to 200 per cent on the previous month.As I said yesterday, it has never been a better time to buy a home. If you are a first home buyer, you can get a $14,000 grant and now you can get an interest rate at 6.8 per cent and, on the standard Australian mortgage, save $3,700 of interest, which you would have been paying had the Labor Party's rates been maintained.As far as I can tell, there was only one group which yesterday complained about the interest rate cut, and that was the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party seemed very disappointed at yesterday's interest rate cuts and blamed the GST for lower interest rates—as if there were something wrong with lower interest rates. They blame the GST because interest rates are falling. People actually think an interest rate fall is a good thing! Notwithstanding the fact that the Labor Party spent all of last year saying that the GST would increase interest rates, yesterday they were blaming it for reducing interest rates. Of course, the opportunistic barrage was led by a certain member on the other side, the chief opportunist of the federal parliament. Every now and then he comes out with a little gem that surprises even us. Yesterday was one of those days. He was asked whether lower interest rates would threaten the currency. He said this: The question of the currency is a significant matter of perception overseas. This is a government that has done nothing to promote the so-called fundamentals that they talk about so often. They have hardly been over there. So apparently he thinks the government does not travel enough, something that no-one would ever accuse him of not doing enough of. Then he said this: The recent visit that I did was like a breath of fresh air coming in over there because they said, `We do not get this from the government of the day.' I was there talking up the fundamentals of the Australian economy. The member for Hotham was in London and New York and Paris to talk up the fundamentals of the Australian economy! We should be so grateful that he travels the world just to talk up the fundamentals of the Australian economy. It is so obvious. He does it every day. He will do it in London and New York and Paris. It would really surprise us if he did it in Australia. That would be a great surprise to us. Here is the member for Hotham—old, opportunistic Harry over there. He is at it every day. He was at it at a soccer game on Saturday, calling the cameras down, presumably so he could talk up the fundamentals of the Australian economy. Opportunistic Harry takes every opportunity that he can to make political mileage and political capital. He had a bad day yesterday because interest rates were falling. He has not contributed one sensible policy in relation to the economy and, as for his claim that all he does is talk up its fundamentals, it appears there is now nothing he will not say or do for political advantage. 2658314:13:0026583Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question again is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, yesterday you advised the House—and you said it again just now—that you and your office first found out about the $27 million grant from the US National Institute of Health on the morning of 28 June last year. Is it not the case that your department was advised of the confirmation of this grant by email on 7 June and that a consultant worked with your office to organise the launch and prepare joint press releases well in advance of the announcement date of 28 June? Minister, will you now give a full explanation of what you and your office knew about the grant, when you and your office knew about it and who you and your office told? Will you table all the correspondence received by your office about this grant? 26583Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The Labor Party, as normal, tries to twist what has been said. In fact, if you look at the question yesterday, the question to me was very specific: when did I know about the consortium. I stated the facts very clearly. I knew about the consortium on the morning it was announced. I did not know anything about the company involved. I have had nothing to do with them before and nothing to do with them since. I was aware there was a negotiation going on but I did not know the nature of that negotiation. I did not know a consortium was involved. PE4Beazley, Kim, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! The minister is responding to the question. 8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—And that the grant had been awarded to a consortium I found out when the NIH made their announcement. 2658314:15:0026583Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would the minister inform the House how the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission can protect small businesses should they become a victim of secondary boycott and are there any alternative policies in this area?26583Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Barker for his interest in this matter. Currently, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has only limited power to protect businesses that may be the innocent victim of secondary boycott actions that may affect their day-to-day business. Just to remind members, a secondary boycott occurs when two or more people work together to stop a supplier from supplying goods or services to another business or consumer. For example, if we took a butcher's shop in Cessnock—which just happens to be in the member for Hunter's electorate—and had a situation where a local delicatessen had some dispute with its staff, the employees at that delicatessen could then perhaps persuade the employees of the local butcher's shop, through their union, to prevent that butcher's shop from supplying meat to the delicatessen. Currently, that local butcher's shop needs to use all its own resources to take the big union to court to try and protect its revenue. The unanimous recommendation of the Joint Select Committee on the Retailing Sector—the Baird committee, the member for Cook's committee—in August 1999 was that the ACCC should be given the power and the resources to undertake the defence of someone like that innocent butcher's shop in Cessnock. It is interesting that on that committee—which was a bipartisan committee—were the member for Hunter, the member for Scullin, Senator Michael Forshaw and Senator Chris Schacht. The government has pledged to provide the ACCC with all the resources necessary to help protect innocent small businesses that might be the victim of a secondary boycott.When the matter came before this House on 9 November, the member for Hunter consistently supported protection for small business. So too did the member for Swan. He stood up in this place and said, `We need to protect small businesses.' So too did the member for Cunningham, who is also on the front bench. He said, `Yes, we need to protect small businesses.' In fact, the member for Wills, the shadow Assistant Treasurer, said that we were not going far enough to protect small businesses. Twenty-one minutes after the member for Wills said we were not going far enough, the member for Brisbane and shadow minister for workplace relations came into this place and said, `We're going to oppose what the government is doing.' Twenty-one minutes later the chief representative of the union movement in the Labor Party did over his colleagues who had been supporting small business and said, `No, we are going to back away from this.' The ALP were given another opportunity to protect small business yesterday. They were provided with the opportunity to actually vote to protect small businesses; to give those innocent small businesses out there—the more than one million small businesses out there who may not have the resources to take on the big unions—the protection of the ACCC. Yesterday, the Labor Party voted for their union mates ahead of the interests of Australia's small businesses.I was asked about alternative policies. There is one alternative policy and it came from the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition when he said on 6PR on 7 July 2000:We have never pretended to be a small business party, the Labor Party. We have never pretended that.Well, at least on this occasion, they are backing their words with action.2658414:20:0026584Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00— My question is also to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Can the minister confirm that only he or ASIC can initiate an ASIC investigation into allegations of insider share trading? Can he confirm whether he has received advice about the 46 per cent increase in the price of Virax shares in the two weeks preceding the announcement by the Minister for Health and Aged Care that the consortium which included Virax would receive a $27 million grant from the United States National Institute of Health? Is he also aware that the share price of another member of the consortium, the Institute of Drug Technology Pty Ltd, jumped from $3 to $4.14 in the three weeks between 9 June and 28 June 2000, a 38 per cent increase in three weeks? Minister, will you now urgently direct ASIC to investigate who leaked the news of the grant?26584Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I understand there are around 1,200 companies listed on the Australian Stock Exchange. While I do my best, I do not get the opportunity to monitor share prices on an ongoing basis. What I have suggested to the member for Wills is that, if he has any information that he thinks should give rise to an investigation by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission, he should give it to the Australian Securities and Investments Commission as soon as possible.2658414:21:0026584McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Does the government remain committed to democratic accountability in industrial organisations? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?26584Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. I can assure him that this government is all in favour of people joining industrial organisations but believes that people do have a perfect entitlement to know exactly how their membership fees are spent. I can say that I very much appreciate the historic role of unions, for instance, in civilising capitalism, but I do not see why unions should have the unique privilege in modern Australia of owning and operating their own political party. In the interests of democratic accountability, I put it to the Leader of the Opposition: is he aware that three of his senior frontbenchers spoke on the More Jobs Better Pay workplace relations bill in this House without first declaring the union that they were a member of and without declaring the amount of money that that union provided to the Labor Party? For instance, does he know that the member for Batman failed to declare his membership of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Workers Union, and he failed to declare that this union gave $835,000 to the Labor Party the previous year? The member for Jagajaga failed to declare her membership of the Commonwealth Public Service Union and the fact that it had given $45,000 to the Labor Party in the previous year. The member for Wills failed to declare his membership of the Australian Workers Union and the fact that it had donated $495,000 to the Australian Labor Party the previous year. On the standards that members opposite were trying to insist upon yesterday after question time, not a single member of the opposition could stand up and speak on any subject—not on health, not on transport, not on education, not on industrial relations—without first declaring their union membership and all of the donations that their unions have made to the Labor Party. Lack of democratic accountability is almost a hallmark of ACTU Labor Inc.—or Nepotism Inc., as the member for Werriwa so well put it the other day. On that score, federal Labor is more inbred than the House of Lords. On my reckoning, there are nine hereditary peers—people who have followed their fathers into parliament—there are four noble families where siblings are in parliament and there are six royal couples where husband and wife are in parliament. This is modern Labor—Nepotism Inc.Distinguished Visitors2658510000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of an official parliamentary delegation, as part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association study tour, and members of parliament from Papua New Guinea and our near neighbours the Cook Islands and Kiribati. On behalf of all in the parliament, I extend to them a welcome. While I am on my feet, I would also extend a welcome to the Hon. Peter Morris, a former senior cabinet minister, who is also in the Distinguished Visitors Gallery.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice265852658514:26:0026585Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question again is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, are you aware that the implications of your speech to the Australian Society of Medical Research on 8 June were discussed the next day at a meeting in Melbourne of the Clinical Trials and Research Subcommittee of ANCAHRD, the Australian National Council on AIDS, Hepatitis C and Related Diseases? Can you confirm that ANCAHRD met in Darwin on 23 and 24 of June and that amongst the issues discussed were the NIH grant and the forthcoming announcement? As both these meetings were taped, will you release the minutes and the tapes so the facts of this matter can be established?26585Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I think the facts are very clear. The honourable member earlier was asking about emails. I have had my office check in the interim and they say they have no record or recollection of any emails from Virax or the consortium partners concerning this. As I said before, there was no mention at all of Virax or of the consortium, because I did not know about it.2658514:27:0026585Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, how have the government's workplace relations policies created better opportunities and conditions for small business? Further, Minister, what effects would alternative policies have on small business?26585Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Hinkler for his question and for his strong support for the small businesses in his electorate. This government's workplace relations policies have been very good for small business. Australian workplace agreements have allowed workers to negotiate their own pay and conditions without the necessity of union involvement. This is the first time in 100 years people have had this right. The Office of the Employment Advocate has policed the freedom of association provisions, and it is the first time in 100 years we have had this kind of watchdog in our country. As a result of this government's workplace relations policies, industrial disputation in Australia is at its lowest level since records were first kept in 1913. I have been asked about alternative policies. Members opposite do have a workplace relations policy, because it was dictated to them by the ACTU prior to the Labor Party's national conference last year. They would abolish Australian workplace agreements, depriving workers of choice. They would abolish the Office of the Employment Advocate and expose workers to the tender mercies of organised thugs in the workplace. They want to put a 1.5 per cent payroll tax on all businesses, including all small businesses, to protect entitlements, rather than support the government's Employee Entitlement Safety Net Scheme. They want to charge five million workers a $500 a year union tax because they have not seen fit to join a union. They want to allow industry-wide strikes, which means that a strike at one business can very quickly become a strike at all businesses.Under the guise of good faith bargaining, they want to insist that all businesses may have to expose their books of account and their business plans to union organisers, and they want to allow unions to abolish youth wages, which will put tens of thousands of young people onto the dole queues. As the Leader of the Opposition said, he has never pretended to run a small business party. What he did say is this: I am not a Labor leader who relishes the idea of there being substantial points of disagreement between ourselves and the union movement.That is the Leader of the Opposition's policy: to march in lock step with the union movement. If you are not allowed to govern yourselves, you should never be allowed to govern the country.2658614:31:0026586Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Given that the Prime Minister is seeking through legislation to remove the power of the courts to implement international agreements on human rights in Australia, will he respond to the cries of humanitarian organisations and agree to domestic legislation by this parliament on fundamental human rights? To achieve this goal in this centenary year, will he support either the Democrats' bill of rights or the bill of rights introduced by me, or, conversely, will he introduce a bill of rights from the government? Is the Prime Minister prepared to have a dialogue between all political parties and Independents on this critical issue?26586Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Calwell for that question. It does provide me with an opportunity to clearly state the government's position. The government's position is that the best guarantee of fundamental human rights in this country is to have three things in our society. The first of those is to have a vigorous and open political system where political parties are freestanding organisations beholden to no one section of the Australian community. I am glad the member for Calwell nods. That is the first and great requirement of a robust democracy: that we come into this place owing allegiance to nothing other than the service of all of the Australian people and not one section of the Australian people. That is the first requirement.The second requirement is to have a due process of law, a judicial system which is incorruptible. I believe that the Australian judicial system over the past 200 years has certainly met that requirement. Whatever frustrations we may feel on occasions with the processes of the courts, the record of impartially administered justice in this country is something of which all Australians can indeed be proud. It does not mean to say that it is perfect, it does not mean to say that it is not without complexity, it does not mean to say that it is not in need of reform and it does not mean to say that it is not too expensive for people on occasions. But fundamentally it is fair, it is incorruptible and it has served the Australian community well.The third thing that I think we need in this country, and need in any society, to guarantee fundamental human rights is to have a free press. There are occasions when all of us chafe under that discipline, but it is nonetheless an indispensable element of a free and open democratic society. It will follow from that that I do not and the government does not support the establishment of a formal bill of rights, either by way of legislation or by adoption into the Australian Constitution. In case anybody imagines that I speak from some partisan Liberal Party point of view on this, I would point out to the House that my views have been very strongly supported by none other than the most successful Labor leader in this country, namely, the Premier of New South Wales, Mr Bob Carr, who has delivered a submission to a parliamentary inquiry on this subject and has used essentially the same arguments as I have used. I would not for a moment accuse him of plagiarism; I simply make the observation that his views are virtually identical with the views I have expressed on this issue.Finally, in relation to that part of the honourable gentleman's question that referred to the legislation currently before the parliament, which I think relates to the Teoh case, it is my understanding that the former government itself had indicated a desire to proceed down essentially the same path as we are now proceeding down in relation to our legislation. I hold the strongest possible view, as does the government, that the obligations of Australians should be defined by the laws of Australians made by Australians in Australia. That is a fundamental of a sovereign political entity and it is a view to which I adhere very strongly. We respect the role of international treaties, but they should not be used except by the express will of the duly elected parliaments of this country. They should not be used to define either the rights or the obligations of Australians.2658714:36:0026587Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business. Is the minister aware of recent media reports concerning small business attitudes towards unfair dismissal? What is the government's response and is the minister aware of any alternative proposals?26587Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I thank the member for Robertson for his question. I know he is a strong advocate of small business. I am aware of newspaper reports of an Australian Business Ltd survey which shows that 58 per cent of respondents lie awake at night worrying about unfair dismissal.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—Rubbish!WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—Those opposite say it is rubbish but we know they agree that unfair dismissal is an issue. Why do we know? Because the shadow minister for small business says so. He has acknowledged that, when he is out and about, small businesses raise unfair dismissal with him. The government certainly recognise that unfair dismissal is an issue. We understand what small business are saying to us. We know what they say about unfair dismissal and we have tried repeatedly—time after time—to introduce unfair dismissal legislation which will assist small business to better manage their work force. COSBOA, the representative group of small business, also recognise the importance of unfair dismissal amendments and have said that, were the amendments carried, 50,000 new jobs would be created.8K6Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon—But you don't believe that.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—The member for Hunter interjects again, but he knows that this is an issue; yet how has he described our government's attempts to introduce amendments to unfair dismissal? He describes them as `futile'—futile to create more jobs, futile to give more Australians a job. I am not aware of any other policies from that side of the House to assist small business in this area of unfair dismissal. As we have just heard from the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, the Labor Party are not a party for small business; they themselves admit that. We the coalition are a party for small business and we will continue to try to introduce fairer unfair dismissal laws.2658814:38:0026588Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. I refer to his continued reliance on an APRA letter dated 2 April on the collapse of HIH. The letter said:... at no point did APRA argue that the MAA—the Motor Accidents Authority—should not appoint an inspector because that would cause a loss of market confidence in HIH.Wasn't the government made aware last Friday that the New South Wales Motor Accidents Authority had a very different view? APRA advised—and I quote from the MAA's memo:... they would prefer that the MAA did not make such an appointment as APRA were working with the company and did not wish ... any pre-emptive activity that might cause further loss of market confidence.Minister, I ask you: in making your explanation to the House yesterday, why didn't you follow up the MAA's claim rather than simply relying on APRA's version?26588Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I have not seen the internal memo within the New South Wales Labor government about this matter. I understand that a number of people have, including a number of journalists, and I would appreciate the member for Hotham providing me with a copy of that memo. If he has a copy, could he please provide me with a copy of that memo? The member for Hotham is welcome to table the memo.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I do not have the memo.DK6Mr HOCKEY—The member for Hotham is saying that he is quoting from a memo that he has not got; therefore I cannot verify the quote. When the matter in relation to the MAA was first raised with me, I asked the chief executive officer of APRA for advice. The allegations are being made about discussions between APRA and the Motor Accidents Authority in New South Wales, so I was obviously not a party to those discussions.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Do your job!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition is defying the chair.DK6Mr HOCKEY—The chief executive officer of APRA advised me in writing, advice which I tabled in the House. Just to refresh the memory of the member for Hotham, he advised me:I confirm APRA's advice to you on that day—that is, 29 March—that neither the New South Wales government nor the Motor Accidents Authority in New South Wales, the MAA, advised or instructed APRA that it should appoint an inspector to the HIH Insurance group at any time.He goes on to say:For your further information, I have consulted APRA officers who were involved in discussions with the MAA about HIH in late October/early November 2000. Their clear recollection of those discussions is that the MAA advised it was considering its options for the appointment of an inspector to HIH with regards to its motor vehicle compulsory third party business. The APRA officers advised that APRA was working closely with HIH on various questions about its financial position and was not at that time intending to appoint an inspector. APRA officers provided the MAA with APRA's latest assessment of HIH. MAA officers did not suggest that APRA itself should appoint an inspector. At no point did APRA argue that the MAA should not appoint an inspector because that would cause a loss of market confidence in HIH. The member for Hotham has in his possession a New South Wales Labor government internal memo making allegations about APRA. I have not seen that memo. I can get advice only from the independent regulator that is advising on this matter. The chief executive of the independent regulator has put that in writing, and I have tabled that advice in the House. If that does not satisfy the concerns of the member for Hotham, I would ask him to get a copy of the internal memo of the New South Wales Labor Party and provide me with that information so that I can further explore the matter.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition! The Treasurer! The member for Makin! Members on my right are denying the member for Wannon the call.2658914:43:0026589Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Could he outline to the House the government's recent achievements in transport and regional services, particularly the Roads to Recovery program, and is he aware of any alternatives?26589Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for his question. It is now possible to fly between Brisbane and Melbourne for $54. We have two new entrants in the aviation market. They are launched, they are there and they are succeeding. They are filling up their aeroplanes, unlike what happened under Labor, and you can fly from Brisbane to Melbourne for $54. There are thousands and thousands of people travelling by air who could never have afforded it before. At the same time as we have done that, we have managed other important objectives—for example, that the people of regional New South Wales will continue to have fair and equitable access to Sydney airport even in the peak hours.Then there is the historic $1.2 billion Roads to Recovery program, which continues to go from strength to strength. It was announced only four months ago and 75 per cent of all councils across Australia have registered. Around $45 million is already out there being used to upgrade roads as part of this very much needed program that fixes those roads that had become completely forgotten under Labor. On the waterfront, our major ports have achieved what the ALP and its union bosses said Australians could not do. They said we could not move 25 containers on average per hour in Australia. We have achieved it. I think it verges on being un-Australian to say of your fellow Australians, `They can't achieve world's best.' We said Australians could, Labor said they could not, and we have done it.We have listened to people living in rural and regional Australia and we have acted—and we have acted in a way that has given rural communities the tools and the ability to make their own decisions about their own futures, both socially and economically. There are alternative policies and—Government member—What? You're joking!4K4Mr ANDERSON—With the ALP you look at what they do, not what they say. Unfortunately, you can neither listen to what the federal ALP would do nor read it. For all the work that the member for Dickson was going to do when the regional policy was about to appear—it was nearly ready; we never saw it—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MP4K4Mr ANDERSON—It was! It was done. It was about to appear. But when the member for Batman came into the office he said that there was nothing there. He said that the cupboard was bare. The member for Dickson would not share the regional policy with the member for Batman.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Would you?4K4Mr ANDERSON—I don't know. It might have been worse sharing with the member for Batman, because going on the ALP's record it was probably our policy anyway. It was probably plagiarism. Obviously, the member for Batman had to start again from scratch. He has been there for quite a while, but we still have not heard anything from him. Nor have we heard anything in some other important areas of rural and regional policy. On telecommunications, all we get is the member for slander—I mean the member for Swan—talking about the issue of ownership, never about a policy that might deliver better telecommunications outcomes for rural and regional Australians. Then there is health. Where are they on rural health? They were responsible for the lack of policy and the lack of resources that has seen us some 500 doctors short across regional and rural Australia, and probably 800 to 900 specialists short. Where is their rural health policy? You cannot read what they put down in policy or listen to what they say because they have not got policies, but you can get a pretty fair idea of what the bush would have in store for it by looking at what they do at state level. Over in Western Australia, as the member for O'Connor would be aware, the ALP has been in power for two months, and that is all it took to close the air service to Busselton. The impact on tourism in that fast growing region can only be imagined. Then there is the Bracks government: promises everywhere for rural and regional Australia, as the member for Wannon knows. WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—And been delivered.4K4Mr ANDERSON—They have been delivered, have they? What about that fast train service to Ballarat that they were talking about? Where did it go? Then there is New South Wales. Where has New South Wales been? Let me come to health. What has the New South Wales government been doing at Mudgee in my electorate? We had to drag it kicking and screaming to ensure that you could actually have a baby in Mudgee instead of having to go 150 kilometres to Dubbo. It would not grapple with the problem of indemnity.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—I haven't had a baby in Mudgee.4K4Mr ANDERSON—Well, there you go. Then there has been its refusal to meet its responsibilities on water property rights with disastrous outcomes for environmental reform and for local communities. It does not give a damn about anybody who lives west of the sandstone curtain in that state. The policies of the state Labor governments around the country are clear signs of what federal Labor would do to the bush. They would dictate policy from the comfortable cafés of Manuka, Kingston and Balmain rather than be out there in Albury, Charleville and Gunnedah. Honourable members interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—We're a dictator from Red Hill, are we?Government members—Oh!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I call the House to order.2659014:50:0026590Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, do you recall your statement on Tuesday in which you said that the annual cost of $182 million for your new aged care beds is `contained in the forward estimates and is in accordance with the forward estimates'? Isn't it a fact that these new beds will only begin operating in 2003? Why is it that your forward estimates for the 2003-04 year contain only a $128 million increase in funding? How does the $128 million projected increase cover the $182 million worth of new beds, the indexation of existing subsidies and rising dependency of residents? Is that because the cost of phantom beds is in fact nothing?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Aged Care will ignore the last sentence of the question and respond to the question.26590Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The beds which were announced this week are not phantom beds; they are beds which are guaranteed and funded. The $182 million covers all aged care places. That includes the high level care beds, the low level care beds and the 2,250 community aged care packages. Of the 14,000 places that were allocated last year, which included both high and low level care beds and community aged care packages, already 40 per cent of those which were announced on 12 January are operational, and those are community care packages which come on stream, on average, within three months. The forward estimates show that the beds that are allocated beds, on average, take some two to three years to come on stream. As the Auditor-General pointed out in his report:The situation was that the number of operational ... aged care places in 1997—that is, after the election and after we received your legacy—was approximately 6.5 per cent below the official target at 93.5 places for every 1,000 aged persons. This shortfall is not temporary. Rather, it is inherent in the system since fulfilment of the provision of one year's provisional approvals—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would remind all those present that anyone has the right to raise a point of order.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I take a point of order, Mr Speaker, on relevance. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—There is nothing—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—that—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. There is no conceivable way the minister was being other than relevant to the question asked.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—What? That cannot be possible.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition!SE4Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP—As you are not familiar with the Auditor-General's report, I will remind you of it again:The situation was that the number of operational aged care places in 1997 was approximately 6.5 per cent below the official target at 93.5 places for every 1,000 aged persons. This shortfall is not temporary. Rather, it is inherent in the system since fulfilment of the provision of one year's provisional approvals will simply be replaced by the next year's unfulfilled provisional approval undertakings. To meet the target planning ratio immediately, an addition of nearly 10,100 places would be needed.This government has accepted the Auditor-General's recommendations. We brought on the 10,000 places that he said were necessary to be put into the system to correct the inherent deficit that was left by years of neglect. It averaged 93 places about 1991 and was consistent until you lost office and you left that permanent deficit. You left a mess that we had to clean up, and that is precisely what we are doing. By announcing, as we do, in accordance with the planning mechanisms at the beginning of each year, in the first quarter of each year, what beds will be available for that particular year, with the announcement being made at the end of the year, people are able to plan in an orderly way and that, indeed, was another recommendation of the Auditor-General. The fact of the matter is that the money that I announced that those places are worth is provided for. We anticipate that, by the year 2002, operational beds will meet the ratio of 100 places per 100,000 people aged 70 or above. I might say that the only phantom thing around here is the Labor Party's phantom policy. The only thing that you have got to offer is something that mimics our policy. I can only say that copying is a very good form of flattery.2659114:57:0026591Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—I address my question to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister update the House on any recent announcements concerning the future of the coalition's 30 per cent private health insurance rebate.26591Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. It is now 193 days since Cathy Freeman won a gold medal for Australia and the Leader of the Opposition tried to sneak through the ALP's biggest single commitment since the 1996 election—to keep the 30 per cent rebate without a means test or a cap. Since then, it would be fair to say that the Leader of the Opposition has been less than vocal in support of his biggest single policy commitment in five years, but his shadow spokesperson, the member for Jagajaga, has been even less vocal, if that is possible. In the 193 days she has made only one comment, and that was in the Australian on Monday, 19 February when she was quoted as saying,We've been saying for ages that the private health rebate doesn't take pressure off public hospitals.She went on to say that the government should spend at least $600 million extra on public hospitals. It is not often that an opposition spokesperson criticises their own policy, but we have it here. Of course we know that the increase in private health insurance take-up by Australians is, in fact, taking pressure off public hospitals. PHIAC figures for the six months up to December 2000 compared to the six months up to December 1999 show private hospital usage is up 12.1 per cent. But perhaps the strongest evidence comes from a Labor state—New South Wales—where, in the annual report of the New South Wales Department of Health, it shows that in 1999-2000 admissions to public hospitals were down 36,000, while private hospital admissions were up 35,000 during the same period—some way into fixing the problem. I was interested in the member for Jagajaga's comments about $600 million extra going into public hospitals and I asked myself, `Why $600 million? Where did this figure come from and where is the Labor Party going to get the money to fund it?' Members might be interested to learn that I asked my department, `What would be the money saved if you took the 30 per cent rebate off ancillary cover, for example?' Guess what? The figure is $644 million. Since last September, at no stage has the opposition ruled out taking the 30 per cent rebate off extras cover. I am not surprised, when you consider what this would do to Australian families—making them pay more for dental, chiropractic, physiotherapy, speech therapy, spectacles, contact lenses, ambulance cover and a whole lot of other health benefits.It is 193 days since the Leader of the Opposition made his $2 billion commitment, and the shadow spokesperson is yet to utter a word of support for her leader's comments. Next Thursday will be the anniversary of 200 days since the Ballarat backflip, and it gives the member for Jagajaga the chance in the next seven days to absolutely and categorically rule out that Labor is going to take the 30 per cent rebate off ancillary cover. If she does not come clean about Labor's rolling back of the rebate, it will be confirmed and millions of Australians will be confronted with the prospect of a Beazley government rolling back their health insurance. 2659215:00:0026592Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that your Minister for Family and Community Services, Senator Vanstone, yesterday effectively confirmed that the government's family payment increase last July consisted mainly of an indexation that was due in any case, irrespective of the introduction of the GST? Prime Minister, didn't you falsely sell this as GST compensation? Didn't you state on Monday, `I was wrong about the compensation', and proceed to quote an amount of $55 per week increase in family payments to back your claim? Prime Minister, hasn't Minister Vanstone exposed your swindle on the families of Australia which pretends that family payment increases due anyway are GST compensation? 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Before I recognise the Prime Minister, I believe that a better word than the word chosen by the member for Lilley could have been used. I ask him to find a better word. 2V5Mr SWAN—Prime Minister, hasn't Minister Vanstone exposed your short-changing of the families of Australia with indexation which you pretend is GST compensation? 26592Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—No. The minister has done no such thing because, far from short-changing the families of Australia, this government with its policy has significantly boosted the real incomes of Australian families. I just happen to have a headline here, `Everything's right at the Wright house'. It is an article in today's Australian, and it is not a bad read. Government member—Sydney Morning Herald? ZD4Mr HOWARD—No, today's Australian. It is quite a good read. It is very good news for the member for Parramatta because the family in question lives in the suburb of Westmead. I think it is probably the quality of the representation that has made this family. Listen to this—Honourable members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—It really goes to the heart of how Australian families are feeling and faring at the present time. It says: Economists may be nervously preoccupied with the battered dollar ... and the shrinking budget surplus but for the Wright family, life is sweet. Part of the aspirational middle class, the couple from the western Sydney suburb of Westmead remain unconcerned about the prospects of an economic slowdown. And why wouldn't they? Interest rates are down again. Tax reform has delivered more dollars into their pockets, and in the absence of any plans for an overseas holiday this year, the low dollar seems an irrelevance. The article goes on to describe how this aspirational middle class family has greatly benefited from, and been greatly helped by, the tax reform policy of the government that I am proud to lead. The tax reform changes that were brought in last year represented real increases in the disposable incomes of Australian families. The minister has made no such admission. The minister strongly supports the policy because she knows that it is good for the Australian family.2659315:04:0026593Nugent, Peter, MPMr NUGENTUT4AstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House on the government's diplomatic initiative to reform the United Nations human rights treaty committee system. Is the minister aware of any alternative views?26593Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—First, I thank the member for Aston for his question and particularly recognise the great interest he has shown in human rights issues and the performance of the United Nations committees. In August of last year the government announced the outcome of our review of the interaction with the six core human rights treaty committees. Honourable members will be aware that this government has been extremely critical of the performance of the United Nations committee system. Our review revealed considerable weaknesses in the way the treaty committees operate, including a lack of recognition of the primary role of democratic governments, a lack of coordination between the committees and at times a distinct failure by some of those committees to act within their mandates.There is widespread agreement within the United Nations system about the need for reform and there is concern about the credibility of the United Nations treaty committee system. As we said at the time, it is not that we are against the system itself; it is our view that if the system is to be credible and to have any impact then it has to work efficiently, effectively and be a system which addresses the core issues. In our discussions over the last few months with both the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, and the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights, Mary Robinson, both of them have agreed that the United Nations human rights committee system does need reform.Today the Attorney-General, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and I have announced a high level diplomatic initiative to give momentum to our campaign for the reform of these United Nations committees. As part of that initiative, we will host a ministerial meeting in the margins of the General Assembly in New York in September to discuss with other ministers ways of improving the system. We will host three workshops over three years to examine key reform issues and build consensus around practical achievable measures.But Australia will not stop there. In recent times we have had great success in winning elections in the United Nations system. We had Professor Ivan Shearer elected as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee—in the teeth, by the way, of opposition from the Australian Labor Party. I am glad to say the international community supported the Australian candidate, even though the Labor Party quite clearly opposed Professor Shearer because we would not run Elizabeth Evatt, who had two terms on the committee. So when we said we would run Professor Shearer the Labor Party said that was a disgrace and they opposed his campaign. Despite that, he was elected by the international community, which knows more about the credibility of this country than the Australian Labor Party does.The member for Aston asked whether there are alternative approaches, and there is a quite clear alternative approach. As the Labor Party demonstrated in August of last year, it is totally opposed to any reform of United Nations committees. It does not support reform of the committees. The Labor Party has been applauding when United Nations committees have quite wrongly and quite inappropriately criticised this country. The first people to the microphones to cheer this country's critics over the last five years have been the Australian Labor Party. There is actually a quite simple difference between this side of the House and that side of the House: on this side of the House we stick up for Australia, and on that side of the House you stick up for our critics. 2659415:09:0026594Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Minister, can you give a categorical assurance that you were unaware of the $27 million grant from the US National Institute of Health to that group of Australian scientists prior to 28 June? Can you further give the House a categorical assurance that at the dinner referred to earlier in question time you did not state to any individual there that a group of Australian scientists had won a grant from the United States?26594Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I can categorically say I was not aware of the consortium, and that is the nature of it. I was not aware of Virax; I was not aware of the companies involved. But, if you want to know about the speculation around this, I suggest you have a look at the newspapers. On 13 May, about six weeks before the announcement, the Daily Telegraph, page 7, or the Canberra Times, 13 May, page 4, `HIV treatment trial'— MG4Lee, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell!8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—it was reported in both newspapers. And it was reported by the University of New South Wales. I will read it:200 Australians would take part in a $74 million international trial for a new HIV treatment.There it is in the Daily Telegraph.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—Point of order!PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I have a point of order that goes to relevance. The minister has been asked—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition—MG4Lee, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell is warned! The Leader of the Opposition had at no stage been recognised by the chair. Furthermore, the call of a point of order came not from the Leader of the Opposition but from the member for Dobell prior to my warning him for an intervention at a later stage. The Leader of the Opposition has indicated that he had a point of order on relevance, and I can indicate to the House that the Leader of the Opposition is well aware that the only obligation I have is to determine whether or not the answer is relevant to the question asked. I deem that the minister's answer is relevant to the question.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, the standing order states quite clearly that when somebody raises a point of order they state it. I have not had an opportunity to state the point of order, Mr Speaker, on the question of relevance. He has been asked a set of categorical questions—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—No, the Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. WI4Reith, Peter, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House! I have deemed an answer by the minister relevant, and I gathered he was in fact concluding his answer.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—I am still going, Mr Speaker. That was the first point. The second point is that I said earlier in question time that I had mentioned the NIH and partnerships but nothing about a consortium and nothing about what the nature of it was. And do you know why I was doing that, Mr Speaker? Because I wanted to tell 700 scientists how inspirational we were with medical research doubling the funding and how pathetic you were as finance minister—the finance minister that was on the public record as saying it wouldn't matter how much you gave them they would still whinge!Honourable members interjecting— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for La Trobe! The member for Makin!83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—What about the grant?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—He doesn't mention the agreement. A categoric denial.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I had presumed the minister had concluded his answer, and in fact—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—We are still to hear about the grant.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition! And in fact the latter part—83ZIrwin, Julia, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler! I had made a reasonable presumption that the minister had concluded—83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—Ha, ha!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Fowler is warned! I had made a reasonable presumption that the minister had concluded his answer because the latter part of his answer bore no relevance to the question. If the minister has additional material to offer, he may offer it, but it must be relevant to the question asked.8E4Dr WOOLDRIDGE—Thank you, Mr Speaker. The third point I make, because it is relevant to who knew, the opposition was asserting earlier in question time that I had stated yesterday in the Hansard that my staff did not know until the 28th. If you have a look at Hansard, clearly I did not say that. My staff obviously had to know to put together a press release. The Labor Party is misrepresenting it for its own circumstances—and, boy, hasn't question time been a fizzer for you, Sport!2659515:15:0026595Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the Deputy Prime Minister inform the House how the $40 million financial assistance to upgrade the Bruce Highway will benefit the people of Brisbane, particularly those in Brisbane's outer north?26595Anderson, John, MPMr ANDERSON4K4GwydirNPDeputy Prime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for her question and certainly acknowledge her interest in the subject. Federation money is going to the people of Brisbane, as promised. The Bruce Highway is the major artery northbound from Brisbane. Each day between 48,000 and 72,000 vehicles use the route between the Pine River Bridge and Caboolture, around nine per cent of those being commercial. This $40 million upgrade will alleviate congestion at peak times, improve the travel time for commuters and the delivery time for agricultural and manufacturing goods to and from cities and regions north of Brisbane. With tourism being one of the largest industries in Queensland, the upgrade will provide a world standard motorway for the thousands of visitors who include Queensland in their Australian trips each year. It is part of the $65 million we announced as Federation grants to Queensland. There was also $20 million to the Comprehensive Cancer Research Centre at the Queensland Institute of Medical Research, $5 million to the Beaudesert shire railway project and of course a contribution to the feasibility for that visionary project on the Gold Coast, light rail. On Tuesday, when this funding was announced—and perhaps we should not have been surprised—Queensland Premier Beattie did not seem very keen about it. He called it pork-barrelling! I regret to say that he tried to put words into the mouth of the Prime Minister about it—no playing the game straight at all! The federal government had originally intended that this funding be for the Brisbane light rail project. But who pulled the pin on it? Mr Beattie and his cabinet were the people who pulled the pin on this project. The man who called this pork-barrelling pulled the pin on it. It was then up to the federal government to determine how best to deploy these funds in the interests of the people of Brisbane. In a nutshell, this $40 million Bruce Highway upgrade will substantially benefit the people of Brisbane and Brisbane's outer northern region, which is the third fastest growing region in Australia. It is, without doubt, good news for the people of Brisbane. But, in the face of this good news, the ALP demonstrates that it is indeed the very model of a modern Labor Party—it will simply oppose. It has no policies, no vision; it offers no direction and no hope, just opposition. ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Questions to the Speaker265962659615:19:0026596McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—Mr Speaker, I have a question for you. Do you recall yesterday that the opposition raised with you an interjection made by the Minister for Forestry and Conservation and that you indicated that you had not heard the interjection, and that subsequently the minister withdrew? Have you seen newspaper reports, particularly page 1 of today's Australian, which confirm that the minister used language that has not been used before in the House? As the newspaper has now put the words on the public record, will you call on the minister to apologise to the House, as you did the member for Lyons on 27 February this year?26596SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—My attention was drawn to the article on the front page of the Australian today. I consulted both of the clerks and ascertained that neither of them had heard the alleged comment made by the Minister for Forestry and Conservation. The Minister for Forestry and Conservation had voluntarily withdrawn the comment and I consider the matter closed. I do not know what the comment was.2659615:20:0026596SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Yesterday, the Manager of Opposition Business asked me about the proceedings in Melbourne on 9 and 10 May 2001 to mark the centenary of the first sittings of the parliament. As members are aware, on 27 February the House agreed to a motion to meet, as will the Senate, at 2 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 May 2001 in the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne to mark the centenary of the first meetings of this parliament in 1901. In accordance with that resolution, the business on that day will be: (a) an introductory address by the President of the Senate; (b) an address by the Governor-General; (c) an address by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition; and (d) the concluding address by me as the Speaker. The sitting of the House, and the Senate, will then be adjourned. There will then follow a commemorative ceremony being planned and coordinated by Centenary of Federation Victoria. The entire event, including the sittings of the House and the Senate, will be televised live by the ABC from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m.On 10 May 2001, also pursuant to the resolution agreed by the House on 27 February 2001, the House will meet at 10 a.m. in the Legislative Assembly chamber, Parliament House, Melbourne. After prayers, the only business of the House will be to consider a motion to be moved by the Prime Minister, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition and supported by the Leader of the National Party. I will make a concluding address as Speaker. The House will then adjourn until 22 May 2001.There are many other events in Melbourne on either side of the centenary sittings of this parliament. These include Federation football and netball, a Federation parade, an interdenominational service and celebration, and a commemoration of Women Shaping the Nation. RH4Kerr, Duncan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Denison is warned! There will be a Federation reception to be hosted by the Victorian Premier, political party commemorations and other activities. Invitations to these are being coordinated by the Centenary of Federation Victoria and other appropriate bodies. A colour brochure outlining arrangements for the parliamentary celebrations was sent to all members early in the planning. Several emails notifying members of the program of events for May 2001 and preliminary transport and accommodation plans have been forwarded to members over recent months. Members have indicated a wish for more information about some of the administrative arrangements for the events in Melbourne. As a result, I have asked the Serjeant-at-Arms to send to all members this afternoon a detailed summary of the outline of events for the week in Melbourne and the administrative and procedural aspects for the House on 9 and 10 May 2001. Information on travel and other entitlements will be provided separately by the Special Minister of State. This will be followed next week by information relating to specific events, to be sent to members where appropriate by Centenary of Federation Victoria on receipt of acceptances. It will include entree cards and administrative information. Immediately after Easter, a consolidated information package will be sent to all members by the Executive Coordinator, Centenary of Parliament, Mr Bernie Harris. For specific queries related to the House's proceedings on 9 and 10 May, members should contact the Serjeant-at-Arms, and for other Melbourne events queries should be directed to Mr Harris.The Manager of Opposition Business referred to a role for the House on matters related to the events in Melbourne. In relation to consultation on this matter, I am sure he will be aware that the relevant shadow minister, as well as the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, were invited to attend two major briefings in Melbourne with other key stakeholders. The first briefing related to early planning arrangements and was held in February last year. The second was held in Melbourne on Monday 19 March 2001 and included detailed briefings and site inspections. The comprehensive program of events planned for all members is in my hand, and I am happy to table it.2659715:26:0026597Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I would like to thank you, on behalf of the House, for making those of us who were unaware of some the arrangements for the centenary re-enactment in Melbourne aware of them. But I ask you, on behalf of this House: with hindsight, do you think it might have been advisable for this parliament to have been consulted about the advertisement on two Melbourne commercial radio stations for tickets for hundreds of members of the public for the centenary functions, including the criteria for the awarding of these tickets, who the judges for the competition were and whether people from interstate should have had similar opportunities?26597SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for Melbourne Ports for his question. I would only respond by indicating that his question is probably better directed to the Centenary of Federation Victoria team because in fact the role of the federal parliament is a role within the program they have organised. It is of course a formal sitting of the parliament—for something like 40 minutes—and it will be followed by an extensive afternoon of celebration, which is in the hands of Centenary of Federation Victoria, and many of the tickets have been issued at their discretion.2659715:27:0026597Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—Mr Speaker, you will recall that I have raised with you the issue of the bark petitions, particularly the Yirrkala bark petitions—firstly on 13 April last year, then on 12 October last year and then on 7 December last year. On 7 December you informed the House that you had sought further legal advice on the implications of the October legal opinion provided to me by the Attorney. That legal opinion was to be about other papers and documents involved in the day-to-day work of the House. You then wrote to me on 18 January stating that a response was in progress and that you were waiting for further legal advice. When do you expect to receive this advice and when do you expect to be able to advise the House of the implications of the 9 October legal opinion so that I can advise the copyright owners at Yirrkala? 26598SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I am unable to respond in detail to the member for Northern Territory until the House resumes for its May or June sittings. I can, however, indicate to him that I am still waiting further legal opinion.2659815:29:0026598Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—Mr Speaker, I refer you to the statement you made to the House this morning in relation to the painting The Landing at Gallipoli. Can you advise the House when this painting will be relocated from the minister's office and where in Parliament House it will be hung?26598SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—No, I cannot give that detail. I am happy to follow it up with the art adviser, Ms Doath, whose advice I would seek about where it might best be hung, and that would be obviously considering the maximum public access to the painting. I will, if I can, get back to the member personally before the House rises. I should indicate that we appreciate the cooperation of the Minister for Aged Care in making this painting available. We are looking at the way in which paintings are allocated and will make an announcement that may in fact coincide with the next election so that any changes in offices at that stage can be made knowing what the allocation arrangements are.2659815:30:0026598Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, again in relation to the Centenary sittings, will a Notice Paper be produced for those sitting days?26598SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—My understanding is that there will not be a Notice Paper for that sitting day.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I have a notice of motion which will suggest that we suspend the standing order that requires a Notice Paper, because of the nature of the sitting and acting on advice from the clerks. I think this has been discussed with my opposite number.2659815:31:0026598O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KEEFECE4BurkeALP00—On indulgence, Mr Speaker: you may remember that I asked you yesterday for further information relating to the letter that I had written to you about DVT. You have responded to me and I have received your letter. I want to thank you for the information you provided. I observe that the Speaker has informed me that the Parliamentary Relations Office will now be providing members and senators with quite a good brief provided by Comcare on the DVT issue before any travel. The material that has been provided looks both comprehensive and accurate. I thank you for what the Presiding Officers have decided.26598SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I thank the member for Burke for his courtesy.Personal Explanations2659815:32:0026598Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.2V5Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN—In question time the Prime Minister claimed, for the second time this week, that I have been misleading the parliament and the people about the impact of the GST compensation family payments. He quoted the Wright family, which earns $80,000 to $90,000 a year and which is representative of 1.8 per cent of Australian families. It is not an average Australian family. I have been truthful and correct in all the statements I have made.Miscellaneous2659815:33:0026598Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—by leave—I move:That:(1) the House, at its rising, adjourn until Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 2 p.m., in the Royal Exhibition Building, Melbourne, unless the Speaker or, in the event of the Speaker being unavailable, the Deputy Speaker, fixes an alternative day or hour of meeting; (2) leave of absence be given to every Member of the House of Representatives: (a) from the determination of this sitting of the House to 9 May 2001; and (b) from the determination of the sitting of the House on 10 May 2001 to the date of its next sitting; and(3) standing order 100A (Notice Paper) be suspended for the sittings of the House on 9 and 10 May 2001.The motion proposes that the House adjourn until Wednesday, 9 May in the Royal Exhibition Building in Melbourne, that we have leave of absence for every member and that we suspend standing order 100A. There will be a blue, I am told, and also some brochures and pamphlets on the day.Question resolved in the affirmative. Documents2659926599Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—Papers are tabled as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the papers will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.Motion (by Mr Reith) proposed:That the House take note of the following paper:Government response to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade—`Military Justice Procedures in the Australian Defence Force'.Debate (on motion by Dr Martin) adjourned.Matters of Public Importance265992659910000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have received a letter from the honourable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The social and economic consequences of the government's failure to deliver on its promise to make Australians `comfortable and relaxed'.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—15:34:0026599Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—For the masochists who watch question time in the public galleries and on the rebroadcasts late in the evenings, question time today has become a question time typical of the question times of this parliament. On the one hand the opposition is asking questions, trying to hold to account a minister who has in all probability breached the conduct standards that are required of him. There has been an adverse consequence on the public as a result and the minister is there, slipping and sliding around with minute hairsplitting definitions about what he is up to. Having been questioned persistently on his knowledge of a grant, he has been running away, saying he had not known anything about a particular consortium—irrelevant to the question and the line of questioning, as he well knows. That is on this side asking questions of them.On their side, asking questions of themselves, there has been this sort of hollow bell that comes of self-congratulation rung day after day as more and more Australians feel the economic pressure of life today, as more and more small businesses struggle to cope with the consequence of having been declared government tax collectors and as more and more pensioners fear the consequences for their savings of having them effectively devalued by the impact of the GST. What we get from the government side is denial, arrogance, being out of touch, not listening, ignoring them—a government hell-bent on a road of self-congratulation, unwilling to make the changes necessary to give the Australian people that sense of wellbeing that was promised by them back in 1996 when they came to office.The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, who is at the table, and the Prime Minister have sought to attack the opposition, which has 64 policies on its web site and is announcing policy week after week in areas critical to the wellbeing of ordinary Australians, be it the services that they are provided by banks, be it the needs that they have for a decent education for their children, be it the hopes that they have that they will not have to take a credit card with them when they take those children to hospital—policy after policy. Yet the minister at the table and the Prime Minister have the hide to say that the opposition is a policy free zone, that it is not tipping its hand in any way to the Australian people, and that it did not matter that John Howard was like that in 1996, that—like their description of us as opposed to the reality—it did not matter that he was like that because the Australian people knew what he stood for—as though that actually matters in an election campaign, that they simply know your general outlook on life. This is the decisive proposition that they put forward—it did not matter that we rolled ourselves into a small ball: the Australian people knew what we stood for. I do remember the general propositions put forward by the opposition in 1996. They said these things. Because many Australians feared their industrial relations policy they said that no Australian would be worse off as a result of the introduction of their industrial relations policies. Because many Australians feared that Medicare, which they had come to rely on, would in some way be dismantled by a man who had previously contested a federal election saying his objective was to destroy Medicare—because they sought reassurances on that—he gave these reassurances: he would not Americanise the health care system of this country. And because many Australians were aware that he had run as a frontbencher in an election in which a goods and services tax was the policy of the opposition in that election campaign, he offered those people the assurance that they would never ever introduce a GST—never ever. While it cannot be said that this by any means represents a complete policy picture of the intentions of the government, it certainly represents a complete policy picture of things that they said they would not do. One of the reasons why this community is now reacting so vehemently to a government they believe has deceived them is that those promises and undertakings were simple enough to be remembered.Let us take them each in turn. Firstly, there is the question of what happens to people in the industrial relations system. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business made a chump of himself the other day in this parliament when he got up and got himself fed a dorothy dixer on the comparison of people in the enterprise bargaining stream collectively and those on individual contracts under AWAs. He tried to demonstrate they are better off by—to use an old Western Australian goldmining term—`salting the mine' as far as the AWA performance was concerned. When it was like with like, apples with apples, operatives earnings against operatives earnings, the performance of those on AWAs, compared with those on collective bargaining, was $100 a week less.Government members interjecting—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Don't argue with me; go and argue with the Bureau of Statistics, because that was their figure. That was the Bureau of Statistics figure. What did that do? It made a complete lie of that first undertaking.Then there is the health care system. What did Australians want of the health care system under Medicare? They love two things: firstly, the assurance they had that they could readily access public hospitals for their needs and did not have to get themselves into private health cover unless they really wanted to choose to do so and, secondly, that they would have access to bulk-billing. Those are the two core elements of Medicare that ordinary Australian families want. These are not the Australian families on $90,000 a year that the Prime Minister was parading here today in parliament—good luck to them—that make up two per cent of the population of this country, but Australian families whose principal breadwinner is on about $34,000 a year. Mind you, that is only one-third of Australian families; if you want to get the other two-thirds you go lower.These are the ordinary Australians, some of whom were Howard's battlers back in 1996. They are the ones who, above all, need to be able to go to a doctor with their children and not have to pay $50 up-front for the privilege. As every parent knows, children always get serially ill, so if you have got three of them they will be parading through the doctor's surgery, one after another, in the course of a fortnight. If you are on $35,000 a year, try 150 bucks in a fortnight for keeping your kids in health. That is why it was necessary for the Prime Minister to say to the ordinary Australian, `I completely renege the position I adopted back then. I am not going to force you into private health cover, and I am not going to diminish the value of what you have. I am going to stick with bulk-billing. I am not going to Americanise the health care system.' I cannot find a place now in regional Australia where I am not questioned by someone during the meetings that I hold with them about why bulk-billing has disappeared—not just for average wage earners but even for pensioners in the communities in which they live. If you ask a question of the Minister for Health and Aged Care in this House he will stand up and deny that—barefaced denial of a fact that every Australian living in regional Australia knows to be the case.Then we have the goods and services tax. My golly! The goods and services tax that would never, ever be introduced has become the principal torment of small business in this country. But the government will come into this chamber and claim black is white on that. I had the Minister for Small Business in here the other day getting up there and claiming that the thing that small business most feared was the Labor Party's proposition of roll-back. We have the lie given to that in the paper today with a number of small business peak bodies coming out and saying, `We want to talk with the Labor Party about what that means, but if it is going to make it simpler for us we don't fear it, we want it.' The government say that I have said—and they always quote this:We have never pretended to be a small business Party, the Labor Party.Let me go through the whole quote:John Howard was supposed to be the Prime Minister against red-tape for small business and the Prime Minister for small business people. We have never pretended to be a small business Party, the Labor Party ... The Prime Minister has pretended that and yet you have got European studies that he is aware of which shows that the cost of compliance expressed as a percentage of turnover is 30 times greater for a small business than it is for a large business. So the corner store shops experience with compliance is 30 times greater than Woollies. That is why you don't make a judgement about what is happening with the GST, about the GST at Woollies. You make it down at Bob and Mabel's corner store.That is my quote, from which they extracted one sentence. It is not particularly surprising that they did not read the rest of it, because they would have seen the reality that they always want to deny—that it is an agony for people in small business. That is why, after a period of unprecedented growth—eight years of it: four years under us and four years under them—we have a 25 per cent increase in the rate of bankruptcy in this country. The deceit of this government has inflicted on them a burden that they cannot sustain. Government members come into this parliament full of self-congratulation and with a determination to evade our questions. They evade the questions now on whether a minister has breached his oath of office, effectively, and they evaded the questions we asked them about industrial relations, health and the goods and services tax just as much as when we pointed out that they were in breach of solemn undertakings that they gave to the Australian people. They have compounded the deceit of 1996 that has left the Australian people remarkably unrelaxed and uncomfortable, and they have compounded it with repeated deceit since.Let us go to the GST deceits themselves. They said, `Okay, you are going to get the GST but it will not cause a rise in the price of petrol.' That was the first undertaking. They then said, `You are going to get a GST but it is going to simplify the tax act. You are going to get a GST but pensioners and families will be properly compensated for that goods and services tax. If you are a bit of a drinker, you will get the GST but it will be only 1.9 per cent.' I am proud to say, as Leader of the Australian Labor Party, that we are actually forcing compliance with a number of these promises. Unfortunately, for the pensioners and the families, we cannot quite get at them. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—It's called roll-back.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—We have been able to roll them back on petrol, we have been able to roll them back on beer and we have been able to roll them back to some degree on compliance of small business. We have not got them yet for the pensioners and the families of this country, but we will. If we do not get them there in the next budget, we will get them there in the next campaign. That is what we will be doing, and we will have this advantage: nobody believes them any more.The Prime Minister said that he would make the Australian people relaxed and comfortable. I will tell the Australian people this: if I am elected Prime Minister of this nation, I am going to be on their side. I am going to be on the side of those families whose principal breadwinner is earning $35,000 a year. I am going to be on the side of the pensioners who have had their savings devalued. I am going to be on the side of the small businesspeople who drive employment in this country but who are now experiencing a 25 per cent increase in the rate of bankruptcy. I am going to be on the side of those parents who send their kids to government schools and to poor private schools. I am going to be on their side. They are going to be the people who will see their children get a chance.This country was the land of opportunity for people. Everybody thought they would have an equal go, but more and more families now feel pressure. They feel pressure at their most basic services, they feel concerns about whether their kids will get the best opportunity in education and they feel concerned about the living standards of their parents. We will deal with their problems. We have put out a policy that will deal with some of the concerns. There is a lot more to come, and we will do it in a way that we can implement. We will not break faith with the Australian people as this Prime Minister has so massively broken faith with them over the last five years—and he stands in this chamber and boasts about it. (Time expired)15:49:0026602Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The Leader of the Opposition began his speech today in effect complaining about the fact that he is constantly losing question time; I fear that he lost the MPI as well. I have quite a bit of respect for the office of Leader of the Opposition. The unfortunate thing is that this Leader of the Opposition has found that the gifts he showed as a follower have completely deserted him as a leader, because this Leader of the Opposition is incapable of making the decisions which are necessary for someone who would be a Prime Minister of this country. What the Leader of the Opposition has raised to an art form over the last few months is running around this country trying to make decent, honest Australians feel miserable about themselves and about their lives. Today he came into this House crying crocodile tears about a goods and services tax which he has pledged to keep. The fundamental fact that every Australian must know every time members opposite complain about the GST is that the GST will be their tax. They will keep a GST if they ever get into government. The basic difference between members opposite and members on this side of the House is that we have trust and faith in the Australian people. We believe that the Australian people are good enough to have a go at things and to come out on top. We are not constantly running down the Australian people. We are not constantly telling them that they are failures and that they cannot make it, which of course is the constant message from the Leader of the Opposition, who is Australia's `roonist' in chief, constantly running down what we all know to be the greatest country on earth.I am very proud to be a member of a government which has an excellent record in all the things that count. This government has created nearly 800,000 jobs in the last five years. Half of those jobs have been full-time jobs, compared with the record of members opposite. In their last six years of government, they created less than half that number of jobs and nearly all of those jobs were part-time jobs. Under this government, wages have increased substantially for the first time in years. Average weekly earnings are up by 12 per cent under this government, after increasing by just four per cent in the previous 13 years. Basic award earnings are up by nine per cent under this government. Under the former government, they actually fell by five per cent. A government which said that they were of the workers, by the workers and for the workers actually boasted repeatedly in this House—I have heard them—about cutting workers' wages. Growth has been good, interest rates have come down and the average mortgage holder is about $300 a month better off, thanks to this government. This government has done all of this while maintaining Australians' traditional egalitarianism. The gap between the rich and poor has not grown. The numbers of the poor have not grown vis-a-vis the numbers of the rich, according to ABS statistics. What is more, the government have been able to do things that we never thought we could. We never thought that we could reform the waterfront, but we have. Members opposite kept saying, repeatedly, that 25 lifts an hour was impossible, that the workers of Australia could not achieve these heroic feats of performance, but they have. Not only are we achieving 25 lifts per hour but on occasions, at Patricks and elsewhere on the Australian waterfront, Australian waterside workers are breaking world records. This is what the workers of Australia have been able to achieve because of the policies of our government, because of the structures that our government have put in place. It was always supposed to be impossible to reform the gun laws of this country. That was supposed to be too hard, and yet this government, this Prime Minister, seized an opportunity and turned a tragedy into a triumph of the commonsense of the Australian people. For 25 years Australians sat on the sidelines, wringing their hands impotently over the ongoing tragedy in East Timor. But thanks to this government, thanks to this Prime Minister, East Timor is free. For the first time in our history, Australia led an international military expedition for the freedom of another country. We did not go in there as someone else's ally. We did not go in there as someone else's sidekick. We did it ourselves, and our near neighbour is free for the first time in hundreds of years. It is a great triumph. It is one of the proudest boasts of modern Australia that East Timor is free, and it only happened thanks to this government. This government and this Prime Minister have surprised the Australian people because they have shown the flexibility, the imagination and the determination that was not supposed to exist amongst so-called conservatives—so-called right-wingers. This Prime Minister has stamped himself—his personality and his character—on this country in a way that no Prime Minister has since Bob Menzies.Let us take tax reform. Tax reform was something that everyone who studied policy making in Australia knew was absolutely necessary. Members opposite knew it was necessary, employers knew it was necessary, unions knew it was necessary—everyone knew it was necessary. But the one government which has had the guts to do what was necessary—not necessarily popular—in the long-term national interests was this government led by John Howard. Tax reform was the policy Rubicon before which Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating and others had halted, hesitated and failed. This Prime Minister has given Australia what we needed, and the fact that Australia does need it, must have it and will have it is revealed by the fact that not a single member opposite is prepared to say anything other than, `We will keep tax reform.' Yes, tax reform has been hard. It is not easy to replace an archaic, out-of-date tax system with a tax system designed for the 21st century. Inevitably, there were going to be some problems in transition. But this government has listened; we have learned and, where necessary, we have acted. Tax reform has left the average family $50 a week better off, and the changes that this government has made over the last few months to try to make tax reform more user-friendly are going to ensure that the small businesses of this country can make the most of the opportunities that they have. On the subject of backflips, members opposite like to loudly demand something and, when it is done, say, `Oh, isn't that terrible; it is an evil backflip.' My former leader John Hewson once said that accepting the will of the people is not weakness, it is democracy, and refusing to respond to what people want is not leadership, it is dictatorship. Over the last few months the Prime Minister has given a fine example of a government which is in touch with people and which will do what people reasonably expect to ensure that policies work out for the best for all Australians.The Leader of the Opposition said that he was on the side of the Australian people. He came in here today saying that he would not break faith with the Australia people. Let us consider not what the Leader of the Opposition says but what he has done. He was the worst ever Minister for Defence, the worst ever Minister for Transport and Communications, the worst ever Minister for Employment, Education and Training and the worst ever Minister for Finance—and now he wants to be Prime Minister.This was the defence minister who presided over the Collins class submarines and the Jindalee over the horizon radar. This is the commuications minister who authored the $4 billion wasteful comparative roll-out of Telstra and Optus cables. This is the unemployment minister who started complaining about the poison chalice that he had been given while unemployment hit 11.2 per cent, and this is the finance minister who racked up $30 billion worth of debt in just two years. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the 64 policies that exist on his web site. The reason no-one knows about the Leader of the Opposition's policies is that frankly they are not worth knowing about. The Leader of the Opposition does not have words, he just has waffle. What is quite clear is that the Leader of the Opposition believes in four things. He believes in higher spending, a higher surplus, lower tax—simultaneously—and the fourth thing he must believe in is the tooth fairy, because it is impossible to square all of the various things that the Leader of the Opposition says he wants and says he believes in.It is quite clear that if Labor wins government the one thing we can be absolutely certain about is that the unions will have more power, there will be more regulation in the system, there will be more strikes and there will be lower pay for all Australians. I was able to tell the House earlier in this sitting fortnight, based on information from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, that workers on Australian workplace agreements have an average pay of $895 a week. By contrast, workers on federally registered collective agreements have an average pay of $711 a week. The only direct comparison between Australian workplace agreements and certified agreements showed that workers on Australian workplace agreements are nearly 25 per cent better off—$184 a week better off. Australian workplace agreements are the Rolls Royce of deals for Australian workers.It is true, if you include with Australian workplace agreements unregistered individual agreements, the average goes down. But Australian workplace agreements are registered, they are vetted by the Office of the Employment Advocate and they are the agreements we have put in place. The individual agreements that members opposite support are the very unregistered individual agreements under which workers do not get paid what they are paid under Australian workplace agreements. If workers want more pay, stick with this government and stick with Australian workplace agreements because more pay is precisely what workers on Australian workplace agreements are getting. Members opposite will try to say that the only people on Australian workplace agreements are executives. The member for Dickson's former colleague Senator Andrew Murray made a speech last week where he produced figures showing that 51 per cent of people earning more than $2,000 a week, or $100,000 a year, are on awards or collective agreements. This idea that only executives are on Australian workplace agreements is simply wrong. When the Prime Minister said some years ago that he wanted Australians to be relaxed and comfortable, he meant that he wanted Australians to believe in themselves. He wanted Australians to take pride in who they are, what they can achieve and what their future holds. That is what the Prime Minister wanted. That is what the Prime Minister meant. What the Prime Minister and this government have achieved is that we have got rid of the defeatism. We have got rid of the sense of despair proliferating in Australia under members opposite. The Prime Minister believes, above all, in the Australian people. He believes they can do it. He believes that we are capable of succeeding and achieving, and that is why members opposite are engaged in nothing but group defamation of the Australian people every time they pretend that there is nothing worth supporting in modern Australia. I am very confident that when the voters of Australia have their chance later in the year, they will not reject the best government since Menzies and the worst opposition since Calwell. (Time expired)16:04:0026605Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—This is the last time the parliament sits for seven weeks to debate matters of serious issue. We have put a proposition on the agenda today for the Prime Minister to come in and defend his record five years after promising he would make the Australian public more `comfortable and relaxed'—and he squibs the debate. The best they can drag up is the minister whom we have just heard from—the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business—the person who has to rehearse his question time answers. I tell you what, brother, go back to rehearsal class because that was a pathetic performance. Where was the audience? The best you could scrape together was six people on your own backbench, and three of them whips. This is the person who admits that his own mother says he is not fit for high office. This is the person they send in to defend the government's record. It is said that history tends to repeat itself—the first time is tragedy and the second is farce. John Howard, who was Treasurer under Prime Minister Fraser, stands as the embodiment of this statement. After seven wasted years—that was the tragedy—the coalition government, when John Howard was Treasurer and had produced double digits in both unemployment and inflation, was turfed out of office. But the best that the then Treasurer, John Winston Howard, could do was whinge to everyone that Malcolm Fraser had stolen his surplus. Now we have the farce of the former Treasurer, now Prime Minister, doing backflip after backflip while the new Treasurer whinges to everyone that John Howard is stealing his surplus. John Howard has been forced to make so many backflips of late that when he leaves this place he can join the circus. Peter Costello has been rolled so often he is smoother than a ball bearing. But let us understand the sorts of things that they have been rolled on because all of them constitute deceit, denial and then backflip. They said that BAS could not be simplified and could not be reconciled on an annual basis—wrong, and we proved them wrong. The tax act is burdening small business in this country with complexity. The Prime Minister told the parliament in 1997:The volume of tax legislation has become a tidal wave which threatens to overwhelm small business. He was then asked in 1998 by Alan Jones: `Will the number of pages in the tax act be reduced by the introduction of the GST?' The Prime Minister replied, `Yes, it will.' But the tax act is now almost three times the size that it was in 1966. If it was a tidal wave then, it is a tsunami now, and it has all been done under their watch. The Leader of the Opposition has referred to petrol. Labor forced the government to roll back on petrol. Labor forced the backflip. Let us hear none of this sanctimony from the minister who has departed the chamber saying, `Flexible mind, the Prime Minister—out there listening to people.' This Prime Minister is so out of touch he would not know how to listen. The only language that he understands is when we force the change, when he recognises that he hasn't got the numbers, when he is forced by backbench revolt because of the campaigns we have run in their constituencies saying, `There is no point complaining about the high price of petrol at home if you are not prepared to come and do something in Canberra; no point being heroes at home whilst you are cowards in Canberra, because your constituents will always remember it.' On beer, the latest backflip, the Prime Minister is still in denial. We heard the minister today saying he was listening and that they had flexible minds. They still do not want to do this. They still do not believe they have broken a promise. Yet it is there in absolute black and white terms: `The price of beer will not rise by more than 1.9 per cent'—and they stuck it up 10 per cent and do not think they broke a promise. You still have the Treasurer cowardly refusing to come into this House and introduce the legislation for the backflip, out at doorstop after doorstop saying, `We shouldn't have to have done it. This is the brewers writing their own tax rate.' This is the government forced to honour its promise and, as the Leader of the Opposition said, we will continue to do it.The effect of this matter of public importance today is to say that the Prime Minister has failed after his five years in office to make Australians `comfortable and relaxed'. Ask the small businesses of the country, the pensioners, the self-funded retirees, the people who live in regional and rural Australia, the workers whose jobs are threatened, people who are in aged care facilities, people who are in hospitals, parents who are struggling to get their kids into decent education if they are comfortable and relaxed and they will tell you that they are not. Why is that? Because of this government's fundamental economic mismanagement, as well as its deceit.We heard the Prime Minister in question time talk about the record of economic achievement of his government and try and again ridicule Labor's. Let us just understand what this government's economic watch has produced. Foreign debt has reached a record $301 billion—56 per cent up under Peter Costello. Household debt is at record levels—$487½ billion, an increase of 75 per cent under Peter Costello. For the first time, Australian households now owe more than they earn. Credit card debt has risen from just $6.7 billion in February 1996 to $17½ billion in January 2001—a 161 per cent increase. And under Peter Costello the annual growth rate in credit card debt reached highs not seen since John Howard was last Treasurer. On investment, the last three years of the Howard government has seen an annual average growth rate for private new capital expenditure of minus 5.1 per cent. Compare that with Labor's last three years in office and you can see we had investment in the economy throughout it positive. This government, presiding over continued economic growth, has got investment in the negative. Is it little wonder that we are struggling as an economy? And it is not just the housing sector, as the government would have you believe. Look at business research and development—the drivers of economic growth. If we want to position ourselves as the new economy, as innovators with the skills to sell to the rest of the world, government has to play a role. This government has driven it down. Business investment in research and development rose every year for 13 years under Labor. Under John Howard, it has fallen every year. Is it little wonder that the rest of the world writes it down? If we are not prepared to invest in our future, why should they? That is the question they continue to ask. This government is not serious about investing in our future. The government have also produced a decade-high inflation rate, they have produced the first negative quarter of economic growth in 9½ years and they have king-hit the construction sector, so much so that interest rates have had to fall, together with an increase in the home savings grant to drag it off the floor. I presented that graph the other day in the parliament to demonstrate the slump that they have caused to the housing sector—the greatest slump ever recorded. And they pretend that they are good economic managers! Well, let me tell you this: if you cannot manage the economy, you cannot make people comfortable and relaxed. `Comfortable and relaxed' is hardly a vision splendid, but you will never get this from the Prime Minister. But that was his benchmark. If you cannot manage the economy, as they have consistently failed to do, it is no wonder that people are out there hurting. We heard the Prime Minister today rely on the Wright family. It represents, as the shadow spokesman for social services has said, 1.8 per cent of Australian families. John Howard is satisfied if that minuscule proportion can say, `We are doing well.' What about the rest of them? What about the 98 per cent of families who are struggling under the weight of his GST? And as for the argument that the dollar does not matter unless you are going overseas, what does he say to the people who have to pay more for imported products and more for petrol? What does he say to the businesses that have to pay more for their input costs and therefore strip their margins? This is a government whose GST has mugged the economy. They have not made Australians comfortable and relaxed and they do not deserve to retain office. (Time expired)16:14:0026607Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—When I read today's matter of public importance, frankly I had to read it twice to believe it; to believe that the opposition would come in here when their reputation out there in the electorate is so poor. But allow me to read from a letter—WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—Tell us about Ryan.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I am going to tell you about Ryan but you will not like it. I am just going to read a letter from my electorate which puts it into context. It is called `Lies or madness?' and says:All the polls are telling us of a Labor landslide—... are we just going mad?Remember the high interest rates, large deficit, and high inflation and many other problems.People, do not kid yourselves. Yes, we have some problems but Kim and Simon can't or will not fix this.All we are told is full policy panic, five years again under Labor we will be doing all the pain again.Do know who wrote this letter? A railway worker from Sarina—Mr D. Lyons. `All the pain again'. Let me say to the Labor Party that if you think you can come in because you are getting a bit nervous, because you have been out and about and you know what is happening out there, that is not going to save you come October. The fact is that the Australian people have long memories. Mr Lyons has. We do not want to do `all the pain again'. A railway worker remembers. He said, `Do not kid yourselves,' to the people in Dawson. `Remember the high interest rates, large deficit and high inflation and many other problems.' Don't do the pain again. That will be a great little slogan for the Labor Party: `Don't do the pain again under Labor.'I will talk very briefly about the government's achievements. There is no doubt in rural and regional Australia that these are difficult times. Commodity prices are low and the American economy is slowing. It is a difficult time. So things in rural and regional Australia are certainly difficult for people. Let me tell you about the things the government has done that have made life so much better for rural and regional Australians. The low Australian dollar is a big boon to our exporters. It is amusing that the shadow Treasurer is shedding tears for the big importers. I actually thought we were interested in exports. I am surprised to see the shadow minister for agriculture supporting the shadow Treasurer in talking down the Australian economy and shedding crocodile tears over the Australian dollar. You know that every time the dollar falls we get an extra $300 million for Australia's exporters. You should start to represent Australian farmers.Let me talk about interest rates—they fell again yesterday. The Westpac rate is 6.82 per cent and the National Australia Bank rate is 6.81 per cent. What that means for ordinary, decent, hardworking Australians on an average mortgage of $100,000 is a saving of $81. What it means for my farmers, Mr Shadow Treasurer for Agriculture, is that the debts on their farms are not going to gobble them up. Under the opposition they would have an increase in interest rates, and they know that. They also know that the fall in the Australian dollar is a big help to them. Every time the dollar falls, there is an extra couple of hundred million dollars in the pockets of Australian farmers. There is the first home owners grant. All I hear from the opposition is about gymnastics. It is about listening, acting and delivering. That is what a responsive and responsible government does: listen, act and deliver. The first home owners grant was increased a few weeks ago to $14,000. Let me say to the parliament that the builders in Dawson have had a lot more inquiries. The business activity statement has been simplified. On fuel, the thing the shadow Treasurer said we would never do anything about, we have not only kept our promise when the tax reform package was being brought in but we have cut out the indexation, the thing the Labor Party brought in.Let us talk about life under Labor, because that is where Mr Lyons from Sarina has said we will be doing all the pain again. We are going to have an apology, we are going to have regional treaties, we are going to have roll-back, we are going to have unfettered family reunion for immigrants, we are going to have two more submarines—no doubt paid for out of the pocket of Australian taxpayers when their interest rates go up. We are going to have an alliance with the Greens to destroy farmers' rights on the land. I hope the shadow minister for agriculture reminds them of that when he goes north. We are going to have a republic, supposedly. I thought we just had a vote on the republic. But, no, we are going to exhume this old policy issue again under the Labor Party. It all adds up to more spending, another budget deficit, higher interest rates—more pain. As Mr Lyons said, we will be doing all the pain again. Opposition members interjecting—FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I thought the Labor Party might be interested in some of the issues brought forward in my electorate. No doubt that is why they have got this sort of frenzied attack at the moment, because they know what people out there are saying.849Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom—Frenzied!FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Well, it is a frenzied attack from those that are going to bring more pain. You would be interested to know that in my electorate the number one issue is economic management and low interest rates. From all the canvassing in our electorate, even amongst Labor voters, they look for economic management. People do have long memories about how the Labor Party managed the economy.LN6Hatton, Michael, MPMr Hatton—Tell us about John Howard in 1982 and 1983.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I do not have to go back that far. I am going to remind them about your high interest rates, I am going to remind them about the apology, the tribunal—about what it would mean for rural and regional Australians if the Labor Party were in government. As Mr Lyons has said, are we just going mad and will we be doing all the pain again? I would like to share with the House a letter that came into the paper today from Paget in my electorate. This is a working area with the railway in Mackay. The letter is headed `Remember'.Opposition members interjecting—FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—I am sorry you find letters from ordinary Australians amusing, but then the Labor Party would. The letter reads:Sir—This is to the people with very short to nil memories. 1982—The great Labor party floats the dollar even though it was exactly the same value as the Yank dollar. 1997—Paul Keating describes Australia as the a...hole of the world. Kim Beazley was minister for unemployment. Kim Beazley Minister for Defence orders the famous submarine project. Cheryl Kernot jumps ship then spits the dummy when she thinks she has lost the safe seat given to her on a platter. You could go on forever. How could you possibly vote this mob in to run Australia. R. Woodford, Paget.How could you vote this mob in to run Australia? Mr Woodford, you got it in one. That is from a working area in Mackay, a letter in the paper today from somebody I do not know, I must say. How could you vote this mob in to run Australia? You will only be doing the pain again. The trouble with the Labor Party is that during the Ryan by-election, when Mr Beazley finally made it into Ryan, the coalition vote started to come back. The Prime Minister was working hard in Ryan and the coalition vote started to come back. Even better was the interview that Mr Beazley did on the 7.30 Report. I just hope you run him on television again and again, because people in my electorate said, `What did he say?' No-one can remember what the Leader of the Opposition says; he goes on and on and on. The trouble, you see, is that you are now under scrutiny and people are starting to write letters to the paper, they are starting to remember the Labor days. Remember all the pain for no gain under Labor? We do not want the pain again. As the Labor Party comes under scrutiny and the Leader of the Opposition does more interviews, people are starting to react. They remember those days. They do not want the pain again under the Labor Party. I hope you do go out there and start to talk more about rural and regional Australia and your so-called 64 policies. I hope you do that, because it is going to be a great memory of the pain again. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The discussion has concluded.Committees26609266092660916:25:0026609Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—On behalf of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I present the committee's report No. 381—Review of Auditor-General's reports, 1999-2000—Third Quarter.Ordered that the report be printed.OT4Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLES—by leave—Under the Public Accounts and Audit Committee Act 1951, the JCPAA is required to prepare a report on the performance of its duties during the past financial year. I will briefly discuss the committee's highlights for that year. 1999-2000 was the first full financial year following the consolidation of the JCPAA as the audit committee of the parliament with its responsibilities under the Auditor-General Act 1997. In August 1999, the committee considered the ANAO forward audit work program for 1999-2000 and conveyed to the Auditor-General the audit priorities of the parliament. The committee also considered the draft budget estimates of the Australian National Audit Office and tabled its report on the draft estimates before the budget was brought down on 9 May 2000.The JCPAA undertook a number of inquiries as well as reviews of the Auditor-General's reports for 1999-2000. Major committee reports tabled during the past financial year included those on the Corporate governance and accountability arrangements for Commonwealth government business enterprises and A review of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. In addition, five review reports following public hearings on Auditor-General reports for the fourth quarter of 1997-98, all of 1998-99 and the first quarter of 1999-2000 were tabled.Corporatisation and the devolution of responsibility for the management of Commonwealth agencies—including successful risk management—to CEOs have been the focus of the committee's work in 1999-2000. In its report, Corporate governance and accountability arrangements for Commonwealth government business enterprises, the committee concluded that the existing arrangements adopted since the 1997 Humphry report provide a flexible and effective arrangement for the operations of GBEs under the strategic directions of the shareholder ministers.In its Review of the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 and the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, the committee focused on whether legislation met the needs of the new financial management framework and the needs of the public sector, whether it remained consistent with other legislation, both Commonwealth and state, and whether accountability to parliament has been maintained. The committee made two recommendations aimed at addressing possible inconsistencies regarding defamation and indemnity legislation. The committee also recommended that the Department of Finance and Administration and the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet should review the terminology of the financial management legislation and the public and parliamentary service legislation with a view to removing inconsistency and increasing consistency with the terminology used by the private sector.The committee has long supported the concept of the Auditor-General as an independent officer of the parliament. In 1996 the JCPAA tabled a report entitled Guarding the independence of the Auditor-General, which recommended legislative guarantees of audit independence for the Auditor-General and an extension of the Auditor's mandate to include performance audits of government business enterprises. The report also recommended an enhanced role for the committee in the appointment of the Auditor-General and independent auditor and in determining the level of appropriations for the Australian National Audit Office. The committee's recommendations were incorporated into the present legislation.In June 1999, the committee tabled report 368, which recommended seeking legislative provision for the Auditor-General to have access to contractors' premises where such access is required to assist in the performance of an audit function. The committee reaffirmed this need as part of its inquiry into contract management. On 29 November 2000, the government agreed to implement this recommendation on ANAO access to third party premises by advising agencies to include appropriate access clauses in contracts with third parties. The Commonwealth procurement guidelines were also amended to emphasise the importance of agencies ensuring they are able to satisfy all relevant accountability obligations, including ANAO access to contractor records and premises.Recent JCPAA Auditor-General report reviews have demonstrated significant shortcomings with respect to contract management in an environment where many government services have been subject to commercial contestability and contracting out. On 25 August 1999, the committee initiated an inquiry into contract management in the Australian Public Service in an attempt to identify systemic problems in contract administration and to encourage better practice standards which can be applied across agencies. The committee held public hearings and collected evidence on the Commonwealth Community Education and Information Program. It also advertised an inquiry into Coastwatch, following the Auditor-General report No. 38 on the agency. During the 1999-2000 financial year, the committee tabled seven reports. A total of 21 recommendations were made by the committee. To date, the government has accepted 14 of these.In this period of change, the committee believes it is necessary for management in each Commonwealth agency to demonstrate its commitment to establishing effective control and accountability structures. It is also important for each agency to have a fully operational financial information management system which can provide relevant and accurate information in a timely manner.Finally, I wish to inform the parliament that in 1999 the JCPAA was nominated as the host for the 6th biennial conference of the Australasian Council of Public Accounts Committees. In February 2000, the JCPAA convened a mid-term meeting of representatives of Australasian public accounts committees. At this meeting, a theme was decided for the 2001 conference and members gave an indication of the papers they wished to present. The JCPAA then organised and ran a very successful conference on 4 to 6 February 2001 with participants not only from the council members all over Australia and New Zealand but also from the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa, Fiji and Hong Kong. This was truly an international conference. I am indebted to my colleagues on the committee who have dedicated their time and effort to various inquiries and to reviewing these Auditor-General reports throughout the 1999-2000 period. As well, I would like to thank the members of the secretariat who were involved in the inquiries. I commend the JCPAA annual report to the House.16:34:0026611Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—by leave—As a Labor member of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit, I would like to join with my colleague the member for La Trobe and chairman of the committee in making some remarks in relation to this report. I join with him in thanking my colleagues that have served on the committee during the period, and I would specifically like to thank some of my colleagues who have served but who are no longer on the committee. I thank Senator the Hon. John Faulkner, the member for Bruce and the member for Sydney for their efforts when they were on the committee.I would certainly like to echo the chairman's remarks in thanking the secretariat. The Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit is a very busy one and the secretariat's workload is, I think, onerous. They at all times display a great deal of professionalism and a very even-tempered approach to life. The mission of our committee is of course to scrutinise the expenditure of Commonwealth funds, which may not sound scintillating to most but is a very important function for a parliamentary committee to undertake on a bipartisan basis. As this report shows, I think we have, over this reporting period, adequately weighed the long-term and the short-term issues that the committee needs to address.In particular, in terms of the short-term issues, the committee has actively and on a quarterly basis reviewed Auditor-General's reports and made further recommendations in relation to them. I think that has been a very effective process. It was adopted at or near the commencement of the last parliament, and I think it has been very valuable. In that regard we have looked at issues such as aviation security, aged care and various matters in relation to defence. There are some reports in preparation at the moment, including one into the MRI issue.The committee has not only looked at those short-term issues but, I think, adequately balanced the need to take the long-term view. As we all know in this House, the public sector has changed radically over the last 25 years—with the core public sector becoming smaller, with the amount of corporatisation which has occurred in the public sector, with the advent of accrual accounting and with the additional demands that there now are for transparency and management of issues such as risk.In that regard the committee has gone out of its way to address some of the longer term issues that the public sector faces, including the need for reviewing corporate government structures—we undertook an inquiry and made a report into that—and the need to review the legislation which defines the accountability and transparency requirements of Commonwealth authorities and companies. I commend this report as required reading to all members of the House, and they can be assured that the committee will continue with its work ably over the coming months.266112661116:37:0026611Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I present the 25th report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of that report are now being circulated to honourable members in the chamber.Report—by leave—agreed to.266122661216:37:0026612Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the fourth report for 2001 of the committee relating to range support facilities, Delamere range and RAAF Base Tindal in the Northern Territory.Ordered that the report be printed.266122661216:38:0026612Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—by leave—I move:That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed freight and passenger facilities at Rumah Baru, West Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands.The Department of Transport and Regional Services proposes the development of new freight and passenger facilities at Rumah Baru on West Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands. The proposed facilities will improve the safety, efficiency and reliability of the existing freight and passenger system on the Cocos (Keeling) Islands and provide facilities appropriate for the remoteness and cyclonic locality. The design features an offshore island—100 metres by 60 metres, approximately 200 metres from the shoreline of Rumah Baru, on the eastern side of West Island, Cocos (Keeling) Islands—connected to the shore by an access bridge and linked by an approximately 400-metre long dredge channel to deeper water in the lagoon. The estimated cost of this proposal is $14 million, with indicative costs for stage 1 of $10.5 million and for stage 2 of $3.5 million. Subject to parliamentary approval, tenders are scheduled to be called late this year. I commend the motion to the House.16:40:0026612Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to be able to support the motion before the House. As you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker—although I am sure many people are not aware of this—the Cocos (Keeling) Islands are in the electorate of the Northern Territory, and I am their federal member. You may also be aware—UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin Thomson—You're very fortunate.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Yes, they are very fortunate. After the next election, they will be in the seat of Lingiari, and I hope to be their federal member then as well. That, of course, is another matter, and I do not want to canvass the nature of the redistribution here because I have done it elsewhere. But I am pleased to be able to say that I am looking forward to continuing to represent the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands—and, indeed, the people of Christmas Island—in the next parliament, as I am very proud and pleased to represent them in this parliament and to have represented them in the previous parliaments to which I have been elected. I am a regular visitor to the Cocos Islands. Indeed, I had a staff member on the Cocos Islands only two or three weeks ago, and I will be visiting the islands within the next couple of months. I wish to explain the context of this proposal for new freight and passenger facilities at Rumah Baru. Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, I think you have been to the Cocos Islands, so you would understand the nature of the place I am talking about. A lagoon separates a number of the islands, including West Island and Home Island. Home Island is where the bulk of the population live. West Island is the centre of administration. The freight which arrives by sea is offloaded on West Island and is then transhipped across to Home Island. I think I am correct in saying that the current wharf facility is well below par. To offload freight from ships, they have to moor the ships some distance into the lagoon and then lighters are used to tranship containers to the island. This, of course, is very inefficient and it is not very reliable. The proposal that we have before us—although I have not seen the design specifications, I think that the concept is very good— will, with any sort of luck and with decent management, provide us with the capacity to improve dramatically the stevedoring and handling costs involved in bringing freight into the Cocos Islands communities. At the same time, it will obviously improve safety, which is very important for the people involved in this. It will clearly improve efficiency and reliability, and it will ultimately bring down costs. That is very important in the context of the Cocos Islands community. You would be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, from your own visits how reliant the community is on these shipping services, which are sometimes tenuous given the distance between the mainland and the Cocos Islands. It is indeed very important to acknowledge that, over the last couple of years, there have been periods when food has been extremely scarce in the Cocos Islands, partly because of shipping services not being able to deliver. It is very important that we comprehend that the people on Cocos (Keeling) Islands and on Christmas Island live in an extremely remote area—indeed, I cannot think of any Australians who live in more remote circumstances. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the seat of the Northern Territory comprises all of the Northern Territory and its adjacent islands. No-one in the Northern Territory is as remote as the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands. Recently there was an announcement to improve flights to the islands and I am looking forward to examining the detail of that. But, in the context of this particular proposal, it is very important that we understand that this is only one part of what needs to be done to improve the facility, amenity and infrastructure of the people of the Cocos Islands. I say that while respecting the costs that are involved and the fact that this is a small community.You would be aware that the Cocos Islands used to be a United Nations mandated territory. Now, as a result of an act of this parliament, they are part of Australia; they have been transferred by the United Nations to us. It is very important that we accept that we have an obligation not only to that community but to the international community to ensure that appropriate standards are provided for the islands' community. Whilst I have grave differences with the minister responsible for territories, Senator Ian Macdonald, over many issues and whilst I believe a great deal more needs to be done about improving the lot of the people of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, it is true to say that this government, like previous governments, has tried to do a great deal to assist. Sadly, though, I do not think that has been good enough.I am very pleased to be able to support this motion today. I am looking forward to the prospect of the Public Works Committee visiting the Cocos Islands, talking to the community and giving approval for this very important project. I only hope that they can expedite the arrangement so that tenders can be let as soon as possible, because this work is vital to the future economic development of the islanders' community.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills26613The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Legislation Amendment Bill 2001Petroleum (Submerged Lands) (Registration Fees) Amendment Bill 2000Coal Industry Repeal Bill 2000Foreign Affairs and Trade Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2000Bills26613R129326613Bill presented by Mr Ian Macfarlane, and read a first time.2661316:48:0026613Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill makes amendments to implement the changes to GST and PAYG reporting announced by the government on 22 February 2001. It also contains some additional changes developed since that announcement. The changes will ease the compliance burden for taxpayers in the PAYG system and will simplify and streamline GST payment and reporting arrangements for small business. This bill demonstrates the government is listening to the concerns of small business. After the experience of the first two quarterly returns, small business said that they wanted a simpler option for their business activity statement. This bill will dramatically reduce reporting requirements, and follows extensive consultation with business and accounting groups with a specific focus on the needs of small business. This government talks to small business, understands their needs and acts accordingly. I have spent a great deal of my time between sessions going out and meeting with small business and listening to their concerns before coming back to this place and inputting their ideas into the legislative process.Importantly, these changes will not force businesses to change the way they have been completing their BAS. If businesses are happy with the way they have been completing their BAS, they do not need to change. Alternatively, under the new arrangements businesses reporting quarterly can choose to pay GST quarterly, complete only three boxes on the BAS quarterly and lodge an annual GST information report. Businesses with a turnover of $2 million or less are also able to choose to pay an amount each quarter worked out by the Taxation Office and then lodge an annual GST return.The changes in this bill will also allow many more taxpayers to be able to make PAYG instalments based on an amount notified by the tax office. They will no longer have to make quarterly calculations of their income, unless they choose to.Primary producers, as well as authors, artists and other special professionals, will benefit from the change that allows them to make only two GST or PAYG payments each year—one in April and one in July. This will allow these taxpayers to meet their obligations in a way that better reflects their fluctuating income flows.The quarterly due dates have been extended for the BAS and Instalment Activity Statement lodgments and payments, so that they are now due on the 28th day of the month after the end of the quarter. In addition, the due date for the December quarter return has been extended to 28 February in recognition of the Christmas-New Year break.Other minor changes made by the bill include ensuring that businesses with substituted accounting periods will not have to account for GST on a monthly basis and that entities will be able to make changes to their current BAS to correct small GST mistakes in the previous BAS.The changes in this bill have been positively embraced by the business community. The Institute of Chartered Accountants said:We also endorse the flexibility introduced into the new system, which allows reporting to be based either on accruals or estimates of income tax and GST. One of the advantages of the BAS regime for small business has been the need for more discipline in record keeping.That is a comment I hear over and over from small business. It is a comment I heard here yesterday in a meeting with small businessmen, and small businessmen are saying that the discipline that the new tax system is asking them to implement is actually benefiting their business and the way in which they can manage their business. The CPA said:CPA Australia welcomed the Treasurer's statement on BAS this afternoon, hailing it as a victory for small and medium-sized businesses. This is an excellent outcome and demonstrates what can be achieved through ongoing consultation.I could only agree with that. The consultative process that we, as a government, have established with small business is one that is reaping rewards for small business and giving us these changes that small business have requested. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said:It is clear from the Government's announcements today that they have been listening to the concerns of the business community, particularly small businesses, and have responded in a way which will ensure the compliance burden of moving to the new tax system will be dramatically reduced. The National Farmers Federation said that they:... congratulated Prime Minister John Howard and Treasurer Peter Costello on delivering such a highly-sought after and vital outcome for farmers and small business.It is clear that the changes in this bill have been welcomed by businesses and make the payment and reporting arrangements for GST and PAYG far simpler.Full details of the changes in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Kelvin Thomson) adjourned.Bills26615R120626615Debate resumed.16:54:0026615Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—It is good to rehabilitate this speech after the question time break. Prior to question time, I was telling the House the story of Mrs Margaret Grimley, a former employee of ADI in Lithgow, who, through her solicitor, has claimed that Comcare have hassled her, despite her admission that she has performed tasks like wheeling a wheelbarrow. They have used evidence, she claims, to make her life pretty miserable. Her solicitors tell me in a letter that it has been made generally known around the town that she is under investigation by the national fraud squad. She claims to have been humiliated in the local community by the Comcare process as a result of the conduct of these investigations. She says she has fully cooperated with all investigations and interviews and she feels that for some reason she has been singled out for oppressive treatment that bears no relationship to her injury related incapacity. According to her legal representative, Comcare has refused to consider any attempts to resolve or settle the matter but rather has taken a persecutory approach to her case. They have also detailed for me what they consider to be gross failings in Comcare's administration and the level of customer service it has displayed in handling the case. In a letter dated 12 December 2000, received just prior to Christmas by Mrs Grimley's solicitors, Comcare rejected the claim but provided them with an opportunity to provide further medical evidence in support of her claim. The letter said that if such material was not received by 25 January 2001, the determination would be rejected on the evidence available. On 15 January, the solicitors wrote to Comcare seeking an extension to enable a medical report to be obtained during the holiday period that was current from a highly regarded specialist. The extension was needed because the earliest available appointment was 28 February 2001. By letter dated 25 January, Comcare wrote to Mrs Grimley's solicitors confirming its decision of 12 December and made no reference whatsoever to the earlier request for an extension. On 9 February, the solicitors again wrote to Comcare pointing out that it had failed to take into account their earlier correspondence and requested an extension of time. On 5 February 2001, apparently in response to the solicitor's original January 15 request, Comcare responded denying the extension claim on the basis that extension requests must themselves enclose medical evidence. Comcare has since claimed that the solicitor's 15 January letter was not received prior to the date of the determination, which was 10 days after that. While I understand Comcare have now agreed to an extension, the events caused Mrs Grimley and her solicitors a lot of heartache. Higgins and Higgins wrote to me in the following terms:Irrespective of these matters and the breach of any professional courtesy in a response thereto ... Comcare expressed no interest or apology to ourselves or our client for their inappropriate, rude and indiscriminately oppressive handling of our client in relation to this matter. ... Comcare is meant to represent the Australian government and people and act impartially and fairly in its dealings and not in the manner described such as would warrant serious censure were it a private insurer.I am fully aware that this is an isolated example but, given the level of dissatisfaction, I think it is the type of case where at the very least Comcare's management needs to provide an explanation. I have not yet raised this with the minister, as the solicitor at this point has been happy to conduct inquiries on behalf of the client, but I sought his and the client's permission to mention it during this debate. If, as Comcare's 1996-97 annual report states, its mission `is to take a leading role in the reduction of human and financial costs of workplace injury in Commonwealth employment by working with customer agencies to prevent injuries and return injured employees to work', then I suggest cases like my constituent's are the ones that government needs to be looking at to see what has to be done to improve the agency's level of service. I trust those in Comcare listening to this debate have heard these criticisms and will provide an explanation in due course. I acknowledge the story detailed so far is from the client and her solicitor, but the allegations are worrying. In the context of this bill, that case caused me to have a look at what might have caused the problem. Since 1990, the number of employees insured by Comcare and the total number of employer customers have decreased substantially. According to the agency's annual reports, in 1990 there were some 269,000 employees insured by the scheme. By 2000, this number had dropped by 150,000 to 142,996 employees. Over the same period, the number of compensation claims made against Comcare has reduced significantly.In 1990 some 20,000 claims were lodged. Since 1996, when the current government came to power, claims have reduced from some 15,000 per annum to just 6,000—a massive decrease. Over the same period, total premiums have reduced from some $215 million in 1990 to just $91.4 million in 2000. After rising through the 1990s to a high of $205 million in 1994, total workers compensation costs were $183 million in 2000.Interestingly, the one area within the overall reduction where costs seem to have ballooned is the provision of legal services. In this regard I note that in 1994-95 Comcare decided to tender for a panel of legal service providers following the untying of legal services from the Attorney-General's Department. According to that year's annual report, it was thought that the formation of the panel and outsourcing would allow the application of nationally consistent policies and principles, establishment of measurable performance indicators and provision of value added legal services. The outsourcing arrangements were implemented in 1994-96 using the Australian Government Solicitor, Barker Gosling, Blake Dawson and Waldron, Deacons Graham and James, Hunt and Hunt, Norman Waterhouse, Phillips Fox and Sparke Helmore. Deacons and Hunt and Hunt were subsequently dropped from the list.In 1998, Comcare commissioned a review into the cost effectiveness of those arrangements. It concluded that there was strong qualitative evidence that the legal panel arrangements were producing positive results in terms of advice to claims managers and outcomes in the AAT process and that the quality and applicability of legal advice had improved. That year's annual report also concluded that in 1998 fees paid to Comcare's legal panel for work in relation to the AAT reduced by approximately 18 per cent over the 1997-98 year. This represented a reduction in real terms of nine per cent per case handled. That puts a pretty positive glow on things, to say the least. However, according to Comcare's own annual reports, in 1994, prior to outsourcing of legal services, legal costs including AAT and third party recovery costs, but excluding costs associated with common law claims, stood at just $2.87 million, or 1.4 per cent of the total costs of the scheme. In 1995 these costs had risen to $4.27 million, or 2.08 per cent of costs. In 1996 they were $6.9 million, or 3.4 per cent of total costs. In 1997 they ballooned to $12.15 million, or 6.16 per cent of costs. So even with the small reduction in 1998, they represented 6.4 per cent of all costs. That points to a six-fold increase in legal costs, excluding common law claims, over a four-year period. When the agency's costs relating to common law claims are included, they show a ballooning from some $10.64 million in 1993 to $17.8 million in 1998. That is a jump from 5.6 per cent to close to 9½ per cent of total costs over that period. My point in raising these details is to seek from the minister an explanation of just why, since the outsourcing of legal services, legal costs have increased so substantially when the total number of claims has reduced so markedly. Surely, if claims have reduced to one-third of what they were in 1994, we should be seeing a decline in legal costs at some point in time. It seems strange that, while the overall cost of the scheme is reducing, legal costs appear to be going the other way.My other point in raising the issue is to seek from the minister details about just what improvements outsourcing of Comcare's legal services have delivered. What reviews of the outsourcing arrangements have been conducted? On what criteria have those arrangements been assessed? How is the outsourcing of this work to corporate firms contributing to the achievement of Comcare's worthy motto and mission statement? From the admittedly anecdotal feedback I have had from my electorate, rather than working with people to get them working Comcare appears to be becoming more and more adversarial in its approach to some compensation claims at least. I wonder whether the shift to private legal firms has played a role in that trend.The bill in most other areas appears well targeted, and reasonable in nearly all instances. It is logical and uncontentious. However, I will look with interest at those aspects relating to the tightening of the definition of injury and disease, and study the non-government amendments both here and in the Senate. I would appreciate that explanation of the apparent escalation in outsourcing costs—perhaps an indication, if it could be made available, of the pre and post outsourcing average costs per case would help. I thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.17:05:0026617Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I do not intend to delay the House for too long in summing up this debate on the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2000. I want to thank all members who have contributed to the debate. I particularly thank the shadow minister for his contribution. I thank the member for Calare for his extremely thoughtful presentation, to which I have just listened. I acknowledge the support which has been expressed by most speakers for large swathes of the legislation, even if not all of it.As various speakers have noted, the Commonwealth Comcare scheme is a good scheme. It works well, it has low premiums and it has a good record of getting people back to work. It is a good scheme—in many respects one of the very best schemes in the country. The government's objective is not to fiddle with things for fiddling's sake but to try to make a good scheme even better and to try to make a good scheme even better represent the proper objects of workers compensation schemes.I would like to take up some of the points that were raised by the shadow minister in his contribution. The first point I wish to respond to is the point about the change to the definition of `disease'. The bill proposes that there should be a significant contribution by employment before compensation is payable. The shadow minister said that this would mean that the Commonwealth scheme would have the most stringent test in Australia. I am advised that this is not true. I am advised that in Queensland, Victoria and Western Australia a significant `contribution' from employment is also required. I am advised that in Tasmania the compensation scheme there requires a `substantial contribution'. In New South Wales, the requirement is that employment has to be a `substantial' contributing factor. The New South Wales legislation also sets out examples of matters to be taken into account. The examples that New South Wales uses are broadly similar to the proposed Commonwealth list. For example, consider the case where an employee had, for argument's sake, been assaulted at a counter. In a stress related claim, the Comcare decision maker would obviously not consider any other factor. I am advised that the amendment would not allow the decision maker to decide that, yes, the assault was closely connected to work but that the person had a history of depression so the claim should be denied. That is not what would be permitted under the legislation that the government is proposing. However, in a case where a claimant had argued that they had a depressive condition as a result of not being able to sit, for argument's sake, next to a window but there was evidence that the relevant employee's marriage had broken down, then the decision may be that there was no close connection to work and that it was more likely that the condition was caused by the marriage breakdown rather than by the employment. Of course, in all cases of this nature, medical evidence will be sought. The shadow minister also raised the managerial action provision. I am advised that the bill provides that actions such as reasonable appraisal of an employee's performance, reasonable counselling action, reasonable suspension action, reasonable disciplinary action and failure by an employee to obtain a promotion, reclassification, transfer or benefit would not give rise to a compensable injury but claims for stress from overwork, change management and other activities would still be covered. I am advised that reasonable management action taken in a reasonable way by the employer in connection with the employer's employment is exempted in Queensland. I am advised that it is also exempted in South Australia and in Tasmania. I want to stress that there is no intention whatsoever that stress related injuries would not be compensable in a general sense, as seemed to be the suggestion from the member for Greenway and the member for Lowe.On the question of compensation for non-economic loss that was raised by the shadow minister, I accept that the old table has not been indexed, but it was not indexed by the former government between 1988 and 1996. If it is indexed, I am advised that it will provide people with an incentive for delaying claims, and obviously it is better to have these things considered and dealt with rather more quickly than that.The shadow minister was rather sceptical of the consultation processes that have been engaged in. I am advised that the consultation process was conducted by the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission and consultation took place with Comcare, Australia Post, Telstra, the Reserve Bank, ADI and the Department of Defence. Under the ordinary provisions of the committee on industrial legislation, there was consultation, I understand, with the ACTU and with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. Like the shadow minister, I am looking forward to the Senate committee report and will look carefully at what it has to say.I listened with concern and interest to the thoughtful and well-researched contribution of the member for Calare. I appreciate his decision, in consultation with his constituent, to raise a particular matter in the House. I can say that my advice is that there is another side to this particular story. Rather than put it all on the record here, I am happy to discuss it privately with the member for Calare. But let me just say that the decision is currently subject to an internal review by Comcare on the request of Ms Grimley's solicitors, and should Ms Grimley be dissatisfied with the outcome of this review she has a right to appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. As I said, I am happy to talk further about this with the member for Calare.I have not been advised as yet on the subject of the costs of legal services in the pre-outsourcing days compared to the current costs of legal services, but I will seek that information and come back to the member for Calare. If things are as the member for Calare suggests, he has made a good point and it needs to be addressed. In closing, I should indicate that the government will be moving some technical amendments. I understand that is going to be done in the Senate. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Message from Governor-General recommending appropriation for the purposes of the bill announced.26619Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.17:14:0026619Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—As there are six amendments standing in my name, I might suggest, for the convenience of the House, that we deal with amendment No. 1 by itself and then deal with the remainder as one block. That might expedite matters for the House. The first amendment deals with the definition of compensable disease and injury, and it was the subject of some comment I made during my speech in the second reading debate. The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business also made some comments about it in his closing remarks.My understanding is in fact different from that which the minister has just put on the record, and I will go through the details. At the moment an injury or disease is compensable under Commonwealth law. The test requires that there be a material degree for disease only for compensation to apply. The proposal in this bill is substantially more onerous than that. Compensable disease would exist where there is a material degree which is subsequently defined as having a close connection. That definition of close connection is then further spelt out and lists certain elements which I do not think I need to go into for the purposes of the consideration in detail stage, but they were discussed during the second reading debate. The definitions of what constitutes a close connection are then taken into account, plus a catch-all of any other matter. In the bill there is also a new exclusion for injury which provides that there is no injury if the claimed injury is a natural progression of an existing disease.Those conditions are more onerous than those that apply in each of the other jurisdictions. For example, in Victoria I believe the relevant act is the Accident Compensation Act 1985. It requires that there be a significant contributing factor, with the list of the factors to be taken into account. In New South Wales the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 requires a substantial contributing factor to the disease. In South Australia the relevant act requires a substantial cause for stress only. In Western Australia the Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 1981 requires that employment be a contributing factor and that it contribute to a significant degree—and that applies for disease only. Queensland requires a significantly contributing factor. In Tasmania it is `to a substantial degree for disease'. In the Northern Territory the act requires a test of having materially contributed to a disease. And the ACT simply requires that employment contribute to the compensable disease or injury.In every one of those cases, the test is less rigorous than that proposed by the bill. This is an important issue, because it will deny people who currently have a claim for compensation the opportunity to gain some compensation arising from disease or, in some cases, injury during employment. We see no justification in denying that access to public servants who currently have that option. There has not, in our view, been a case presented by the government to support that. Contrary to the advice given by the minister a short while ago, it is a more onerous test than applies under state jurisdiction and, without going back through the tables and the rates and so on simply to restate the conditions here during the consideration in detail stage, the scheme is, as the minister said, a good scheme. It is operating well and it is operating efficiently at a low cost. In those circumstances, to deny workers access to the compensation that they are currently able to access is, in our view, without merit, and we oppose it. I therefore move amendment No. 1: (1) Schedule 2, Part 1, page 16 (line 5) to page 19 (line 21), omit the Part.17:18:0026620Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I do not wish to delay the consideration of the bill and I do not want to be nitpicking, but I do want to reassure the House that the advice that I have is that what we are seeking here is not to make the Commonwealth regime tougher than the states. My understanding of what we are doing is requiring a significant contribution, which is what many of the states also require. In some instances, they require a substantial contribution which, to my way of thinking, is actually a tougher test than the test here in the Commonwealth. So I do not accept the member for Brisbane's suggestions. Perhaps we can sit down together in another context and go through the wording and have another look at it.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—I think that there has been some discussion between the Chief Government Whip and the Chief Opposition Whip and it might suit our purposes if the debate were adjourned or, alternatively, I am quite happy to make another contribution.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Am I correct in assuming that the member for Brisbane would like the call?ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—Indeed I do, Mr Deputy Speaker.17:20:0026620Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—The offer from the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to analyse some of the words and actually compare notes is probably a useful one for us to take up, which is maybe a good reason why the debate should be adjourned. I go back to the concerns other members of the Labor Party and I expressed about definitions. The way in which the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation and Other Legislation Amendment Bill 2000 is couched does, I believe, open the gates for restrictions to be placed on workers that are unfair and unreasonable. The minister has referred to what the bill is not intended to do in response to the concerns that have been raised; what the minister has not done is actually spell out the scope and intentions of the bill.What the government needs to do in response to our concerns is not just say, `Well, it's not intended to do A or B.' They actually have to set out what it is intended to do and the scope of the provisions that are there. For example, the scope `a pre-existing illness' or a `predisposition to an illness'. What do they mean? Does it mean that if somebody has high blood pressure, for example, and subsequently has a heart attack in the office while they are working would be told, `You have a higher bar to jump over in order to get any compensation,' or, indeed, `You may not get compensation because you had blood pressure problems before you came here that had nothing to do with the office'? And, because you had blood pressure problems, the fact that you may have been under stress in the office is not sufficiently well proven to justify that payment. That is unfair imposition to place on employees when, at the moment, those circumstances would be compensable.The government, if it wishes to see this legislation through, is going to have to address the scope of its amendments; not simply talk about what it will not do, but talk about what it can do—the parameters that apply in the operation of this. I admitted that I did not think that it was ever the intention but, nonetheless, I gave the example that, if you look at the scope of a predisposition to a particular illnesses—it may not just be the sort of medical test that we now identify and think of in relation to life insurance policies that we take out—what would preclude a requirement for DNA testing to show predisposition to particular illnesses? If there is a DNA profile of someone and it identifies a predisposition to an illness, does that mean that they have got no hope of getting compensation for that propensity in their genes to suffer a particular illness? That is unacceptable, and the government have not provided a justification to take those rights of way from their employees in the context of a scheme that is operating very effectively and, as was acknowledged by government and opposition members, very efficiently.We will stand by our amendments. The minister may like to spell out the parameters of some of those changes in relation to disease and illness—but they are quite far reaching. There has not been a case mounted to justify them. I stand by my earlier comments. To the best of my knowledge, the provisions are more restrictive than those applying to schemes for public servants in the states. We see no reason why Commonwealth public servants should be treated to a lesser standard of workers compensation cover—should have a higher burden placed on them—than is general for workers in the states. 4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: it has not been your or your predecessor's intention to allow people to bring things into the chamber for stunts. If the government does intend to allow that now, we would welcome it and we will have lots of stunts in the future. But I would like you to insist on what your predecessors have done with whatever this fellow over there has sitting on the desk.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I thank the Chief Opposition Whip for his point of order. I advise him and the House that, after I noticed `space station Mir' being resurrected, I inquired of the member for Herbert whether he had obtained permission from Mr Speaker to bring that contraption into the House. He has assured me that he has Mr Speaker's approval and, with that assurance in my mind, I feel I am obliged to allow it to continue in its position.17:26:0026621Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Like the member for Brisbane, I do not want to see a situation where Commonwealth public servants are disadvantaged compared with public servants in other jurisdictions. I am happy to sit down with the member for Brisbane and go through these provisions line by line, comma by comma, and try to satisfy him that the government's intentions are honourable. Certainly, it is not our intention that DNA testing can rule people out of compensation. If this is the member's concern, I am sure we can find a way of ensuring that that is accommodated.I am advised that, where an employee suffers a heart attack or stroke at work, he or she will not have to establish that employment contributed unless the incident is found to have been the natural progression of a disease, that is, part and parcel of the disease process and to be treated as such. In all other cases, the heart attack or stroke would be compensable if it happens at work. All we are seeking is that the relevant disease made a significant contribution to the compensable happening. As I said, that is a requirement in all the other jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, they appear to have a heavier requirement than we are proposing. But, as I said, I am happy to take that up with the member for Brisbane in a different context.17:28:0026621Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—On that specific point that the minister has just been discussing—the question of the natural progression of a disease—the minister might care to identify how it is proposed to firstly gather the information upon which that analysis would be made. That is, at the point at which an injury or an illness occurs, how is the information going to be obtained to decide whether or not that was a natural progression of some pre-existing illness? What information will be required to be provided and how will that be provided to identify what pre-existing illnesses people may have had? It is not just pre-existing illnesses; the bill refers to a predisposition to illnesses. How do you determine whether people have a predisposition? How do you know whether someone who has not actually had a particular illness may have a predisposition to get it? Until the government can actually spell out the detail of that, it invites a whole range of interpretations, like DNA testing. I do not think it was in the minds of people to get involved in DNA testing, but I invite the government to explain how it intends to identify that people have a predisposition to a particular type of illness.Let us take the example of someone who has a heart attack at work. I am not a doctor, but a predisposition to a heart attack may be associated with a family history, it may be associated with high blood pressure and it may be associated with high cholesterol. Does that mean that we are going to blood test people and check what their cholesterol levels are? And if they have high cholesterol and if they have bad blood pressure, are we going to say, `Well, here is a person with a predisposition to a heart attack.' That is the nuts and bolts application that the bill lends itself to. I go back to my earlier comment: until the government can actually define not the bits that it is not but the bits that it is—that is, tell us what the bill empowers people to do and how that is going to occur—I am afraid we are left with a difference of opinion. Consideration interrupted.Adjournment2662210000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2662217:30:0026622Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—I seek to raise this evening an issue that has been raised with me in my electorate by a representative of the local Chilean community—an issue that is being pursued by the Chilean Committee of Refugees and Relatives of Missing People. As I am sure all members of this House are aware, Chile suffered for a period under a fascist regime—that is, the Pinochet dictatorship. During that period, a large number of people fled Chile to escape the dictatorship. Many of them have made Australia their home, and a number of them are located in my electorate. As a result of the recognition in Chile of the atrocities committed under the Pinochet dictatorship, a compensation scheme has been determined and legislated by the Chilean government. That compensation scheme is designed to give ex gratia payments, payments of mercy, to those who suffered either as a result of torture or the loss of a loved one or family member, or who suffered economically because they were persecuted and driven away from their place of employment by the Pinochet regime.An issue has been raised with me about the treatment of these small `pensions of mercy' under Australian law. I am advised that the former Minister for Family and Community Services was in dialogue about this very question with the Chilean ambassador. I have with me a copy of a letter that she wrote to His Excellency, dated 19 January, where she indicated her preparedness to look at the treatment of these moneys for social security purposes. As I understand it, the matter has not been further advanced, and my purpose in raising it tonight is to urge upon the government and upon members of this House the need for this matter to be expedited and to receive the most sympathetic treatment possible.Just to make the issue clear, we are dealing with an ageing community, individuals of which might well be eligible for social security benefits and, particularly, for the age pension. In the ordinary course, moneys received from overseas are taken into account in the income test for the age pension, as indeed are moneys that an Australian local might receive from Australian sources or from performing some part-time work or what have you. However, under our Social Security Act some specific exemptions have been made so that some income is not treated as income for social security purposes. The Australian government has made a deliberate policy decision that some sources of income will not prejudice a person's entitlement to social security benefits and, most particularly, to the age pension. I refer in that regard to section 8 of the Social Security Act 1991. Section 8 is the definitional section. In the way of definitional sections in major pieces of legislation, it is long and complex. If you chase it through, it defines, in subsections 8(8)(n) and 8(8)(p), that the amounts paid from the following sources will not be treated as income for social security purposes. In relation to subsection 8(8)(n), that source is:an amount paid:(i) by the Federal Republic of Germany under the laws of that Republic; or (ii) by a State of the Federal Republic of Germany under the laws of that State; by way of compensation for a victim of National Socialist persecutionIn relation to subsection 8(8)(p), that source is:an amount paid by the Republic of Austria under the laws of that Republic by way of compensation to a victim of National Socialist persecutionSo our law—and I draw the attention of the House to that section specifically—has already recognised that payments of mercy, compensatory payments to victims of fascism, ought not to be taken into account in the income test for social security purposes. It seems to me that the case raised by those in the Chilean community who have suffered under the Pinochet fascist dictatorship is on the same footing, with the exemption already in our social security legislation. Consequently, I am urging the government to give the most prompt and most sympathetic treatment possible to the request of the Chilean community that the very small pensions of mercy they receive not be treated as income for social security purposes. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I recognise the member for Herbert but I require him, at the conclusion of his address, to remove that monstrosity from the chamber. He asked my permission to bring it into the chamber and he was less than fulsome in his explanation as to its dimensions or the fact that it would contain a burning wick. I will therefore feel that a precedent has been created which will require me to require more detail in future from members who are seeking my permission.2662317:36:0026623Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10— Thank you, Mr Speaker. I would like to report to the parliament tonight on a very special project in Townsville which will be dedicated on Saturday by the Governor of Queensland, Major General Peter Arnison. Back in 1997, following the 25th anniversary of the end of Australia's involvement in the Vietnam War, Vietnam veterans in Towns-ville got together to float the idea of a memorial in Townsville to commemorate that particular war. A couple of years went by, the matter was raised again and the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Townsville 2001 Committee was formed.The idea that was originally proposed was then further expanded upon. The small committee that was involved in the planning decided, after looking at many ideas, many concepts, that they would expand the idea to really commemorate all of the wars. The concept was taken to a VVA general meeting and overwhelmingly endorsed. A local architect was approached for the design work and during site discussions size and concepts and so on were sorted out. The Townsville City Council gave very graciously every support and helped with the environmental, heritage and engineering approvals required for the construction of the memorial in Anzac Park.Anzac Way, as this new memorial will be known, is robustly constructed to exemplify the strength of character and determination of spirit of the people memorialised therein. It is not a memorial to the dead; it is a memorial to the deeds and sacrifices of ordinary people, and provides an avenue to the Townsville Cenotaph at which we can gather each year to honour our dead of all wars and of all service. It recognises the contribution of all Australians to the maintenance and protection of basic human freedoms worldwide.The civilian column honours the contributions made by members of the civil community to the military and to the nation. The four columns stand as sentinels symbolic of a catafalque party, artillery pieces holding ground or a guard of honour through which the visitor moves. The sails are at the precise angles of weapons raised for a fleur-de-joie or for volleys over a fallen comrade. Perhaps reflective of Australia's contribution to the maintenance of peace worldwide, the sail extends protective arches over the map of the world and visitors are able to view the extent of Anzac Way from the comfort of that protection. The eternal flame is traditional, its central location above the map of the world illuminating the past that gave us the freedoms of today, and it provides a light of hope for the future. Today, in a very special ceremony at the Australian War Memorial, I was privileged, along with others, to light these two lamps from the eternal flame. Tomorrow, with the very great generosity and support of Ansett Australia, these lamps will be flown from Canberra to Townsville. On their arrival in Townsville, they will be kept overnight; and on Saturday the manager of Ansett, Mr David Ryan, and I will present the light from the Australian War Memorial eternal flame to the Governor of Queensland to enable him to light the eternal flame in Townsville.This project has been a great credit to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial Townsville 2001 Committee and particularly to Brigadier Neil Weeks and his committee. It is also a great credit to the special way that Ansett Australia have helped to do the impossible and to get the flame from the Australian War Memorial to light the eternal flame in Townsville. I thank them for that.2662417:40:0026624Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—If there is one thing I have learnt about being an elected representative in this House, it is simple: you support the people who elect you and you must do it consistently. Therefore, there are two issues I would like to bring to the attention of the House this evening. Firstly, and probably most importantly, is the intersection between Weakly's Drive and the New England Highway—part of the national highway and therefore part of the Commonwealth government's responsibility for funding. This intersection is very dangerous. In fact, it is a killer. It makes life hell for the people who use it, be they the residents of Thornton and Beresfield or the workers at the large adjacent industrial estate. My parliamentary colleague the member for Hunter, Mr Joel Fitzgibbon, and I are proud of our record with regard to this intersection. It is an intersection that lies jointly between our two electorates. Our support ranges from a commitment in 1995 by the then Minister for Transport, the Hon. Laurie Brereton, to upgrade this intersection to a visit in August last year by the current shadow minister, Mr Martin Ferguson, Mr Fitzgibbon and me.A headline in the local Maitland Mercury `Road action demanded' called on the government to get on with the job, fund that intersection and get it constructed. But obviously it fell on deaf ears. The cost is in the order of $20 million, so I had a look at the record of this government's expenditure on this particular intersection. I found that nothing was spent in the financial year 1995-96, nothing was spent in 1996-97, $200,000 was spent on some deceleration lanes in 1997-98, half a million dollars was spent on a set of traffic lights in 1998-99 and nothing was spent in 1999-2000 or in the current year.So you can imagine my surprise when I saw an article in the Maitland Mercury on Monday by the Liberal candidate calling for the end of politics to get this intersection built. Do you know why he wants to get rid of politics from this intersection? Because the current government have a shameful record and have virtually spent nothing on it. Of course, I am quite happy to remain political to fight for the rights of the people of Thornton and Beresfield, because that is the only way this intersection will get built. For that reason, I have placed questions on notice to the minister this week, and I would ask that he might try to find time to answer them before the election.The other issue I would like to bring up is an issue that was raised in the House by the Minister for Defence this week, and that is the early warning aircraft, the ones that we are now buying from America, virtually complete. When the former Minister for Defence, Mr Moore, announced this project—a number of times, might I add, but certainly before the last election—it was a project of great promise. It was a project of great promise to the people of the Hunter region because it offered a new generation of high-tech jobs. It offered the sorts of jobs that Australia simply does not have. The technology in these aircraft is at a significantly higher level, and I am sure that the university students, the young people we have in the Air Force, would do the job equally as well as American technicians if they were only given the chance. We were told by Minister Reith this week that they will not be given the chance because these aircraft are now going to be imported and that the only jobs we can look forward to are in maintenance; even then, they may be flown back to the Boeing factory in the United States for servicing. That will be a tragedy for Australia if that happens but it is also significant that it marks a return to the old days when the Minister for Defence went overseas with a chequebook every couple of years to spend billions of dollars. Australian tradesmen, Australian professionals, have shown that they can produce quality aircraft, quality submarines and quality frigates. In fact, our defence industry has great potential. The Labor Party are proud that they were instrumental in developing it and I ask Minister Reith to make sure that the tradition in defence industry continues in Australia.2662517:45:0026625Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—Almost 12 months ago I acted as MC at a major fundraiser at the St George Leagues Club for a young man who was suffering from motor neurone disease. I had had very little contact with anybody suffering from that disease until that time. The young man, who was quite a serious athlete, was struck down in his prime by this illness. It was quite a tragedy not only for him but for his family and his young children. As a result of that, I have taken quite an interest in motor neurone disease, and from Monday through to Friday of this week is Motor Neurone Disease Awareness Week, culminating tomorrow with Cornflower Blue Day. Motor neurone disease, MND, affects thousands of Australians, and yet most of us know almost nothing about it. In my electorate of Cook, there are currently around 20 people diagnosed as having MND and 10 people in my electorate have died as a result of it in the last year. Across Australia, there were an estimated 376 deaths from the disease in 2000—more than one death per day. I should note that these figures represent only people who are registered with the Motor Neurone Disease Association, and it is estimated that only around 70 per cent of people who have MND register with that body. The Motor Neurone Disease Association of New South Wales currently has around 400 people with the disease on its records, and in all probability there are many more that we are unaware of. Motor neurone disease is the name given to a group of related diseases that affect the nerve cells that allow us to perform day-to-day functions such as breathing, speaking and swallowing. Not only are the nerves affected; eventually many of the muscles that are vital to these basic functions begin to waste away. The combination of these two factors is what makes MND so devastating. In most cases, MND has no effect on the intellect or sensory neurones. This means that many cases of MND result in a fully active mind being trapped inside a body that is not able to properly perform its most basic functions. MND is not a rare disease in Australia. In fact, on average, one person in this country is diagnosed with this disease every day. Twice as many people die from MND annually than do from multiple sclerosis, Huntington's disease and muscular dystrophy combined. Despite the high incidence of cases, MND is very difficult to diagnose. In fact, in some cases it can be months before a diagnosis can be made with any certainty and even then there can be an element of doubt. Following a diagnosis, there is no tangible cure for this disease, although there is a range of treatments that can be used to alleviate any pain or discomfort, depending on the stage of the disease's development. It is important for mobility of limbs to be maintained for as long as possible, and physiotherapy can relieve the pain which results from cramping, wasting of muscles and tremors. Most people with MND will experience fatigue, brought about by weaker chest muscles making it more difficult to breathe. They will also be less mobile. Swallowing food and drink can become problematic, which means that in many cases the patient requires a great deal of care and attention—a situation that is demanding for the carers, and frustrating for the patient who, not very long before, was able to perform these basic actions without thinking twice. To add to these difficulties, it has also proven difficult to pin down the causes of MND, which makes it hard to direct a specific public awareness campaign. As I have said, this week marks Motor Neurone Disease Awareness Week, which culminates in Cornflower Blue Day tomorrow. The MND Association is encouraging as many people as possible to wear blue tomorrow, and to buy a blue cornflower or some cornflower seeds in order to raise general awareness of this terrible condition. There will be schoolchildren and volunteers from the association at most major railway stations and in shopping centres around Australia, and I urge anyone who sees a group of these people to stop and make a gold coin donation. Their support is vital to the people in my electorate of Cook, and around Australia, who are living with motor neurone disease.2662617:50:0026626Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—It is with some irony that I rise in the House this evening in this year of the centenary of our Federation, a year in which we are celebrating the history of our Federation, after I have discovered that in my own electorate of Griffith the repository of the National Archives of Australia located at Cannon Hill is in the process of being sold. This is of great concern to the residents of my electorate and also to those interested in the history of the state of Queensland and in its role in the Federation compact. The collection at Cannon Hill comprises a rich and varied source of documents on Queensland's participation in the Federation. It also provides a rich resource for those interested in family histories to make use of in compiling their family genealogies.On our side we are concerned about two or three things. The first is this: simply the economics of the proposition which is before us. When we look at the proposed rental costs of the replacement facility, which will be a much smaller facility, located as a shopfront within Brisbane's CBD, we are concerned that within a matter of simply five, six or seven years whatever savings may be gained through the sale of this facility at Cannon Hill will be lost in terms of the rental payments which will be made over the same period of time.Our second concern of course relates to staff, who have been through a period, I think, of considerable duress as a result of this decision to sell the Cannon Hill repository for the National Archives, though I have received some assurances from the local manager of the National Archives of Australia that no staff member will lose their job. I will wait and see if that in fact is honoured.However, our third and primary concern is this: the actual integrity of the collection. I have specifically sought assurances from the relevant minister and from his department that not a single document will be destroyed as a consequence of this move. I have received a curious undertaking from the relevant officer of National Archives in response to the question which I have put to the minister, along the lines that no records are being destroyed as a result of the sale of the Cannon Hill repository. Records are not being destroyed as a result of the Archives vacating the repository. The assessment and `subsequent disposal' of the collection flows from the responsibility of the National Archives to identify and dispose of records of no continuing historical and administrative value. I am deeply concerned that the decision to sell the repository at Cannon Hill may become a pretext for a rapid culling and rationalisation of the existing holdings—and who knows what documents may be destroyed as a consequence of that?As I said before, local residents are deeply concerned about this, as are residents from right across the City of Brisbane and beyond who make regular use of this facility for a whole host of research related purposes. Because of this and because of widespread community concern, the auction for the sale of this facility, which was scheduled for late March, has now mysteriously been postponed to 10 April. The stated reason for this is that those auctioning this piece of Commonwealth government property on behalf of the Commonwealth are concerned that people who are concerned about any loss of documents may show up and disrupt the auction. I would have thought that was people's democratic right in the first place—to express their point of view. Now we are told that DOFA, the department responsible, is going to conduct the sale of this asset in private at a local hotel away from the site so that media attention, presumably, will be minimised. I do not think that is the right way to go and I am quite disappointed that that decision has been taken. We also have a precedent for this, Mr Speaker, in your own state of South Australia. The National Archives repository there was also sold, and I understand that there was a rationalisation of the shelf space from some 29 shelf kilometres of files to 3.5 shelf kilometres of files when that facility was relocated from Collinswood to a smaller building in Angus Street in the City of Adelaide. Our concern in Brisbane is exactly the same. If you have this massive contraction of shelf space it means that documents are going to be culled. Whether we call the process one of destruction or disposal becomes immaterial if documents disappear. That is why I have launched an FOI action against the government to get to the bottom of this. That is why I have put a question on notice to the minister to get to the bottom of this. I am seeking from him an unequivocal clear-cut undertaking that not a single document will be destroyed once the sale of this property occurs and the relocation of the collection to the other facility in the CBD, to other participating government departments or to any other facility belonging to National Archives elsewhere in Australia occurs. I have yet to receive that undertaking. I am optimistic that it will soon be delivered. (Time expired)2662717:55:0026627Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise this evening to bring the attention of the House to a long-awaited announcement in the Pilbara area of Western Australia. For the past few months we have all been following the Woodside versus Shell saga very carefully. The outcome of whether Shell will be permitted to take over the Western Australian company is yet to be ascertained. What is well known, however, is that the takeover of a Western Australian icon is not welcomed by the people of Western Australia and is most unwelcome in the town of Karratha. This week the focus on Woodside Petroleum has shifted slightly with the announcement that we in Western Australia have all been waiting for: the announcement of a $2.4 billion expansion in the North West Shelf liquefied natural gas project. There is no doubt that this expansion, increasing the project to the biggest liquefied national gas production train in the world, is going to have immense benefits for the local Pilbara, Western Australian and national economy. I congratulate Woodside, as the operator of the project, for its commitment to Western Australia, for its ongoing investment in infrastructure in the Pilbara region and its regional support overall. I congratulate the other partners in the project also for their commitment: Royal Dutch Shell, BHP, BP, Chevron and MIMI, Mitsubishi and Mitsui.I am happy to learn that Western Australian companies are to have a major role to play in the expansion of the project, which is located on the Burrup Peninsula near Karratha. Karratha is a key township within the Pilbara region and within the federal election of Kalgoorlie, which I am privileged to represent here in the House. It is a region where I have spent many years in business, and I personally know the boost that this project is going to give to industries and businesses in the Pilbara area. This is reward for the great effort and tenacity that has been shown by Karratha small business proprietors in hanging on for many years waiting for this announcement.I heard this week that the 4.2 million tonnes a year train would be designed in Perth, the first time the plant has been designed in its own home country. That is a major coup for that company, a major coup for Western Australia and a major coup for Australia as a whole. It is testament to the very high level of technical expertise to be found in Western Australia. The employment created is estimated at 400 new jobs in Perth during the initial stages and in Karratha the construction work force is expected to peak at about 2,000 people. I know this will be a welcome injection of employment in the Pilbara and it will have a tremendous flow-on effect to the social and economic prospects in that area. I am visiting Karratha next week with Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, the Hon. Joe Hockey. I know feeling in the town is going to be very positive and brimming with confidence and optimism. Studies have shown that the project will support about 9,000 jobs, directly and indirectly nationally during the construction stages. Construction is due to start in September, and once the project reaches the full peak in production, it is expected to increase state exports and gross state product by about $1 billion.The train 4 project includes an $800 million second trunkline to the gas fields, supplementing the existing submarine pipeline that runs from Rankin A platform into the Burrup LNG plant. This is a major injection into our local and national economy and the willingness of this level of commitment by the partners in this project is indicative of the level of justly deserved confidence many industries have in the future of Australia.Question resolved in the affirmative. 18:00:0026628House adjourned at 6.00 p.m. until Wednesday, 9 May 2001, at 2.00 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this dayNotices26628The following notices were given:MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr Baird—to move:That this House:(1) recognises the unique heritage value of the Kurnell peninsula;(2) urges the NSW Government not to proceed with rezoning of land on the peninsula, which would allow houses to be constructed under flight paths from Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport;(3) calls for a commission of inquiry into land use on the peninsula;(4) asks the three levels of government to note the historical and environmental significance of the Kurnell peninsula to Australia; and(5) requests the Commonwealth Government to consider allocating funds from the sale of Sydney Airport to purchase land on the peninsula to ensure that: (a) flight paths are not restricted by the construction of new housing; and (b) the area can be developed as a National Park for the enjoyment of all Australians.848Secker, Patrick, MPMr Secker—to move:That this House:(1) expresses its support for the development of the Kokoda Track as a National Memorial Park; and(2) calls on the Government to: (a) support and fund the construction of an all weather road from Kokoda to Ower's Corner, and of educational memorials at each of the battle sites along the Track; (b) commemorate the 60th anniversary of our brave armed forces campaign with an Anzac Day Dawn Service in 2002 at Ower's Corner; and (c) establish a project team to oversee these matters, consisting of representatives of the Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Foreign Affairs, Defence, Veterans' Affairs and Environment and Heritage.2001-04-05—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.49 a.m.Statements by Members266292662909:49:0026629Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—Transport is vital to Australia. It has long concerned me that we do not have a national transport strategy in Australia and that our transport needs are approached very much on an ad hoc basis. This is not helped by the federal system in Australia. Each state seems to have its own priorities, and nothing emphasises this more than the different rail gauges that existed in the early days. It has taken years of effort and millions of dollars to get a somewhat uniform approach to rail, and the jealousies of the states in the early days have cost producers in this country millions of dollars. I am not one of those who argue for a road/rail approach—an either/or process. We need an integrated approach encompassing both road and rail, and implicit in this is that rail must receive proper funding and not be expected to compete against roads, as it were, with one hand tied behind its back.Some years ago the federal government accepted responsibility for some funding under the national highway program, but unless you are on that highway you are disadvantaged in regard to road. The Princes Highway linking Sydney to Melbourne along the South Coast should be declared a road of national importance. Just yesterday, the Prime Minister put a stop to that by saying that such a road would not receive federal funding, so deaths will continue on that road. Local producers will be disadvantaged, while the South Coast and Illawarra again miss out. You will appreciate, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, because of your campaign regarding North Coast roads, that there are more deaths per kilometre on the Princes Highway than there are on the Hume Highway. So there is absolutely no doubt that good roads save lives.Another part of my integrated plan is to have ports linked to the hinterland. Thus I have argued for many years for a replacement road to Macquarie Pass so that the port of Kembla can reach its full potential as an export development port to complement the work that the Port Kembla Corporation has achieved. I call on the Prime Minister and, indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister with his special responsibilities, to adequately fund the Princes Highway and to declare it a road of national importance. The whole Princes Highway network should be a road of national importance. It is good enough for the Sydney to Brisbane route to have two major roads and a railway. On the South Coast, the railway stops at Bomaderry. The only thing we have south of Bomaderry is a narrow deathtrap of a road. It should be adequately funded, because there is no other transport network there. The rail stops at Bomaderry and then you go onto the Princes Highway. I was on the Princes Highway last weekend. It is a narrow, dangerous deathtrap of a road. The statistics show that there are more deaths per kilometre on the Princes Highway than on the Hume Highway. (Time expired)2662909:52:0026629Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I rise this morning to discuss an issue which has the ability to impact favourably upon the largest and most important industry on Queensland's Sunshine Coast—tourism. Recently, I received correspondence from Mr John Liddicoat, General Manager of Tourism Sunshine Coast, seeking my support for the Australian Tourist Commission, which, as members would know, does a fantastic job in promoting Australia internationally as the world's best tourism experience.Honourable members—Hear, hear! 0V5Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER—I thank my colleagues for saying that. My local tourism body wrote to me, urging me to support more funding for the ATC in the 2001-02 budget. The Sunshine Coast's growing tourism industry is becoming more and more dependent on an emerging demand for tourism income from abroad. That is why this issue is of great concern to me and to the thousands of Sunshine Coast residents who rely directly upon the success of the local tourism industry as their primary source of income. Inbound tourism is a major source of export earnings for this country. This year, the industry will generate $15.4 billion in export earnings. This industry represents big dollars for our economy.In light of Tourism Sunshine Coast's support, coupled with intensive lobbying by the Australian Tourist Commission itself, I have chosen to write to the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, and the Minister for Sport and Tourism seeking favourable consideration of the ATC's request for increased funding in the forthcoming budget. I have not taken that decision lightly, but the tourism industry on the Sunshine Coast is too valuable to the local economy for me not to act upon the concerns of tourism bodies and the community at large. It must be said that, during their 13 years in office, Labor's attention to the Sunshine Coast and to Australian tourism industries was, to say the least, abysmal. Under Labor, tourism failed to meet its full potential and was undermined by red tape and poor economic management. Clearly, this government, unlike an ex union-organiser dominated Labor Party, contains many members who have a direct understanding—many from experience—of the issues that small business in the tourism industry face on a daily basis.The issue of the Australian Tourist Commission requiring greater funding is of considerable concern to me. That is a message I want Sunshine Coast tourism operators and the Sunshine Coast community to hear clearly today. I am acutely aware that this government is still under pressure to clean up the fiscal mess made by Labor while it lazed on the government benches, but I sincerely hope that the government can find the dollars and cents to make sure that the ATC operates to its full potential and keeps full passenger jets landing at Brisbane International Airport—and, increasingly, on the Sunshine Coast—for many years to come.I also want to briefly comment adversely on the remarks made by Premier Beattie in relation to the $40 million allocated by the Commonwealth government from the Federation Fund to improve the Sunshine Coast roadway access to Brisbane. What a hide, what audacity Premier Beattie has to claim that this money was for Brisbane. I wonder what the Labor candidate for Longman and the new Labor members on the Sunshine Coast would say to Premier Beattie's denial that this important area rightly deserves the funds allocated by the federal government.2663009:55:0026630Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—I rise today to speak of the plight of two of my constituents—Jane and Geoffrey Day—and Mrs Day's two children, whom Mrs Day alleges were kidnapped. In May last year, while visiting her parents on Labuan Island off Sarawak in Malaysia, Mrs Day's children, Alison aged three and Justin aged four, were removed from their mother and detained by her parents. It would appear that this was in response to Jane separating from the children's father, Hong Kong resident Mr Alan Kwong Lun Chan, and beginning a relationship with Perth nursing assistant Geoffrey Day. This had infuriated her mother. Jane and Geoffrey have since married. In yesterday's West Australian, Mrs Day told the paper's Julie Butler that her mother had demanded that she break it off. Mrs Day went on to say:My parents refused to give back my children's passports and locked them in a safety box, discussions with my family became quite heated, culminating in my parents assaulting me physically and throwing me out of my house.Mrs Day then returned to Perth without the children and has been fighting for their return ever since. Last weekend the Days returned to Malaysia in a desperate effort to have the children returned. This was the first time in nearly 12 months that the mother had seen her children. They went to the children's school. The school notified the grandfather and he came and took the children away. If the grandparents take the children to Hong Kong to see the father, the problem is that he may take them to mainland China where the Days will have little chance of bringing the children home, or even of seeing them again. I have been informed by the office of the Minister for Foreign Affairs that they are offering assistance to the Days. I thank and commend them for that effort, and I hope that they will continue to do so. The Days have also called on the Australian community to support them, and I urge them to do so. They hope that by going public other parents may avoid the same plight. The West Australian also reports that in 1999 150 Australian children were involved in abductions, either into or from Australia. I believe we need to do more to address this international dilemma, particularly when we are dealing with children who are Australian citizens and who have been detained overseas against the wishes of a parent.Whilst the grandparents should have access to their grandchildren, the parent should always have precedence. In this case, the father is not in Malaysia—I am informed that he is in Hong Kong—and therefore he is not involved in their upbringing. I also call on the Malaysian government to help prevent the spread of this practice and to facilitate the early return of these children.2663109:58:0026631Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—Last week I had the opportunity to speak in the adjournment debate about Australia's organ donation: the fact that some 90 per cent of our countrymen support it but we have a very low donation rate, and the need to encourage contact between the families of donors and recipients. I want to put on the record some comments that I think will encourage families to consider the donation of the organs of their loved ones. I have here an excerpt from a letter from a recipient of donor organs. It says:First let me say how sorry I am for your loss. I of course have no idea how, or in what circumstances your loved one died. It must be difficult at the time of this first Christmas and coming up to the first anniversary when you wonder what might have been ... There are several very beautiful paragraphs in this letter, but I will just go to the one that I think is the most poignant. It says:I also think of your loved one constantly, but clearly in a different light. I think of someone who was so unselfish that they thought of what they could do for others at the time of their death. Such a quality is very rare in this materialistic society but it is a quality that has given me a new lease on life and it is one for which I will be grateful for all of eternity. Once again I thank you from the bottom of my heart for what you and your family have done fore me and my family.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded. Adjournment26631Motion (by Mr Prosser) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.2663110:00:0026631Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Yesterday I spoke in parliament about the impact of the GST on small business. I want to talk today about the impact of the GST and the behaviour of major insurance companies on the smash repair industry and small businesses operating in that industry. This industry has been especially hard hit by the GST, because it performs some of the many services that are for the first time taxed by the GST. The smash repair industry has been not only affected by the GST but doubly hit by the falling Australian dollar, because quite a lot of this industry's costs are costs of imported items. With the dollar now below US50c, obviously the cost of imported material, such as paint, is now much greater as a result of the depreciation in the dollar. We were told before the GST was introduced that it would increase the value of the dollar. It has done nothing of the sort; the dollar, as we know, is now at an all-time low. In addition to that squeeze as a result of changes to the tax system, there is a squeeze on these small reputable operators within the smash repair industry by insurers themselves. They are forcing the small businesses to absorb the cost increases associated with the falling value of the dollar and also to absorb part of the GST. This is a very similar pattern of behaviour to that of the trucking companies which are squeezing drivers who are under pressure because of the GST and fuel cost increases. Insurers are also directing, in some cases, smash repairers to use non-genuine replacement parts, often without the knowledge of the owners of the vehicles. I call on the insurers to review their behaviour and their abuse of market power over these small and reputable smash repairers. We do not want the fly-by-night operators surviving and the reputable smash repairers going to the wall. The public needs to know what is going on—that is, a deteriorating quality of work, the use of non-genuine replacement parts and ethical operators being squeezed out by unethical behaviour. I link all of these realities to bankruptcy figures that were released just yesterday. In my home state of Queensland, bankruptcies are up to 21½ per cent in the three months to March compared with three months in the previous year. In addition, debt agreements are up by a massive almost 50 per cent. It was forecast by economic modellers that Queensland and Tasmania would be the states most adversely affected by the GST. Those forecasts are now becoming reality. It is not as if the government was not warned: even its own modellers predicted that Queensland and Tasmania would be the most adversely affected states. In Tasmania there was a massive 17.24 per cent increase in bankruptcies in the March quarter compared with the corresponding period for the previous year. Compare that with the Australia-wide figure of 13.64 per cent. These are unacceptable figures. They are very high and, unfortunately, they are just as were predicted by economic modellers in the Australian Labor Party.2663210:03:0026632Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise today to commend those in the electorate of Cook who received the Commonwealth Senior Recognition Awards. I want to commend them for their fine efforts in looking after senior citizens and for their involvement in the community. The following people were granted awards. The first recipient is Ron Barker, who runs the senior ministry at the Gymea Baptist Church. He oversees Turner Lodge in both an administrative and pastoral sense. Turner Lodge provides aged care places for senior people in our community—something there is a critical shortage of in the Sutherland Shire. Ron's efforts are extremely valued. Ron is never slow to volunteer for countless tasks and also organises regular meetings and outings for his war veterans' group.The second recipient was Allan Dunn, who has delivered meals to the residents of Sutherland shire every week for around seven years. He is one of the most consistent and dedicated volunteers of Meals on Wheels. It is not unusual for Allan to do four days a week, and sometimes two deliveries a day, to help out if a volunteer is unable to do their normal rostered day. He also often takes the extra step with clients: doing odd jobs, taking them shopping or on an outing—anything to make their day a little brighter. Allan is also a volunteer driver for the combined caring centres in the shire twice a week, and he still finds the time to visit clients who have gone into nursing home care that do not have regular contact with their family. The third is Albert Hawkes, who has delivered meals to the residents of the Sutherland shire every week since 1992. He is also a member of the management committee of Sutherland Food Services Meals on Wheels. His colleagues describe him as the type of volunteer who will be the first person to put his hand up to volunteer for anything that needs to be done—from doing the odd maintenance type of job to helping out as an emergency driver at a minute's notice. Albert is also a member of the New South Wales Police Legacy, where he assists 12 families in the Sutherland shire, and is a voluntary member of the Australian Softball Association Championships. He was also one of the very popular Sydney 2000 Olympic volunteers.Another volunteer is M'Liss Kerz. She is another one doing great work for Meals on Wheels in the shire. She has delivered meals for 26 years and is the type of volunteer who will go out of her way to assist clients in doing the shopping and other small tasks. M'Liss is one of the support group committee members at Meals on Wheels that fundraise to purchase gifts to give to clients for birthdays, Christmas and Easter. M'liss has a long history of selfless volunteer work. She continued working for the Ladies Auxiliary at Port Hacking High School for six years after her own children left the school.Patricia Monk has given years of service to the Cronulla Sutherland War Widows Guild. As many of you will know, the guild provides an important network for widows who lost their husbands while they were serving their country in war. Patricia is currently the president of the Cronulla Sutherland branch and has a position on the New South Wales board of the War Widows Guild. Previously she was vice-president of our local branch for many years. Patricia's work is extremely highly valued by the members of the guild, both at local and state level. She is very actively involved in fundraising so that they can continue to do their excellent work.Celia Muirson has given long and tireless service to the Sutherland Shire Stroke Recovery Club, which she helped to establish. The club has now been operating at the RSL in Cronulla for around 14 years. It is made up entirely of volunteers, including previous stroke victims, their families and their friends. Stroke patients are referred to the club and then receive vital support with their socialisation and rebuilding their confidence in what can be an extremely distressing period for them. This group provides a service that is simply not available in other parts of Sydney. We are extremely lucky to benefit from the work of Celia and her co-volunteers.Albert Peachey is the last member of the excellent group from Meals on Wheels. He has been assisting the senior members of our community by delivering them meals for eight years. He was also nominated because of his preparedness to take the extra step with clients. He gives a great deal of time to the service, often working four days a week, sometimes doing two delivery runs per day or four runs per week. He is involved with the local Cronulla RSL youth club, managing teams and publicity for them in the past 35 years. He was a volunteer driver during the Olympic and Paralympic Games.Marie Renneberg oversees two caring centres for the elderly at Gymea Baptist Church. Among other things, this involves coordinating the other volunteers who work there to ensure there is always someone to do the job. In all, the two caring centres care for around a dozen older Australians, and Marie selflessly gives up a great deal of her own time to ensure that these people are well cared for.Daphne Sheehan is very involved in the St George and Sutherland shire division of Legacy and has also given a great deal of time to the Curranulla Day Care Club. Daphne takes a great deal of personal interest in the ladies that she cares for, which is very important to them as many have little or no family support. Daphne's generosity of spirit extends to giving up extra time to make home visits to those ladies she cares for. She has even been known to take them away for a brief holiday. Finally, there is Betty Whiffin. She has been an active campaigner on a number of issues over recent years. She has been pushing hard for the rights of elderly and disabled people on aircraft since well before the recent media attention given to DVT arising from long haul air travel. She has also lobbied on behalf of the Sutherland Shire residents for the funding of the federal television black spots program, and she is an active member of a number of groups. (Time expired) 2663410:08:0026634Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—As parliamentarians, we have always been aware of the need to listen to the people we represent. But in today's political climate the words `listening' and `acting' have significant importance. Following the results in the Western Australian and Queensland elections and the Ryan by-election, the Prime Minister has said that he is listening. We have seen the government backflips on beer, petrol, BAS and Australia Post. All politicians and all political parties are now passionate listeners. To be fair, even prior to these election setbacks, the government has been influenced by public protests over airport proposals at Kurnell and Holsworthy and, indeed, by an earlier airport protest meeting in Western Sydney at Jamieson Park. Most definitely, one of the reasons that the government have not moved to build an airport at Badgerys Creek is to protect their Western Sydney seats. I will give a few reasons why I believe an airport at Badgerys Creek is not acceptable to the general public. One clear indication was that the New South Wales Labor government went into the 1999 state election on an anti Badgerys Creek policy and won in a landslide. The New South Wales government, in its submission to the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage concerning the environmental assessment for the proposed second Sydney Airport, stated:The NSW Government is opposed to the development of an airport at Badgerys Creek and favours an airport outside the Sydney basin. The Government is particularly concerned about the impact on the health, environment and quality of life of Western Sydney residents. Furthermore, the Commonwealth continues to ignore the critical issue of funding for off-site infrastructure such as road and rail construction, required to provide for an airport at Badgerys Creek. The EIS fails to assess the likely environmental impacts of the required off-site infrastructure and has underestimated the cost of this infrastructure by about $3 billion. In an independent report titled Sydney Gateways in the 21st Century, prepared by Access Economics, it was stated that a second Sydney airport would eventually be necessary to serve the long-term growth in passenger demand. But passenger demand for Badgerys Creek would only become sufficient to generate positive economic benefits by the year 2020. By this time the population of Western Sydney would be greater than the rest of Sydney combined. Commencing operations prior to 2020 would, according to the report by Access Economics, result in negative economic benefits and require massive taxpayer funded subsidies. Coupled with this local assessment of the economic benefits, or lack thereof, of an airport at Badgerys Creek is the international experience of the operation of second airports in general. The 1985 site selection program gives some very interesting information regarding second airports. Second airports do not take on the role of the primary airport in a city. De Gaulle Airport in Paris is the busiest second airport compared to its dominant partner, with 84 aircraft movements for every 100 at Orly Airport. The site selection program goes on to state: This situation of traffic concentration at primary airports exists despite repeated efforts by many governments to distribute traffic more evenly. It goes on to state:In Washington for example it was expected that 50% of all passengers for the city would pass through the new Washington-Dulles international terminal by 1967, five years after its opening. However more than twenty years after its opening it has 10% of the total traffic. If the Paris ratio, the most favourable overseas figures, are transposed to the Australian context—that is, for every 100 aircraft movements at KSA, 84 would land at Badgerys, and with a total Sydney capacity of 480,000 aircraft movements—KSA would still carry approximately 261,000 aircraft movements per year, thus destroying the myth that a second airport would solve KSA's noise problems. A second airport in the Sydney basin is not a viable option, whether on economic, environmental or social grounds. Most importantly, it would not solve the noise problems at KSA.2663510:13:0026635Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—In a recent article in the Australian Personal Computer magazine, much was made of the TLA syndrome affecting the world—the three-letter acronym—and how it sums up some of the worries and frustrations of the general community around the world. Whilst a lot of people in the business community are still coming to grips with a change to their taxation and business approach circumstances brought about by GST and BAS—two three-letter acronyms—the thing that is worrying them most of all is the ALP—another hideous three-letter acronym that is threatening their very survival and viability.You have only to look at what the Australian Labor Party have done in this place in the last week or so, Mr Deputy Speaker. They have voted down, for the 10th time in the Senate, attempts by the government finally to sort out the unfair dismissals provisions within our industrial relations system to allow small business to have the opportunity to arbitrate on who goes and who stays, for a six-month trial period. After that, if it does not work out, a worker moves on.As a result of the ALP's intervention on this front for the 10th time, small business in my community are unable to hire people. They fear hiring a mistake. In fact, while estimates from this government suggest 50,000 jobs are lying waiting to be created by a more confident and robust small business sector, even the local Southside Chamber of Commerce president in my electorate, Greg Jackson, says he believes that that way underestimates exactly what the potential job creation could be if small business were given the freedom they need to make those decisions to hire and fire.Of course, just last night, the Australian Labor Party, the ALP, invoked their hideous three-letter acronym approach yet again upon the small business sector in my community by voting down the secondary boycott provisions within changes to the Trade Practices Act. So small businesses now face the prospect of getting embroiled in disputes that have absolutely nothing to do with them. It is against that background that the Australian Labor Party need to account to my electorate as to why they are misusing the Commonwealth crest of this country to try to imply, in advertisements in my local paper, the Southern Star, that there is a federal inquiry into business activity statements. The advertisement features the crest, properly placed at the top of the ad. `Federal inquiry' imposes the suggestion that there is something official about it. But when you work your way down to the fine print, you find that submissions are to be sent to Kelvin Thomson, the shadow Assistant Treasurer. It is all about the Australian Labor Party and their politicking in order to try and mislead small business. It is not an inquiry; it is simply a stunt. I think it is an abusive stunt regarding the use of our nation's symbols, such as the Commonwealth crest. I think it is an abuse of this parliament in implying some sort of officialdom. Yet again, it is another cruel hoax on small business in my electorate. The member for Wills, Mr Kelvin Thomson, on 28 November last year not only was in favour of passing what the government had proposed as far as secondary boycott provisions were concerned but also suggested that these changes were very modest and that more action was needed in this area generally. Yet within minutes of his making that statement, the shadow minister for industrial relations, the member for Brisbane, told the parliament that the Labor Party did not believe that the secondary boycott provisions should be dealt with under trade practices law. Something happened in the 21 minutes between what was said by a whole stream of Labor Party backbenchers, and a couple of frontbenchers like the member for Cunningham and the member for Wills, and the member for Brisbane coming in and saying, `Sorry, everything my colleagues have just said is wrong and we've changed our minds.'It leaves you wondering who was on the other end of the phone call that obviously came. Why did the Labor Party change their minds? Why did members opposite, one after another, come into the parliament and suggest that they were in favour of the provisions that were being put forward by the government, that they were in favour of the findings of the Reid report and the joint committee report into the retail sector in general? Why is it that they turned their backs on the small business community in such a way? Who was on the other end of the phone?In the battle of big versus small business, it is not hard for the small business community in Australia to know who is on their side. They can see it day after day if they look at exactly what has been transpiring in this parliament in the last 10 days alone. The proof is that the Australian Labor Party believe in big business, big unions and big taxation, whilst those on this side of the House—the coalition government side of the House—believe very firmly in the mums, the dads, the individuals who put their house on the line, invest in their own ideas, invest in themselves and create jobs. With 50,000 more jobs standing by to be created, why won't the Labor Party support the government's program? (Time expired)2663610:18:0026636Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—John Howard and Peter Costello told us that the GST would improve the economy—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The Prime Minister and the Treasurer.IJ4Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDON—Yes, Mr Deputy Speaker. They told us it would boost the economy, lift the Australian dollar and promote investment. Every single one of these claims has now been proved false. The economy is slowing, the dollar is down, full-time jobs are falling, investment is falling, profits are being squeezed and business confidence is sliding. Even in the electorate of the previous speaker, the member for Moreton, small business is suffering.Unemployment in the Northern Territory has risen by about 40 per cent in rough terms, year on year. The Northern Territory building industry has been one of the hardest hit in the nation by this economic downturn that this government has created. The national downturn in new finance commitments in 2000 was 3.3 per cent. In the Northern Territory, it was 19.1 per cent. Residential construction commencements for 1999-2000 in the Northern Territory were down by 22.8 per cent. Residential approvals for February were down 74 per cent on last year's figures—the lowest on record.This has led, not surprisingly, to the collapse and withdrawal of large building companies within the Territory, leaving many subcontractors and workers out of a job and even unpaid. The Territory is losing a mass of skilled workers and businesses. I will name a few: Bayview Homes, Hansen and Yuncken, Di Mella—gone. The Di Mella Homes collapse has left workers out of pocket by $250,000. I quote from a Northern Territory News article yesterday. You might note the heading: `Families hit as builders crash'. The article says: Sub-contractors were owed more than $250,000 by Di Mella Homes from one Palmerston public housing project alone, Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union secretary Joe Gallagher claimed today.Mr Gallagher said it was time the Territory Government properly registered builders to provide protection for sub-contractors.I concur absolutely with the views of Mr Gallagher. One of these workers was a subcontractor, a single mother of two who has not been paid for $15,000 worth of landscaping. An electrical contractor has been left out of pocket by $30,000. These are Territory small businesses, suffering as a result of the mismanagement of the Northern Territory economy by the Northern Territory government. This, of course, is on Northern Territory government contracts. The Department of Transport and Works in the Northern Territory is obliged to ensure the fair distribution of contract payment. Subcontractors have made purchases of credit, believing that a government contract is safe. No longer in the Northern Territory is a government contract safe. It is the government's responsibility to ensure the financial stability of the companies it awards contracts to. There is no reason why the subcontractors working for Di Mella should be left out of pocket as they have been. Hansen and Yuncken have operated in the Territory for 30 years. Two years ago, their turnover was over $30 million. This year, it will be around $11 million. These are the worst economic conditions this company has seen or experienced in the Northern Territory. They will be offering redundancies, staff transfers out of the Territory, and the end of relationships with subcontractors.The fault lies with the government. The aggressive nature of the GST has hit Territorians the hardest. It is simple maths. If you add 10 per cent to the highest price in the country, you pay more tax; and every Territorian knows that when they put their hand in their pocket to make a purchase to participate in building activity they are giving this government, the Treasurer and the Prime Minister—Mr Howard and Mr Costello—more money than they would be giving them if they were living in Sydney or Melbourne. The major accomplice in this, the Treasurer's and the Prime Minister's major assistant in this exercise, has been the Northern Territory Chief Minister, Dennis Burke, who has said that he believes that the GST is good for the Territory. No-one in their right mind believes Dennis Burke. No-one in their right mind believes that the GST is good for the Northern Territory. And everyone knows that not only has the GST mugged the Northern Territory economy, as has been stated by the shadow treasurer Mr Crean, but it has in fact king-hit it.2663710:23:0026637Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—It is a pleasure to speak on a similar topic to that of the member for Rankin. Once you have actually peeled away some of the ALP political rhetoric that he went on with, he actually made some very fine points about the insurance industry and the smash repair industry. I have recently had cause to have a meeting with several smash repairers, mostly small family businesses, in various towns in my electorate. I might point out that most of those are established family businesses which have contributed for decades to sporting clubs and the strength of their local community.Members would now be aware of some of the difficulties being faced by smash repairers in their dealings recently with insurance companies but especially, can I say, with the NRMA. At the introduction of the GST, the NRMA unilaterally moved to slash the margins received by the repairer doing the work on NRMA insured vehicles. As if this were not enough, they have further embarked on a program to sign up special deals with some smash repairers and to actively discourage clients from using repairers that the NRMA have not made these special arrangements with—repairers that may have had a lot of business with a family over many years. Although they do not refuse to deal with these repairers, all inquiries are, I understand, directed to the repairers who have confidentially agreed to certain extremely stringent price and time conditions set down by the NRMA. The confidentiality of that agreement is one of the key points here, because the repairer is not allowed to discuss with the customer who owns the car the fact that they might be using non-genuine parts or that they might be working to a time frame rather than a quality frame. I am told that this could spell the end for many small businesses, especially in regional areas, who have always relied on high quality work and the use of genuine parts to ensure that consumers are provided with the best possible result on their cars. From the pushing for repairers to reduce the time spent on a vehicle and to use non-genuine parts, the consumer ultimately is the one who is damaged. My understanding is that the NRMA has also forced those smash repairers who have entered into a deal with the NRMA to provide their own lifetime guarantee, at no cost to the NRMA. This results in shoddy work due to the time constraints and the ability to use non-genuine parts, giving a saving to the insurer but causing the repairer to have the responsibility for the ongoing costs of touching up or making good any faults that subsequently appear.The NRMA has over the years built up a reputation for being a supporter of ordinary people. However, I fear that since its demutualisation, it has become another profit driven monster more concerned about its shareholders than about the people it was originally set up to represent. The level of intimidation has even reached the point where the repairers that I spoke to specifically requested me not to use their name in any correspondence, for fear of the NRMA taking further action against them. I understand the MTA has made several approaches to the state government, but I would like to add my voice to those calling for a fair deal.2663810:26:0026638Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—I wish to point out to the House that this government has made the recruitment of doctors in country Tasmania almost impossible. It is hard enough to get doctors to come and practise in Tasmania—yet this government is determined that those who are in the country are unable to get help. In my electorate I have two centres that have recently been reclassified from rural RRMA5 areas for medical provision to urban RRMA1 areas. One is Sorell, covering the south and east coast of Tasmania, and the other is New Norfolk, servicing the Derwent Valley. Apparently these towns are different from Devonport—which retains its rural classification despite being a bigger town and being within a 10-minute drive of a hospital—and Huonville, which is a similar drive time away from Hobart.This is patently ridiculous. The nearest hospital to these centres is a good 45-minute drive away from both these towns and, unless you break the speed limit, the impact that this reclassification has on medical services has become critical. Doctors in these areas do not just service the townspeople. Both areas stretch out into the rural areas around them and provide a service all over the regions. It is becoming more and more difficult for those doctors to do their jobs, let alone try to cope with new patients. The New Norfolk situation is particularly serious, because one doctor has retired and two others are in their 70s. There are also two doctors who are overseas trained, and the one local who has remained has been run ragged and is almost at the end of his tether as he has lost his two OTDs and, if something is not done soon to help him gain some assistance, he is likely to throw in the sponge.This is another move to get rid of country services. The viability of the hospital, X-ray services, Corumbene, residential units housing ex-Willow Court residents, and Millbrook Rise is dependent on the availability of medical personnel. If doctors cannot work because of the barriers, these services could close. Australian trained doctors are given no incentive to be country doctors, so why would they put themselves into a situation of being overworked, with no time off and very little hope of getting assistance if they have to leave the practice for a short time? Therefore, many doctors still struggling to stay in their communities have opted to attract overseas trained doctors because they are allowed to work only in rural areas. Changing New Norfolk and Sorell to `metropolitan' means that no-one will be prepared to take on such a practice. New Norfolk has now lost four full-time GPs, two as a result of direct federal government intervention. With the current barriers that are in place, there is no chance of these GPs being replaced. I have asked the minister twice for a solution, but I am only getting platitudes. Why was this system changed? Why isn't the minister prepared to front the issue head-on and give us some proper answers?Main Committee adjourned at 10.30 a.m.Answers to Questions in Writing26640The following answers to questions were circulated:26640(Question No. 2072)207226640Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6CanberraALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 12 October 2000:(1) Between March 1996 and August 2000, how many spot checks were carried out on nursing homes within the electoral division of Canberra.(2) How many complaints regarding nursing homes within the electoral division of Canberra were received by her in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000.(3) Will spot checks be undertaken by her Department after a nursing home receives accreditation; if so, will they be done on a yearly, half-yearly, quarterly, monthly or random basis.26640Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question, in accordance with advice provided to me, is as follows:(1) Four spot checks were carried out by the Department on residential aged care facilities in the electoral division of Canberra between March 1996 and March 2001.(2) This information is protected under the Aged Care Act 1997.(3) Yes. Spot checks will be undertaken by the Department on a random basis.26640(Question No. 2107)210726640Livermore, Kirsten, MPMs Livermore83ACapricorniaALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 1 November 2000:(1) With respect to the recent and anticipated reduction of counselling services operated by the Family Court, how will counselling services which are, or until recently were, provided by the Family Court, be provided in future.(2) How does the Court propose to meet the needs of clients for whom they will no longer be able to offer these services.(3) What role will the community-based not-for-profit organisations, funded to provide counselling services under the Family Law Act, be expected to play in picking up those clients who would have been seen by Court personnel.(4) Where there is more than one community-based not-for-profit organisation which provides such services in a location in which services were previously provided by the Family Court, how will a decision be taken as to which organisation should provide those services.(5) Will these organisations be expected to increase their service levels from within their existing resources.(6) Will the Court be contracting out mediation or counselling services previously delivered by the Court, and what is the process by which such contracts have been, or will be, awarded.26640Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Family Court of Australia (the Court) advises that, over the last two years, it has adopted a strategy of reducing its pre-filing counselling services in line with the development of community based counselling organisations that are able to offer a range of services to clients. The Court continues to work with my Department, the Department of Family and Community Services, community-based not for profit organisations as well as referrers to ensure that clients seeking this service are offered a range of options. The Court is also concerned, particularly in regional areas, to retain a capacity to provide pre-filing counselling.(2) The Court advises that it has for a considerable period been working with community-based, not for profit organisations on joint strategies that would assist appropriate pre-filing clients to access their services. (3) Through the Family Relationships Services Program (FRSP), community-based organisations are funded to provide counselling and mediation services under the Family Law Act. However, it is anticipated that the role of some organisations will expand over time to meet the needs of clients of the Federal Magistrates Service as well as those of the Court. The Court has developed links with the FRSP service providers for client referral where they are able to provide similar services. In metropolitan areas, there are a greater number of community agencies to meet the demand for services. While there will be some capacity in the agencies to absorb additional work generated by the Court referrals, the different counselling and mediation model used by the Court will require different skills. I have recently approved the use of $1.75 million from 1999-00 Budget funds for community organisations in the metropolitan areas where Family Court voluntary counselling services will not be available. This amount will ensure that the community organisations are appropriately equipped to deal with the work formerly undertaken by the Court. My Department, the Family Court, the Department of Family and Community Services and industry representative bodies are working together to ensure a smooth transition of the skills and services from the Court to the community based organisations.(4) In the case of the metropolitan registries serviced by the Court, the Court advises that this issue is being considered in the development of the transition strategy. In all other areas, the Court offers pre-filing counselling clients a choice between the appropriate community organisations available in their location. This is done in consultation with the organisations concerned.(5) Community-based organisations are expected to be flexible in addressing their community's needs. However, the growing demand for counselling has been recognised by the Government and counselling organisations funded under the FRSP have already received an additional, proportional increase in funds. In the 1999-00 Budget additional funds of $15.7 million over three years were announced for the expansion of primary dispute resolution services. In the 2000-01 financial year, funding will be available for targeted areas where a high need for primary dispute resolution is identified. These measures will result in greater availability of dispute resolution services from community-based organisations. (6) The Court advises that it will continue to provide court ordered counselling and family reports in all its locations. In the Rockhampton area there is a pilot being considered for court ordered counselling, in appropriate cases, to be provided by a number of community-based, not-for-profit organisations. It is proposed that a panel would be established in consultation with the organisations themselves and the local community. This pilot is in response to difficulties the Court has experienced in recruiting and retaining counselling staff in this location. There has been, however, no decision made to proceed with the pilot at this time.26641(Question No. 2192)219226641Burke, Anna, MPMs Burke83SChisholmALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 29 November 2000:(1) How many complaints to her Department has she received about the 75 Thames Street Hostel since it opened.(2) On what dates were these complaints made and when were they acted upon by her Department.26641Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question, in accordance with advice provided to me, is as follows:(1) Nine.(2) These complaints have all been finalised.26641(Question No. 2217)221726641Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 5 December 2000:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 1803 (Hansard, 28 November 2000), is she stating that both she and her Department have no data regarding both ethnic-specific and multi-ethnic nursing homes and hostels.(2) If this is the case, how can she allocate the proportion of the Aged Care Budget for people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in a fair manner which ensures that all communities are provided an equitable level of funding. (3) If this is not the case, can she supply the information as requested in question No. 1803.26642Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question, in accordance with advice provided to me, is as follows:(1) The Department does not have specific data on ethno-specific and multi-ethnic facilities dating back to 1990.(2) and (3) The Department monitors access to residential aged care by using statistics on the proportion of residents from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds in residential aged care facilities compared to the proportion in the population aged 70 and over in Aged Care Planning Regions.26642(Question No. 2224)222426642Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr Fitzgibbon8K6HunterALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 6 December 2000:(1) How many beds at the Allandale Aged Care Facility in Cessnock are licensed to accommodate people with (a) high; and (b) low care needs.(2) What sum of Commonwealth funding did the Allandale Aged Care Facility receive in 1999-2000 for (a) high care; (b) low care; and (c) group home residents.(3) Is the Hunter Area Health Service receiving the maximum possible sum of Commonwealth funding for each of the 336 high-care beds at Allandale; if not, why not.(4) Has she or her department held discussions with the Hunter Area Health Service regarding proposals to sell the Allandale facility to the not-for-profit sector.(5) Have the Hunter Area Health Service and her Department agreed to reduce the number of high-care beds at Allandale by 120; if so, to where will the high-care beds go.(6) What mix of high care, low care and hostel beds has the Commonwealth agreed to fund under the Hunter Area Health Service's proposal to sell Allandale.(7) How much more funding will a not-for-profit provider receive from the Commonwealth over a financial year period than the Hunter Area Health Service receives currently.(8) Has the Commonwealth imposed any condition upon the Hunter Area Health Service which leaves it with no choice but to sell the Allandale Facility.(9) Is the proposed sale likely to lead to a reduction in employment levels at Allandale.(10) Has Allandale now achieved full Commonwealth accreditation; if so, was there any delay in awarding accreditation or were any particular care-standard problems identified throughout the assessment process.26642Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question, in accordance with advice provided to me, is as follows:(1) The approved number of places at Allandale Aged Care Facility is 336 high care places.(2) Total funding for 1999/2000 was $10,551,857.91.(3) Payments of Commonwealth subsidy are based on the assessed support needs (Residential Care Subsidy or “RCS” levels) of residents plus any eligible supplements, as set out by the service provider in monthly payments claim forms sent to the Department.(4) The Department has attended discussions with the Hunter Area Health Service regarding their proposal to sell the Allandale facility to a non-government provider. No sale or transfer of aged care places may occur without the approval of the Secretary of the Department.(5) I am advised that the Hunter Area Service applied in the 2000 Aged Care Approvals Round for restructuring assistance and the Department has allocated 35 residential low care places for the Allandale facility. Other questions should be referred to the Hunter Area Health Service.(6) and (7)I am advised that the Department has not approved any proposal to transfer places from the Allandale facility. (8) No(9) This question should be referred to the Hunter Area Health Service.(10) Allandale has been awarded the maximum three years accreditation.26643(Question No. 2290)229026643O'Keefe, Neil, MPMr O'KeefeCE4BurkeALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) What is the maximum percentage of Age Pension which can be classified as essential expenditure for the purpose of assessing fees payable in aged care facilities.(2) Does the Government encourage aged care residents to maintain private health insurance cover.(3) Are private health insurance fees regarded as essential expenditure for the purpose of calculating essential expenditure; if not, why not.26643Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs Bronwyn BishopSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question, in accordance with advice provided to me, is as follows:(1) Fees payable in aged care facilities are determined in accordance with the provisions contained in the Aged Care Act 1997.(2) The decision to take out private health insurance is a personal choice. The Lifetime Health Cover that was introduced in July 2000 includes a special provision for older people. People born on or before 1 July 1934 are not affected by Lifetime Health Cover. They are able to take out hospital cover with a registered health fund at any time in the future and pay a premium with no additional loading for late entry.(3) Private health insurance is generally regarded as a discretionary expense for the purpose of financial hardship assistance as Medicare provides medical services, medicines and acute health care for all Australians. The Commonwealth also provides a range of assistance to assist elderly Australians with their medical costs. These include:· funding the residential aged care sector to provide a range of services to residents for no additional charge. These include items such as physiotherapy and podiatry for high care residents that are normally covered by private health insurance. As care recipients already receive these services at no additional charge, many choose not to take out private health insurance;· the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and Health Care Card that ensure pensioners receive subsidised health items and pharmaceuticals; and· for those care recipients who pay tax, the Medical Expenses Rebate is available where medical expenses, including residential aged care costs, are above $1250 per year.26643(Question No. 2336)233626643Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on Wednesday, 7 February 2001:Further to the Government's announcement of a loans scheme for postgraduate courses, (a) will the scheme include scope for an upfront payment with a discount, (b) will the loans be repaid concurrently with HECS repayments and (c) what measures will the Government introduce to ensure that such a scheme does not lead to universities increasing the level of postgraduate fees.26643Kemp, 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:(a) Up-front payment arrangements are the responsibility of the individual higher education institution.(b) Yes.(c) It is expected that increased competition for a growing postgraduate coursework market and close community attention to universities' pricing policies will keep prices within acceptable limits. I have asked my Department to monitor the prices charged for postgraduate courses and to report on these annually through the higher education reports. There will not be a cap on the amount each student may borrow each semester. However, I propose to include in the Bill to establish the Scheme provision for the Minister to have discretion to determine a cap on the total level of students' borrowings. I propose to exercise that authority only if experience indicates a need for a prudent financial limit on student borrowings or for a mechanism to dampen prices being charged.26644(Question No. 2341)234126644Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on February 2001:(1) In respect of each signed Regional Forest Agreement (RFA),(a) How many annual progress reports have been received to date by the Commonwealth, and(b) What was the date on which each report was received.(2) In respect of each RFA for which an annual progress report has to date not been received, when does the Commonwealth expect to receive the first annual report from the relevant State Government.26644Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)(a) Five RFA Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) annual reports have been completed to date, two of which cover more than one RFA region. As all the RFA milestones contain joint commitments, most RFA annual reports finalised to date have been developed jointly by the Commonwealth and the states. The exception is the Tasmanian RFA, for which separate Commonwealth and state reports were developed for 1998 and 1999. A report for 2000 has also been received from Tasmania.For Victoria, joint Commonwealth-state RFA annual reports have been developed for the East Gippsland and the Central Highlands RFAs (combined report for 1998), and the East Gippsland, Central Highlands and North East Victoria RFAs (combined report for 1999).(1)(b) RFA annual reports covering Tasmanian state-only commitments were received in December 1998, December 1999 and February 2001. All other RFA annual reports to date have been developed jointly by the Commonwealth and the states through an iterative process. The 1998 Victorian RFA annual report (covering East Gippsland and the Central Highlands) was agreed between Commonwealth and state officials in April 1999. The 1999 Victorian RFA report (covering East Gippsland, Central Highlands and North East Victoria) was agreed between officials in October 2000.The 1999 Tasmanian and Victorian RFA annual reports were tabled in May 2000 and February 2001 respectively. The 1998 Victorian RFA annual reports, and the 1998 and 2000 Tasmanian reports will be tabled in the near future.(2) First RFA annual reports are due for the Western Australian, Eden, North East NSW, West Victoria and Gippsland RFAs.To avoid duplication of effort, RFA annual reports have been combined and/or compiled simultaneously with other state reporting requirements. In some instances, this will result in the first RFA reports being delayed. For the Eden and North East NSW RFAs, the reports are now scheduled for completion in March 2001.Joint Commonwealth-state reports for 2000 are currently being finalised for the Western Australian RFA and all five Victorian RFAs (including first reports for the West Victoria and Gippsland RFAs). 26644(Question No. 2401)240126644Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr Sidebottom849BraddonALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 1 March 2001:(1) Is the Minister's Department, or are agencies within the portfolio, large purchasers or consumers of office papers.(2) How are 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.26645Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Department of Veterans' Affairs purchases about 60,000 reams of office paper each year.(2) In accordance with Commonwealth Procurement principles and guidelines, quotations for office paper are sought from suppliers as demand requires.(3) and (4) In assessing the offers from the paper suppliers, the Department takes into account price, conformity to specification, compatibility of the paper with its office machines, and suppliers' ability to meet delivery requirements. Unsuccessful respondents are notified of the purchasing decision and purchases of $2,000 or more in value are publicly notified in the Gazette Publishing System. The Department ensures that in seeking supplies of office paper the specification does not exclude ANZ suppliers. The Department is seeking to include ANZ suppliers by having regard to the Industrial Supplies Office's advice on which suppliers meet the requirement.(5) No.(6) In conducting its procurement activities the Department observes the relevant Commonwealth Procurement principles and guidelines.26645(Question No. 2450)245026645Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, upon notice, on 8 March 2001:(1) What sum has been provided by the Federal Government to the timber industry in NSW under the Forest Industry Structural Adjustment Package (FISAP) over the past five years.(2) Now that the Regional Forest Agreements have been signed by the Federal Government, will he give an assurance that FISAP money will start to flow immediately to the NSW timber industry for its vital reconstruction.26645Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TuckeySJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Commonwealth has paid $18,445,618 to the timber industry in NSW since 1995/96 under the NSW FISAP.(2) The Southern Regional Forest Agreement (RFA) in NSW has not yet been finalised. It is my intention that FISAP in NSW will resume once the Southern RFA has been signed.