2001-06-253919REPS2841902001-06-25—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous2841912:31:0028419SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—On Thursday, 21 June 2001, the Manager of Opposition Business asked me two questions about the rescission of assent to print the Family and Community Services and Veterans' Affairs Legislation Amendment (Debt Recovery) Act 2001, which contained an error. First, I was asked about responsibility for the error having occurred and I responded to that question on Thursday. Second, I was asked about whether the assent to the incorrect act had any consequences for citizens. Fortunately the error was identified early. Gazettal of the act did not occur and any copies that had been issued were recalled promptly. The operative provisions in the act do not come into effect until 1 July 2001. I understand from the Department of Family and Community Services that no veterans or social security clients were adversely affected by the delay in implementing the measures contained in the legislation.DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim Fischer—On a point of order, Mr Speaker: to clarify, I understand that we are sitting two hours earlier than we were advised last Thursday, due to the delayed arrival of President Wahid. Could you clarify the instrument by which that alteration was made, presumably by your good self earlier this morning?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will respond formally to the member for Farrer by indicating that a notice was sent by the Clerk under my authority to all electorate offices this morning, as soon as the change had been made.Delegation Reports284192841912:33:0028419Somlyay, Alex, MPMr SOMLYAYZT4FairfaxLP10—I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to the 105th Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference held in Havana, Cuba from 1 to 7 April 2001, and bilateral visit to Mexico from 8 to 15 April 2001. I would like to thank my colleagues the member for Prospect, the member for Pearce and Senator Jim McKiernan, who made up the delegation, and Peter Keele, who is the permanent secretary to the IPU delegation and who handled this conference, as he does every other conference, in a most efficient manner.The 105th Inter-Parliamentary Union Conference debated and discussed a range of topics, including securing observance of the principle of international law in the interests of world peace and security, education and culture as essential features in promoting the participation of men and women in political life and as prerequisites for the development of people, contribution of the world's parliaments to the struggle against terrorism, and international action to meet the emergency situation in Afghanistan, compounded by the recent destruction of cultural heritage by the Taliban. Once again, all members of the delegation played an active role throughout the entire conference, participating in every facet of the conference agenda. I would like to take the opportunity to thank all members of the delegation for their companionship and assistance throughout the conference and bilateral visit.It is often said that Australia fights above its weight at these conferences. In Havana, we fought in all divisions and we were literally the only ones left standing at 4.30 p.m. on the eighth and final day of the conference. I chaired the drafting committee on terrorism, the member for Pearce chaired the drafting committee on education and culture, Senator Jim McKiernan was appointed rapporteur for the item on international law, and the member for Prospect continued to play an active role on the executive of the women's committee. In terms of performance, one could say that the delegation met its objective but, unfortunately, the delegation came away feeling very uncertain about the future direction of the IPU.As you are aware, Mr Speaker, these concerns were discussed at a special meeting of the Australian parliamentary IPU group last week. Scrutiny, transparency and accountability are essential components of our Australian parliamentary system. Sadly, many of the key decisions being adopted by the IPU are a result of limited consultation and debate. Equally disturbing is the realisation that many of the decisions are taken in apparent isolation to other decisions. There appears to be no overriding strategy; on the contrary, there appears to be a blind faith that, no matter what is decided by the IPU, the IPU will have the resources to achieve these objectives. I do not want to sound too negative but I believe it is important that the IPU take stock of what it is trying to achieve, and it is in this regard that the delegation is recommending that the IPU dedicate its 107th conference in Marrakesh to debating its proposed reform agenda. I do not believe that we are alone but, once again, we will have to rely heavily on Australia fighting above its weight. I will leave it up to my colleagues to discuss some of these proposals. However, having taken a leading role once again, I believe it is important that the Australian delegation continues to send a strong and experienced team to future conferences. Turning now to the bilateral visit to Mexico, I would like to make a few brief comments. The official program included meetings with the Presiding Officers, the Minister for Economy, the Deputy Foreign Minister, representatives from the Australia-Mexico Business Group and parliamentarians from all the major political parties. These meetings enabled the delegation to discuss a range of issues, including the strength of our bilateral relationship with Mexico; the progress of economic reforms in Mexico, particularly tax reform, privatisation and indigenous issues; the opening up of the economy and foreign investment, in particular the relationship between Mexico and the USA; the issue of migratory pressures brought about by rural poverty; the political tensions in the south-east involving the Zapatistas; the evolving relationship between the congress and the President; and the hosting of APEC in 2002. (Time expired)12:38:0028420Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00— Mr Speaker, at the outset I also thank the secretariat staff, Mr Peter Keele, Mr Phillip Allars from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Ms Brenda Herd and all of the people involved in the briefings to us prior to our attending the IPU conference in Cuba and visiting Mexico. I would also like to put on the record our appreciation as a delegation for our embassy and our ambassador to Mexico and his staff, who I believe were second to none, not only in the way they looked after us but also in the way they took care of some of the concerns raised at the time.I join the leader of the delegation, our colleague the member for Fairfax, the Hon. Alex Somlyay, in saying there were a number of concerns expressed by the delegation and, of course, at the following meeting with you, Sir, and the IPU parliamentary group. Some of the concerns deal with the funding of the IPU. As we are all aware, America has now pulled out. With it they have taken something like 15 per cent of the funding, and I think most of the IPU executive feel that the developed countries are going to pick that up. That is something which we as a nation must look at very carefully.I commend the leader of the delegation for being forthright in saying that the 107th conference at Marrakesh should be on reform because, when we look at the reform, it means that if Australia as a nation wishes to again fight above its weight and participate in the conference, as we have done in the past, we have to look at what is intended in the future. They intend to have more than one meeting a year and to have the committees meet two, three and four times a year. Because of our geographical location, it is very awkward for Australia as a nation to participate. We are not just next door or a hop, skip and a jump from places like Geneva or New York or wherever they want to have the meeting. That is a difficulty we have to face. Along with that difficulty is the fact that you do not have an interconnection with what is going on at the next committee meeting when you have not attended the one preceding it. Those are some of the issues that we as a delegation have to consider very carefully.A total of 123 countries took part in the visit to Cuba this time. As the leader of the delegation has stated, on the last day they debated right through and I think, from what my colleagues are saying, that in the end the debate went by exhaustion. The nations with the majority in terms of population were perhaps overruled by the smaller nations which say, `Let's get on with it. Let's vote on this and pass it.' Delegates and their nations must clearly understand that we are there to make sure that we have not only a macro but also a micro investigation into the finances, the finance structure, and particularly the destination towards which the IPU will be heading in years to come. I can only commend all of the delegates for their hard work. It was a very informative conference. Our meetings in Mexico, as indicated by the leader, and the discussions with all of our members of parliament, were very frank and informative. We left with the very clear impression that Mexico is making steady progress and is prepared to undertake the necessary reforms to address many of its key concerns. The delegation concluded its visit in the historic city of Oaxaca, and it was certainly something to see over that Easter period. It was a very informative and worthwhile visit. I commend all the delegates and all of those who took part.2842112:42:0028421Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the ninth annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum held in Valparaiso from 16 to 18 January 2001, and bilateral visit to Chile from 11 to 13 January 2001.I am very pleased to present this report on a short bilateral visit to Chile and on the ninth annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum. The bilateral meetings were organised at the invitation of the National Congress of Chile and we were happy to take the opportunity to gain maximum value from such a long journey. In three days we were able to meet with Australian businesspeople in Santiago and Valparaiso. We gained an insight into the potential for Australian investment in Chile by learning of the innovative partnership between the Australian wine producer Mildara Blass and the Chilean Santa Carolina producer. From this partnership, wines bearing the joint label are exported throughout the world. We also visited an AGL investment in Valparaiso called GasValpo which demonstrated the wisdom of building on small and careful beginnings when penetrating a market in an unfamiliar culture with a very different infrastructure.We also enjoyed a private meeting with the Vice-President of the Chamber of Deputies, and met with members of the Australia-Chile friendship groups from both chambers and with members of the Education Committee. The bilateral visit included a meeting with doctors and administrators at the Chilean Ministry of Health at which we shared information on support for the mentally ill and approaches to the problem of illicit drugs.The highlight of the bilateral visit for me was a visit to the Antarctic Institute. As a person with a long-term involvement in Australia's Antarctic program, I was fascinated by seeing the continent from a different perspective, not only politically but also in a series of maps which showed Antarctica as the very near neighbour of South American countries—which, of course, it is. The delegation was well supported during our bilateral visit by our Ambassador, His Excellency John Campbell, and by the Second Secretary, Mr Rajan Venkataraman, and I thank them very much for their hard work and their friendship.The ninth annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum—the APPF—was a significant milestone for Australia. Our parliament has been involved in this regional forum for members of parliament since its inception in 1991. Indeed, one of the meetings to establish the forum was held in Australia. We are very proud of the very solid contribution we have made to the forum during its first 10 years. The meeting considered a large number of draft resolutions, 25 of which were adopted unanimously. Australia's resolutions on oil prices and on the Pacific Islands Forum document—the Biketawa declaration—were adopted. We also had input to a resolution on a new round for the World Trade Organisation. The subject matter of the APPF is very wide ranging, covering strategic, economic, social and cultural aspects of our foreign relations. These are not matters on which our embassy officials can be expected to be expert. Not for the first time, we noticed that those delegations which had the support during the meeting of a dedicated adviser on foreign affairs issues were able to maximise their contribution to the meeting and thus their promotion of their countries' interests. We thank the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for the support of two officers before we left Australia, and we ask that one of these officers accompany future APPF delegations at the annual meetings. While this was the first meeting at which Australia was not represented on the executive committee, we were pleased to support the Federated States of Micronesia as the representative of the Oceania region on the committee.A great deal of the work of these international forums goes on behind the scenes. In this regard we had a productive private meeting with the Mexican delegation and we enjoyed warm personal contacts with the Indonesians. Finally, Australia made its usual contribution to the technological working group which supports all member parliaments in accessing legislative and other information relevant to our common tasks. I thank the honourable member for Bruce for his very hard work on this working group. He did a marvellous job.My thanks go to all the members of our small delegation—to the Chief Opposition Whip, who was deputy leader of the delegation, to the member for Forde and to the member for Bruce. They ably promoted Australia's interests, and were good fun to be with into the bargain. I have to mention the delegation secretary, our Serjeant-at-Arms, Ms Judy Middlebrook, who did a fantastic job and made our task very much easier. But for her, I believe the technological working group would not have met. She did a fantastic job. Thanks are also due to the Chilean presiding officers and APPF secretariat staff in Valparaiso for their hospitality and administrative support during the forum. Having hosted the eighth annual meeting, we are well aware of the effort they put in. (Time expired)12:47:0028422Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I will just speak briefly on the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the ninth annual meeting of the Asia Pacific Parliamentary Forum and supplement the comments made by the Deputy Speaker with respect to our time in Chile. I found it a very worthwhile time. I have not been to that part of the world before. It was very informative to see—for example, with wineries and also with the AGL investment in gas at Valparaiso—concrete examples of Australian investment overseas and how that works. It was also informative to talk with people involved in those businesses about what the opportunities are for Australian business in that part of the world—what are the pitfalls and what are the strengths that we bring to increasing our activity and trade in that part of the world. That is information which it is handy to be able to pass back to those concerned here in Australia. In relation to the visit to Chile and the APPF meeting, I would like to join with the leader of the delegation in congratulating a number of people for the work they did in making this a success. Judy Middlebrook, as the secretary of the delegation, was central to making sure that everything happened, and happened well. For that, we owe her our thanks. I thank Rajan Venkataraman from the embassy—AE4Nehl, Garry, MPMr Nehl—You've practised the pronunciation.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—I have a lot of people from that part of the world in my constituency. Rajan, Ambassador John Campbell and other members of the embassy staff performed their tasks very diligently and very well. I would like to make an additional comment on that. Although John Campbell has copped a bit of press of late, I can say that I would be more than pleased in future to be in a situation where I was under Ambassador Campbell's care, because I think he performed his duties admirably in the circumstances. Beyond that, in terms of the circumstances around the APPF, the leader of the delegation has gone through a range of issues. It was a very wide ranging set of activities and motions that were considered. He referred to the technological working group; I will speak very briefly about that. The main part of the working group's activities relates to the question of establishing an Internet presence for the various member states. A number of delegations spoke in that working group about the advantages in terms of improving cooperation and communication across the various parliaments and that that in itself is a very important activity in improving the understanding of the regions and the educative processes across governments right throughout the area. I commend the report to the House and commend the delegation.Committees28423284232842312:50:0028423Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report, incorporating dissenting reports, entitled Australia's role in United Nations reform, together with evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—As deputy chairman of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I present the committee's report on Australia's role in United Nations reform. During the inquiry, the committee received 150 submissions and 65 exhibits, and it held eight days of public hearings within Australia. It also had extensive discussions with the UN secretariat in New York and an inspection of the peace operation in East Timor, and held discussions with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan. I must say that being given five minutes to speak on the tabling of such an important report in some respects makes a mockery of the work people put in and the committee system itself. Those who compiled the report put many hours into this work. I must say also that the Labor members of the committee feel extremely frustrated at the final outcome of the report. We worked very hard to get a consensus report, and so were not as critical of Australia's role—especially in treaty making processes, most notably in regard to human rights—as we would have been had we known earlier that many members of the government would put in a partisan dissenting report. I have always thought that committees of this parliament took and evaluated the evidence and made recommendations to the parliament. It is pointless if recommendations are only going to follow party political lines. You might as well not have any reports at all and just have party committees. I have worked on many committee reports both in government and in opposition where the report either made a recommendation that was not in line with current government policy or even challenged government policy. I point, for example, to the Ships of Shame report and indeed continuing reports from the House of Representatives Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts such as Tracking Australia which have made strong recommendations and, indeed, been critical of government policy regardless of the government. It is always up to the government of the day to accept or reject the committee's recommendations. I believe pressure has been put on government members not to agree with committee recommendation 19. I am not saying that the Minister for Foreign Affairs was actually shown the report, but I am convinced that he knew of this recommendation and that pressure was brought to bear on government members of the committee. Perhaps also, given another minister's reaction to a committee report last week, government members did not wish to be personally abused and found it easier not to upset a minister.Regarding the dissents to this report, for the most part they have been made by members of the committee who did not participate in any of the inquiry's proceedings. The credibility of their views must be questioned, as these members listened to none of the evidence, attended none of the private discussions of the committee on the issues as the inquiry progressed, did not visit New York to take part in the discussions with the UN secretariat and did not contribute to the framing of the final report. Members took evidence from all over Australia and in New York. We evaluated that evidence and used it to produce a report which I feel reflects what we were told and what those few participating members actually felt. Regarding Senator Harradine's long dissenting report, at least Senator Harradine did attend the drafting stages of the report and put most of this to the committee but the committee did not agree with it. Most of the senator's information on UNFPA was taken from outdated and selective reports. Frankly, today one can go to a web site and get any quote or report to support their own particular prejudice. Much of this report is outside our areas of inquiry.It is interesting that the dissenting report on CEDAW was signed by 12 members of the government but, apart from Senator Ferguson and the member for Fadden, David Jull, the other signatories did not attend any hearings, did not see the evidence and did not evaluate it. It is also interesting that in their dissenting report they favourably quote the Australian foreign minister regarding Australia's human rights record. They make mention of the political nature of CEDAW and in fact, in additional comments, Senator Chapman speaks of the demonstrated ideological nature of CEDAW. There is an irony in the fact that the dissenters complain about the UN committee being ideologically driven in the remarks they make when most of the members dissenting now have written their dissent without having heard any of the evidence or attending any of the meetings of this inquiry. Some would claim their dissent is as ideologically driven as the committees they complain about.I wish to pay special tribute to the secretariat staff: Ms Margaret Swieringa; the research officer, Mr Jon Bonnar; the administrative officer, Ms Lesley Cowan; and the parliamentary intern, Ms Georgina Ramsay. They worked under very trying conditions to help bring this report to fruition. It is a pity that this report, which could have been a start to rebuilding Australia's reputation at the UN and could have made the UN better known within Australia, will not have the positive impact it could have had. (Time expired)12:55:0028424Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—I would like to associate myself with the tabling of the report, Australia's role in United Nations reform. Despite what we have just heard— and in some respects I can understand some of the points that the member has made—I still believe that this will be one of the most significant reports ever made by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade. It was a committee very dedicated to the task. It was a committee that showed that particular commitment through the fact that members of the committee did go to the United Nations, they did go to New York and they did pay for the trip out of their own resources. It was not a parliamentary committee going overseas as such. I think there was a sense of dedication to the enormity of the task that we were facing that made some of us realise that, if we were going to make a real contribution to Australia's role in the future of the United Nations, we had to go and understand it.The chairman and the deputy chairman of the joint committee were both in New York as Australia's parliamentary advisers to the General Assembly of the United Nations. A number of us had also experienced that particular position. I myself was there in 1995, and I think that the authenticity of so much of this report goes back to the fact that so many of the members of that committee had actually worked in the United Nations and had actually worked in that system. Therefore, I think the report is valuable and I think it will very much be the subject of great study and great debate not only in Australia but overseas. I remember that when Kofi Annan himself appeared before the committee—and that was in itself a bit of a coup—he made the comment that he was particularly looking forward to the report. I believe that that was so not only because it is probably one of the few such parliamentary inquiries that have been held but because of Australia's position on the United Nations. The honourable member for Fairfax, in speaking to his IPU report earlier in the day, made reference to the fact that at the IPU Australia boxes very much above its weight. I think a similar situation exists in the United Nations. One of the things that came through to the committee was the regard in which Australia is held within the UN and the UN organisations and the fact that there seem to be so many Australians in such important positions within the United Nations structure. I know that, during my time at the United Nations in 1995, it was very much an Australian effort that reviewed and reconstructed the system of accounts within the United Nations. Whether or not you are looking at aid relief or whether or not you are looking at the peacekeeping operations, wherever you go there seem to be Australians in dominant positions within the United Nations. The reason for that is manifold but, most importantly, I think Australia is regarded within the United Nations as being very much an honest broker. Indeed, that was the experience that I had. We are not a super power but we are a power that is not without influence in the world. We are regarded as being quite transparent in our analyses of particular situations. That regard came through to me quite often as I sat in that General Assembly chamber. People from a most diverse range of countries used to come up to the Australian delegation to find out just which way we were thinking or which way we were going to vote on a particular issue. To me, that said volumes about the contribution that we have made. That is why I think this report is going to be so important.I would like to make reference very briefly—because the time available is very brief—to some of the misconceptions that are held about the United Nations and its operation within Australia. This indeed came through in some of the evidence and some of the submissions that were put to our committee. If this report does nothing else, I hope it knocks on the head some of these thoughts of what the United Nations is all about. The United Nations is not a world government. It does not have the capacity to be a world government. The United Nations is very much an extension of independent states who are trying to work together for the betterment of the world. While we hear so much about what the United Nations is supposed to do and what it is not supposed to do, I would commend to those people who are critical of it to have a look at some of the work of the United Nations agencies. Organisations such as the World Health Organisation, ICAO and UNICEF make tremendous contributions and would, I think, be regarded throughout the community as a vital part of our international connections. The recommendations in this report make due reference to the fact that we need to make sure that Australians are absolutely aware of what the United Nations is all about and of what our commitments and obligations are, and therefore I hope this report will be widely read. (Time expired)13:01:0028425Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I rise to support the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report Australia's role in United Nations reform. The Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade seems to be setting all sorts of records. Last week we had the tabling by the Human Rights Subcommittee of the report into detention centres. I have no need to remind you of the outburst of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs at a press conference about that. Today we have the United Nations report being tabled—and, again, an extraordinary event. Firstly, the report is endorsed by the main committee and then those who had supported it lodged a dissenting report. I have never before seen anything like this. Clearly, the government is, I regret to say, wanting to interfere in the work of the committee and is reflecting itself as a government out of control. Mention has been made in one of the dissenting reports to recommendation 19. The recommendation as printed reads:... a majority of the committee recommends that the Australian Government proceed with the ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.When I read that recommendation as printed, I cannot recall the words `a majority' being in that recommendation as agreed to. It was clear that Senator Harradine was going to provide a dissenting report, but the words `a majority', as I recall, were just not what was agreed to. Perhaps I am wrong, but this is the nub of the issue: during the report consideration all members other than Senator Harradine agreed to the report, but when the report was to be tabled, when members on the Labor side compromised—as we do in a committee procedure, with a bit of give and take to get a unanimous or a worthwhile report—suddenly a dissent was lodged by all but four of the government members. This is absolutely extraordinary. I could not lessen my concern about the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. I do not understand how people in this parliament could not want to be associated with that proposition. I do not find it objectionable that women should be able to appeal to a United Nations committee about discrimination that they may suffer in Australia. As I say, I am staggered by the government. I am staggered by what is being done to the committee. Last Monday, we had a worthwhile, considered report on detention centres—not abandoning mandatory detention of asylum seekers but certainly seeking a whole raft of improvements—and today we present a report about reforming the United Nations. And what do we have? Two dissenting reports. One is on the protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women—and what message does that send to the women of Australia?—and then a small number of government members dissenting against the establishment of the International Criminal Court. As I said, I have been privileged to be on this committee for a little while now, along with the deputy chairman of the committee and a fellow committee member. I am just staggered. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Does the member for Throsby wish to move a motion in connection with the report, to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?13:05:0028426Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—We hope it will be. I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.284262842613:05:0028426Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration, I present the report of the committee entitled The Centenary of Federation hearing: Review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 1999-2000, together with the minutes of proceedings.Ordered that the report be printed.8H4Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER—The report of the House economics committee that I present to you today is again a unanimous report of the committee. It reviews the performance of the Reserve Bank and its management of monetary policy over the past six months. It is based on discussions between the governor and the committee at a public hearing in Melbourne on 11 May this year. The two important matters highlighted in the report are, firstly, how the Reserve Bank seemed to get its projection of economic growth so wrong in the second half of last year and, second, the rip-off on ATM and EFTPOS interchange fees. Firstly, on the Reserve Bank's apparent misreading of the economy, the past six months have been a fairly turbulent period for the Reserve Bank. There have been two major changes in the economic environment and, in response, the bank has dropped interest rates three times between February and April this year by a total of 125 basis points, and monetary policy has returned to an expansionary setting.The first major change was that the outlook for the world economy deteriorated sharply at the turn of the year. This was mainly a result of developments in the United States, but it was widespread enough to cause significant downward revisions to world growth prospects. At the hearing the Reserve Bank stressed that the speed and extent of any recovery in the Australian economy will primarily depend on international conditions, chiefly in the United States. While cautious about the future, the bank expects the US to have a soft landing. The second major change was that it became apparent that the Australian economy had been a lot weaker in the second half of 2000 than anyone, including the Reserve Bank, had formerly thought. By May 2001, growth estimates for 2000-01 had been revised down from four per cent to around two per cent. The reason for the decline was the exceptionally large decline in dwelling investments as a result of the transitional effects of the introduction of the GST. The fall in the growth of the housing sector was over 37 per cent in the six months to December 2000. This turned a relatively unexceptional slowdown into a small contraction of GDP. The bank admitted that it had got those growth figures wrong.In the bank's analysis of the experiences of other countries that have introduced a GST, the bank did not expect that such an enormous fall in housing investment would occur in Australia. The backlog of house building that did not get completed prior to the introduction of the GST was smaller than the industry had predicted. On the up side, the bank reported that recently the Housing Industry Association and the banks have commented that house building is in the process of turning around and that its upswing could be very pronounced. In addition, the bank expects that the combined effects of lower interest rates and the $14,000 grant for the construction of a new house will start to show up by the June quarter.A very significant factor in the current economic climate is consumer and business confidence. While consumer confidence stayed above its average level until March 2001, it then fell sharply to levels below its long-term average. This fall was directly linked to the sharp contraction of the GDP in the December quarter and the fall in the exchange rate to record lows. In terms of business confidence, there is a noticeable divide between small businesses and medium to large businesses. The Australian Bureau of Statistics quarterly survey figures for smaller businesses showed a more marked decrease in confidence compared with larger businesses.In its report, the committee acknowledges the Reserve Bank's outstanding record on monetary policy since the early 1990s but, by the bank's own admission, it simply got the extent of the economic slowdown wrong. One of the factors that the committee believes that the bank did not appear to give sufficient attention to was business confidence, especially for small business. This was indicated by the bank's dismissive comments on business confidence surveys at the committee's December 2000 hearing. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that in future conduct of monetary policy, when there is a major structural change, the Reserve Bank should give appropriate weight to examining business confidence data.It was pleasing to note that the March national account figures released in the past few weeks showed that in volume terms GDP increased by 1.1 per cent in the March quarter. Recent surveys have also shown a pick-up in both business and consumer confidence. Another matter of concern is that the committee feels that the short-term approach of so many in today's financial markets could run the risk of declining private investment in long-term projects. The committee will ask the bank for a more considered view on this issue.I will now focus on the rip-off on automatic teller machines and EFTPOS interchange fees. Members will be aware that recent research by the Reserve Bank and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has shown that the banks have been overcharging consumers on interchange fees. In the past few months the Reserve Bank has used its power under the payment systems act to designate interchange fees of credit cards operated in Australia by Mastercard, Bankcard and Visa. While the Reserve Bank is currently acting to regulate credit card fees, it stated that it will not deal with the other interchange fees—that is, EFTPOS and ATMs—until after it has finished with credit cards. That will be sometime next year. The committee believes that the Reserve Bank should be acting more quickly on ATM and EFTPOS fees. The mark-up of these fees is of the order of 175 per cent for ATMs and 23 per cent for EFTPOS. There is strong community sentiment that this is a rip-off. It seems that there is little reason for not acting as soon as possible. Accordingly, the committee has recommended that the Reserve Bank give the same priority to investigating ATM and EFTPOS interchange fees, including loyalty programs, as it gives to credit card interchange fees. Other important matters addressed by the committee in the report are, firstly, the transparency of the Reserve Bank's decision making and the effectiveness of its current board structure; secondly, the bank's comments on the HIH collapse and the need for legislative change for general insurance; and, thirdly, the bank's concerns relating to the supervision of the 10,000 or so medium sized superannuation funds.The May hearing with the Reserve Bank was a Centenary of Federation national and Victorian event. We were privileged to hold that hearing in the chamber of the Victorian Legislative Council. The committee appreciates the assistance of the Hon. Bruce Chamberlain, the President of the Council, and his staff for making the chamber available to us. Finally, I would thank the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Mr Ian Macfarlane, and his staff for their cooperation and assistance with the hearing. I would also like to thank all the members of the committee, particularly the deputy chairman, the member for Chisholm, and the committee secretariat for their hard work and assistance, particularly Bev Forbes, Stuart Anderson, Margaret Atkin and Sonya Ristevski and also David Richardson from the Parliamentary Library. In this the centenary year of the Australian Public Service, I also acknowledge the information and support that our committee receives in its inquiries and briefings from many government agencies. I commend this report to the House.13:14:0028428Latham, Mark, MPMr LATHAMK26WerriwaALP00—I fully support the two recommendations in the report, The Centenary of Federation hearing: review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 1999-2000, by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration. During a time of major structural change in economic policy, such as the introduction of a new tax system, the Reserve Bank should give greater weight to the business confidence data. At the committee's December hearing in Wagga Wagga, the Reserve Bank downplayed the significance of business surveys. This was a mistake. These surveys highlighted the adverse impact of the GST on business conditions and confidence. Unlike the bank's macro forecasting, they foreshadowed the negative December quarter of GDP.The second recommendation concerns the reform of interchange fees. While the Reserve Bank is working on a new payments system for credit card fees, it has been too slow to correct the outrageous mark-up on ATM fees and debit cards. Last year its own report identified a 175 per cent mark-up by the banks on foreign ATM withdrawals. It is scandalous for this rip-off to continue, particularly given its impact on low income families. I join with other committee members in urging the Reserve to move faster on this issue. It will lose the confidence of the parliament and the Australian people unless reforms are introduced by the end of the year.This was my 12th hearing with the Reserve Bank as a member of the House economics committee. It was the first time in which the bank had made a serious error in the conduct of monetary policy. The increase in interest rates in the second half of last year was too severe. The bank misjudged the impact of the GST, especially the huge compliance costs for small business and the extent of the downturn in housing. It is timely, therefore, to examine the means by which the bank's performance can be improved and the parliament can update its governing legislation.I believe that five reforms are necessary. First, the Reserve needs to improve the transparency of its decision making process by publishing the minutes of board meetings and issuing policy statements at the conclusion of all meetings, not just those at which the cash rate has been altered. Second, the Reserve should be completely independent of the executive government. The Secretary to the Treasury should be removed from its board. Currently, the RBA is the only central bank in the Western world with a policy making board that includes an official government representative. Australia needs to come into line with international best practice. Third, the board's expertise in monetary policy needs to be improved. In the evidence placed before our committee, it is clear that a number of business representatives on the board are just passengers. Some have not said anything for a long time. They know little about monetary policy, even a basic understanding of the cash rate. I urge the government to urgently revise the membership of the board and appoint a far higher proportion of monetary policy experts. The stakes are too high to ignore this serious problem.Fourth, the bank's charter for inflation targeting should be formalised in the Reserve Bank Act. Realistically, it is a long while since the bank gave equal weight to its inflation and employment objectives in the conduct of monetary policy. Around the world, central banks have recognised that, for the short term at least, one policy tool—interest rates—can only ever hit one policy target: inflation. This reality should be reflected in the Australian legislation.Fifth, and finally, other policy instruments should be used to return the Australian economy to full employment. Tony Makin from the University of Queensland, for instance, has suggested that the Industrial Relations Commission should assume prime responsibility for reducing unemployment. Likewise, the Business Council of Australia has recommended a more independent process for the framing of fiscal policy. A budget advisory commission could ensure that government spending decisions take account of spatial variations in unemployment and address the paucity of demand and investment in our poorest neighbourhoods.There is a big charter for reforming the conduct of monetary policy. This is serious work, and I wish to place before the parliament these serious recommendations from my experience on the committee. Recent events have shown that the conduct of monetary policy in Australia is far from perfect. Interest rates are always an issue at election time. Hopefully, during the forthcoming campaign, the reform of the Reserve Bank will be a matter of substantial debate and policy activism.I endorse the recommendations and findings of the report. Along with the chairman, I thank the secretariat for their invaluable work in assisting the committee in the framing of the report. I look forward to our further deliberations with the Reserve Bank of Australia.13:19:0028429Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration to speak on the committee's report entitled The Centenary of Federation hearing: review of the Reserve Bank of Australia Annual Report 1999-2000. The report focused on matters raised during public hearings, and presented two recommendations. The committee recommended that, in the future conduct of monetary policy, when there is a major structural change the bank should give appropriate weight to examining business confidence data. The committee also recommended that the Reserve Bank give the same priority to investigating ATM and EFTPOS fees, including loyalty programs, as it gives to credit card fees.During the public hearing it was noted that the economic conditions of the last quarter of 2000 which reflected a downturn in economic growth were a particularly peculiar Australian event and one that was greeted with surprise and disappointment. Rather than a slowdown progressively occurring, we had one quarter of negative growth fuelled by the downturn in the housing sector, which accounted for five per cent of GDP, while the remaining 95 per cent of the economy experienced reasonable growth. The RBA noted that its research on other countries that had introduced a GST did not lead them to expect that such a peculiar event as a housing sector fall would occur to the extent that it did. This once in a generation structural change to the tax system, described in evidence by Governor Macfarlane as a `basically sensible policy', and the tightening of monetary policy were two reasons put forward by the RBA regarding the fall. However, the bank admitted to having got the figures wrong with regard to the impact of the fall in the housing sector and the effect it would have on the economy. Although the introduction of the new tax system created an incentive to bring forward dwelling construction to before 1 July 2000, the RBA stated that part of the reason for underestimating the fall in housing was that the backlog of dwelling construction prior to 1 July 2000 was much smaller than expected. The current climate of low interest rates, coupled with the $14,000 first home buyers grant for first time buyers of new dwellings, is expected to herald a growth in the housing sector, according to the RBA. Indeed, an increase of 2.4 per cent in the housing sector for the March quarter supports the RBA claim.Although recent indicators show an increase in consumer confidence, the committee, while acknowledging the outstanding record of the RBA on monetary policy, believes the impact of the new tax system on small businesses and business confidence should have been more closely observed by the RBA. The issue of business confidence was also raised at the Wagga Wagga hearings, and it is the recommendation of the committee that business confidence perhaps be examined a little more closely by the RBA when the economy undergoes major structural changes such as the introduction of the new tax system.The second recommendation of the committee builds on the joint study of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the RBA into interchange fees for debit and credit cards. A subsequent study by the ACCC found that the banks were unwilling to embrace substantial reform on these key issues. The ACCC was of the opinion that the RBA could use its legislative powers, granted under the Payment Systems (Regulation) Act 1998, to assist the issue and thus provide greater benefits. The committee continues to be concerned about things like loyalty programs attached to credit cards but is pleased with the progress being made with interchange fees. The next step in the process, according to the RBA, is to establish standards for setting interchange fees and a regime for access to credit card schemes.The committee, however, is also concerned with the mark-up in ATM fees, which are around 175 per cent, and EFTPOS fees, which are 23 per cent, and that there is room for improvement in the total system, including credit card fees. The RBA advised during the hearings that it would undertake further work on this issue following the ongoing credit card investigation. However, the committee would like to see further progress on the EFTPOS and ATM investigations. Consequently, the committee recommends that the RBA give the same priority to investigating ATMs and EFTPOS fees, including loyalty programs, as it gives to credit card fees. The public hearing provided great insight into monetary policy and the operations of the RBA, and the process was well supported by local secondary and tertiary students. I would like also to put on the record, as have previous speakers, my thanks to the secretariat for the wonderful work that they do in assisting the committee and I thank them for the research and assistance that they provide all of us on this committee. 13:24:0028430Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak today to this report of the Standing Committee on Economics, Finance and Public Administration entitled The Centenary of Federation: review of the Reserve Bank of Australia annual report 1999-2000. I would like to begin by thanking the secretariat and my fellow committee members for what was a very constructive hearing. In this parliament, emphasis gets given to the differences that we have. Even though we have differences as to economic policy, the way that the committee conducts itself is a credit to the chairman and to the parliament itself. It was an extremely successful hearing, particularly in the context of the Centenary of Federation sittings, where the committee process needed to have a place. Given that economic policy is at the core of this parliament's functioning, it was appropriate that we got the guernsey during the Melbourne hearings. It was an extraordinarily opportune time for the committee to meet, because in the December quarter we had seen an economic contraction of some 0.6 per cent, no doubt due primarily to the impact of the introduction of the goods and services tax. That tax had an extraordinarily devastating impact on the housing sector, led to petrol prices increasing substantially and led to an increase in compliance costs through the business activity statement. The increase in interest rates in 1999-2000 as a result of the tightening of monetary policy by the Reserve Bank also had an impact on the contraction.In the hearing Governor Macfarlane conceded to the committee that the RBA had got it wrong in underestimating the impact of the GST. He said:So yes, we plead guilty to having got those figures wrong and we think you can explain the vast majority of it through that factor: we were dealing with a once in a lifetime or once in a generation change and we were not able to predict exactly what the outcomes would be. The former Governor of the Bank of Canada, who is a friend of mine, had been through introducing a GST and said, `You have to be careful; something will happen. And it will be bigger than you think, but I don't know what it will be.' That was very helpful!As I stated to the governor at the time, those on this side of the House welcomed the Canada analogy. We predicted that there would be an economic impact similar to what had occurred in Canada, and we hope that later this year there will be a similar political impact against a government that introduced a goods and services tax. This occurred of course at a time when the economic figures were extremely worrying, not just in terms of growth. In relation to the foreign debt, we have seen the release of data showing that, as of May, Australia's net foreign debt was at a record $317 billion or 48 per cent of GDP. In February 1996, the then shadow Treasurer said that a level of foreign debt of $180 billion or 39 per cent of GDP was `the final indictment of Keating's economic mismanagement'. What does it say about the current government? We also had a discussion about the exchange rate. Again, the current Treasurer on 30 June 1995 in this House said:A nation's currency is a mark of how its economy is perceived in international markets. In international markets the mark that has been given to our currency and to this Prime Minister's economic management is a fail—an absolute fail. The dollar then was US79.7c. Since the introduction of the GST, it has not risen above 60c on any day.The committee hearing also discussed interchange fees and the need to ensure that there is a total policy approach—not just singling out of credit card fees but also addressing the issue of ATMs and EFTPOS fees. We also had a discussion on the prudential supervision of the insurance and superannuation industries and APRA's role. The committee believes that APRA needs to keep a much closer eye on what is going on in the wake of the HIH collapse. That can be seen to be a failure of the regulator as well as of HIH, with the resultant devastating impact that that is having on many of our constituents. I commend the report to the House.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Wannon wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?28431Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. Bills28431R134328431Bill presented by Mr Albanese.13:29:0028431Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—It is with some degree of sadness that I present to this parliament the Superannuation (Entitlements of same sex couples) Bill 2001, not because of what this bill seeks to achieve for Australians living in a same-sex relationship, but because I have had to do it now on four occasions. The government on three previous occasions has refused to allow time for it to be debated and voted upon by this parliament. It is outrageous that this government, a government elected on the mantra that it would govern for all Australians, has determined that removing discrimination from our laws is not worth the time of this parliament. Discrimination occurs in a number of ways: on retirement of the contributor, a refusal to pay a joint pension for the contributor and his or her same-sex partner; on retirement of the contributor, a refusal to pay a lump sum benefit in respect of a same-sex partner; on the death of the contributor, a refusal to pay death benefits to a same-sex partner, either by reversionary pension or lump sum benefit; on the death of the contributor, failure to investigate or acknowledge the claim to dependency of a child of a same-sex couple when the contributor is not the biological parent of the child; and, on the death of the contributor, a payment of death benefits to the estate of the contributor rather than to the same-sex partner as a dependant. This discrimination is inconsistent with other Commonwealth and state legislation and international undertakings and needs to be addressed as an issue of equity for Australian workers. The fact that superannuation is universal and compulsory particularly emphasises that the benefits of superannuation need also to be universal. Despite this, the government on three occasions now has been presented with an opportunity to show that it is genuine about ensuring that all Australians receive equal treatment before the laws of our nation, and it has failed on each and every occasion. My bewilderment at the government's stance is further heightened by the simple fact that the bill that I tabled today is not proposing radical reform. This bill does not seek to bequeath special rates to those living in same-sex relationships; rather it seeks to end the discrimination that currently exists in our superannuation laws. At present, same-sex couples can only access the same benefits as heterosexual couples through loopholes in the legislation. This is not good enough. Real equality is not about knowing where to find the loopholes but about having legislation that treats all people the same regardless of race, colour, sex, marital status, religion, political opinion, social origin or sexual preference. The current discriminatory position was further exposed in a submission made by the Community and Public Sector Union to the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services, which I quote:One of the key issues in terms of equality is that under the current superannuation law, heterosexual surviving partners whether married or de facto are considered to be “dependent” without any test and can gain access to superannuation death benefits. However, this is not the case for the surviving same-sex partner, who are either closed off from such benefits or they would have to demonstrate financial dependence upon the deceased partner.In the words of one of my constituents who has written to me about this issue:Quite frankly I think it is outrageous that I am victim to such discrimination—it's not as if I am asking for specific consideration but merely to be able to choose how I decide the beneficiaries of my super fund.That is a very important issue, because we are not talking about someone else's money here, we are talking about money that has been contributed by workers into superannuation funds. Surely they should have the right to gain equal treatment regardless of whether they are in a same-sex relationship or a heterosexual relationship, and that is why those on this side of the House have been so determined to pursue this change. I am very pleased to have worked with the member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby, who has seconded this legislation yet again. He knows that in the Melbourne community, particularly in the electorate that he represents, this is an equitable demand, a fair demand and a demand which must be met if government is to be brought into the modern era. In my view, the position expressed by my constituent is neither controversial nor unreasonable. It is what any decent society would want for its citizens. I believe that most people in our community would agree that all Australians should have the right to nominate who will benefit from their accumulated superannuation. In a practical sense, the bill seeks to remove current inequities in superannuation law by redefining the term `spouse' to include same-sex couples who have lived together and have become financially dependent upon one another. This bill has received broad community support and is in line with what most Western countries have already implemented. It is a reform that is supported by the superannuation industry. It is a reform that is supported by the trade union movement. It is a reform that is supported by the Association of Certified Practising Accountants. It is a reform that is supported by the business sector. It is a reform that is supported by all those who are opposed to discrimination. It is a reform that would bring Australia into line with its international obligations. In its report to the parliament, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission concluded that current legislation was in breach of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Labour Organisation's Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention. That report came about as a result of action taken by Greg Brown, whose partner, who had worked for some 17 years in the Public Service, had died. Greg Brown took action before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. He took action to receive justice, not just on his own behalf but on behalf of all those people who may find themselves in his situation. The human dimension of discrimination is something that we can never forget. At a time when an individual has lost their loving partner in life they should not have to be in a position whereby the discrimination faced by same sex couples is thrown back at them. It should be a time of bereavement, it should be a time of recovery and respect for that tragic loss of life, but currently people in this situation are forced into a battle over money. Those of us in the community who do not have to experience that should, however, be sympathetic to that plight, and the government should be sensitive to this issue.This reform would complement the initiatives that have been undertaken by various state governments to end discrimination against same sex couples. In the New South Wales parliament after the re-election of the Carr Labor government we had a unanimous position put forward—Labor, Liberal, Nationals, Independents—saying that discrimination was not appropriate and supporting the legislation which gave same sex couples the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. This reform is also consistent with the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation and Financial Services, which reported on superannuation and recommended that this bill be passed. Most importantly, this reform is supported by all of those in our community who advocate for social justice and an end to discrimination in all of its forms.The Body Shop entered the debate in 1999 with its `same sex, same rights' campaign and showed that the corporate sector could actually be involved in promoting progressive social change and that the corporate sector also had an obligation to those people who provide it with its profits and with its ability to expand to actually advocate a non-discriminatory position within the community. Given the broad community support for this bill, why have the Commonwealth government judged this matter so unimportant that they have refused to allow it to be debated? If the government were being honest they would allow this debate to be brought on and would allow a vote on this and would allow those people opposite who are decent, who do believe in antidiscrimination and who do support this bill to be able to vote on it.I note that the current Minister for Financial Services and Regulation, the member for North Sydney, indeed had agreed to second my bill prior to his becoming a minister. I thank him for that and acknowledge that there are many people of goodwill on the opposite side of the House who support this reform. Unfortunately, we have a Prime Minister who has stated that he does not support this reform. I have no problem with the Prime Minister personally wanting to live in a society in which there are nuclear families living behind white picket fences, as they did in the fifties, but there is no reason why he should demand that the rest of Australia stay back with him to keep him company. He should not use his position to hold up this reform. The government have allowed this bill to lapse three times. They just keep hoping that if they stall long enough it will just go away. But it will not. Discrimination against same sex couples regarding their superannuation is just too blatant. A civilised society committed to human rights cannot possess legislation as discriminatory as the current legislation is. All this bill seeks to achieve is to allow those Australians living in a loving relationship to determine who will be the beneficiary of their superannuation benefits. If this mean-spirited government are unprepared to act and embody this principle in legislation, then a future Beazley Labor government will. We have enshrined in our platform, in section 19 of chapter 9 `Security And Opportunity For Older Australians', the following:Labor supports a fair and equitable retirement incomes system which:... ... ...· provides equitable treatment to same sex couples including for superannuation ...That backs up chapter 12 of our platform, `Human Rights and Equal Opportunity For All Australians', which says:Labor supports the enactment of legislation prohibiting discrimination on the ground of a person's sexuality.Those inclusions in the platform, unanimously adopted at our national conference in Hobart last year, have been backed up by public statements by the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Barton, Robert McClelland, announcing that a Labor government would reform this area of legislation as a priority upon coming to government. I am proud to have my name associated with this bill and all it seeks to achieve. It is sad that the government of this country has deemed the elimination of inequality and discrimination unworthy of further consideration by this parliament.With regard to the Democrats' conduct in relation to this bill, it is unfortunate that they have chosen, in spite of their alleged support for reform, to use this issue as a political football and allege that somehow there is some equivocation on our behalf towards this reform. They have done this on two occasions. Firstly, they criticised my bill for the fact that it does not include Commonwealth public servants. As explained in the explanatory memorandum to this bill, a private member's bill before the House of Representatives cannot have a negative impact on revenue, and that is why, unfortunately, this bill moved again today does not include that provision. However, the next step, once this bill was passed, would be for action to be taken on the basis of eliminating that exclusion provision. That step would be taken by a Labor government, and the Democrats are very aware of that.Secondly, the Democrats last week, in moving an amendment to the Governor-General Legislation Amendment Bill 2001, said that same sex superannuation rights should be applied to the Governor-General. Labor voted against that on two bases. Firstly, the incoming Governor-General is not homosexual and therefore would not receive any benefit from this act. Secondly, we believe the reform needs to address everyone and not just single out one person in an opportunistic manner. Also, we believe this person, Archbishop Hollingworth, will be the last Governor-General, as we support a republic for Australia and a president. It is very unfortunate, and I call upon the Democrats to forget this nonsense and actually work constructively on this. I acknowledge their support, and they should acknowledge Labor's support for and commitment to this issue. This is an ideal I remain totally committed to, and I will fight until this legislation is changed. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill. (Time expired)Bill read a first time. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 104A.Statements by Members284352843510000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I call the member for Canning, and welcome her back.13:45:0028435Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00— Thank you, Mr Speaker. Today I want to record in this place my thanks to the people of Canning for their support and many messages of goodwill during my recent illness. I missed being in the electorate desperately and regretted not being able to attend many of the functions which I had so looked forward to. It is wonderful to be home and at work again. I am also very grateful to Royal Perth Hospital and would like to thank my medical team, Dr Ross Baker, Dr John Eikelboom, Dr Mark Bell, Dr Andrew McQuillan and Dr Mojdeh Vassiri, whose efforts have helped me be here today. To the staff on the BMTU ward, led by Annie Kelanly, Tabitha Sweetapple and Meg Plaster: you made a difficult time bearable. The dedication of this team is superb. Their moral support made it easier to face the challenge. The combined efforts of all at Royal Perth Hospital are a great example of the value the public health service offers our community.To Kim Beazley and my political colleagues for representing me in my electorate: many thanks. You made it much easier to relax and recuperate knowing my duties were being looked after. Thanks also to Lois Anderson, Frances Cain and Dragana Perovic, who ran my electorate office and ensured the people of Canning had any issue resolved quickly and efficiently. Finally, I thank God, Mum, Alan, Adele, family and friends and Dr Haggart for their support, as always. It is great to be back working for the electorate of Canning.2843513:47:0028435Lieberman, Lou, MPMr LIEBERMANXU5IndiLP10—I welcome back the member for Canning.On behalf of Tim Fischer, the member for Farrer, and me as member for Indi, I inform all members of the House of the strong support the people of Indi and Farrer are giving regarding the future of ADI in Yarrawonga-Mulwala and Benalla. These factories employ about 700 people, with many more people in indirect jobs. We value their support and their advice. They want Australia to achieve, as far as possible, self-sufficiency in the manufacture and supply of munitions and propellant. The factory at Yarrawonga-Mulwala virtually needs replacing. They want the federal government to sit down with ADI to negotiate a responsible commercial agreement that is fair to taxpayers and fair to ADI, and that serves Australia's defence interests and, above all, maintains these jobs.Last Thursday and Friday the communities of Benalla, Yarrawonga and Mulwala participated in rallies and marches. We estimate that nearly 10,000 people turned out. It was a magnificent, strong, united expression by the people of what they want for Australia. Parliament is strengthened by the efforts of those communities. The member for Farrer and I commend all those involved.I have pleasure in now presenting to parliament a petition of 16,127 people, which was assembled by them over only three weeks. It asks that the House request that funding be made available immediately for the upgrade of this strategically and regionally significant facility. I record my thanks to Brendan Nelson, Sharman Stone and others for their support. (Time expired)2843513:48:0028435Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I rise to congratulate the New South Wales women's goalball team, which won the Australian goalball championships on 11 June. I congratulate, in particular, Kerrie-Ann King, the captain of the women's team, and her husband, Troy King, who is a member of the New South Wales men's team, which was runner-up to Victoria in the competition.Goalball is the only blind team sport in the Paralympics. It is played with a 1.25-kilogram ball with a bell inside that is rolled with a tenpin bowling action down a court the size of a basketball court and into a goal similar to that in soccer. The defending team throw themselves physically along the floor to prevent the goal being scored—quite a hazardous occupation. An Austrian and a German invented goalball in 1946 in an effort to rehabilitate blinded war veterans. The game was introduced in 1976 at the Paralympics in Toronto, Canada, with the first world championships being held in Austria in 1978. Since that time, the popularity of goalball has increased to where it is enjoyed in all international blind sport association regions. Kerrie-Ann and Troy are looking towards the 2004 Paralympics in Athens as the next challenge, but are aware that they must overcome tough local opposition before this ambition can be achieved. Good luck to Kerrie-Ann and Troy and all goalball players.2843613:50:0028436Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I rise to congratulate the deliverers of aged care in my electorate and to pass on to the House the abhorrence they have about the political grandstanding that the opposition has been doing with regard to aged care patients in Australia. In my electorate the care provided by the aged care industry to their patients is second to none, and that is the case in 99 per cent of Australia. A more open, answerable aged care regime has resulted from the federal coalition's insistence on accreditation and accountability of all facilities across Australia. Isolated incidents of mismanagement highlighted in the metropolitan media would never have come to light under previous Labor administrations due to their relative lack of safeguards and absence of accreditation.Prior to last week I have had this situation raised with me several times by people in charge of aged care facilities in my electorate, who are concerned that patients in their care and families who are considering whether a member of their family should go into an aged care facility are caused undue duress when making the decision because of the perception promulgated by the opposition that it is a dreadful industry to be involved in and that people's health is compromised. In fact, certainly in my electorate, this is not the case. Care is delivered by very dedicated people, and the institutions that provide the care leave no stone unturned to provide this. (Time expired)2843613:51:0028436Short, Leonie, MPMs SHORT9V8RyanALP00—I would like to present a certified petition from the Save the Vet School Working Group. The primary petitioner is Anna McNaughton, the University of Queensland Union Faculty Officer for Natural Resources, Agriculture and Veterinary Science. The 14,516 petitioners request that the members investigate and ensure that adequate funding is made available to the UQ Veterinary School in order for it to regain its world-class standard in teaching facilities within the Ryan electorate. This is in view of the fact that the vet school's budget has been reduced from $6.5 million in 1996 to $4.2 million in 2001. Reduced funding has meant that academic staff members have been cut by 11 since 1996. The vet school does not have a professor and has been unable to attract a head of school. In addition, it has serious and well-founded concerns regarding the school's accreditation. The petitioners also request that the vet school maintain its own teaching herds and dedicated veterinary facilities at the Pinjarra Hills Teaching Farm.2843613:53:0028436Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10— One of the most popular and well-received decisions in the Howard government's recent budget was the one-off payment of $25,000 to former Australian prisoners of war of the Japanese. While no amount of compensation will ever make up for the pain and loss suffered by these diggers, it is an important statement of recognition and thanks on behalf of all Australians. I have received a letter from a former POW and his wife which states:Dear Mr Lloyd,Many thanks to the Government and the citizens of Australia for the payment of $25,000 to the Prisoners of War of the Japanese.It is much appreciated and we were most grateful to receive it, and you can be assured it will be put to very good use, helping family and children.We have also written to our Prime Minister, Mr John Howard and Mr Bruce Scott, Minister for Veterans' Affairs thanking them for the payment and their very kind words to us in a letter written to us.Thank you, again, one and all, for a most welcome payment—we are most grateful. Yours sincerely.That letter shows that this payment has been well received by the many POWs, their wives and their widows. I am very pleased to be associated with a government that was able to provide that payment in recognition of the pain and suffering that those prisoners of war experienced.2843713:54:0028437Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—I would like to welcome back the member for Canning. On Saturday evening, I had the great pleasure of attending the musical production Children of Eden by The Don College—a senior secondary college in my electorate—continuing a 20-year tradition of musicals presented by The Don College. Over a two-week season, 120 students took part in this musical. Children of Eden, by Stephen Schwartz, is a musical about choice, families and responsibilities. It was magnificently produced, as in the tradition of The Don College. I would particularly like to congratulate the students on the tremendous work that they put in, and also the staff who crewed the production on their tireless presentation of it. In particular, I would like to congratulate Shane Wolfe, who did the costumes, designed the production, did the props, was the director, choreographer and producer and the maker of 70 mobile animals for the production. He also played the part of God in the production, which I think would be the pinnacle of any actor's or singer's performance in musicals!Over the years, The Don College's presentations have been first rate. They are a leader in Tasmania in the presentation of musicals. I congratulate all the students who took part. The future of Australia is in great hands now in those teachers and in the students who made such a wonderful presentation possible. I thank them.2843713:56:0028437McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—Last week, keen followers of current affairs were rewarded in their seemingly endless search for a single Labor Party policy—be it through the Labor Party's web site or otherwise. Now it is official: ALP policy on virtually every major area of government is to appoint a committee. I refer to an article published in the Herald Sun by Gerard McManus on 17 June 2001 entitled `Labor Party's Red Tape Plan'. The writer chronicles 43 new bureaucracies which the opposition plans to create in the unfortunate event of it being elected to government. Highlights—or should I say low lights?—include a committee to advise on GST roll-back, a strategic policing coordination centre, a human rights ambassador and a commissioner for children. If you cannot decide what to do and it is all too hard, what do you do? You appoint a committee. That will make the whole issue go away. These 43 new committees, working groups, commissions, commissioners and talkfests are nothing more than a shallow attempt by Kim Beazley to avoid the responsibility of having any clear and meaningful policies. They are no substitute for up-front, explained and costed policies. The electorate will not be fooled by Labor's squirming and procrastinating on telling Australia what it really stands for in the run-up to the 2001 electorate: Beazley, no policy; ALP, no policy; 43 committees, no policy.2843713:57:0028437McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I warmly welcome back the member for Canning. The return of the Parthenon marbles is an issue of world cultural heritage and can no longer simply be regarded as a dispute between Britain and Greece. In 1970, UNESCO adopted a convention regulating international trading in cultural property. Australia ratified the convention by passing the Protection of Movable Cultural Heritage Act in 1986. A recent example of the operation of this legislation was the return of a number of ancient Greek artefacts which were stolen from Corinth in Greece and illegally exported to Australia in 1994. At a press conference held to hand over the stolen artefacts to representatives from the Greek government, Minister McGauran said:The Australian Government is delighted to return them to Greece—the country that has saved so much of Western arts practice.The Parthenon marbles are not freestanding artefacts but physically and integrally a part of the Parthenon. The issue of their return is one of promoting the integrity of the Parthenon monument and, as such, goes to an important issue of the world's cultural heritage. Australia can and must play a role in seeking their return. Recent press reports have indicated that the Greek government will construct a multimillion dollar museum adjacent to the Parthenon to house the marbles, thus negating many of the arguments put forward for the retention of the marbles in the British Museum. Mr Speaker, with the CHOGM conference being held in Australia in October this year, this would be an ideal opportunity for the Australian government to publicly support the return of the Parthenon marbles to Greece for inclusion in this new museum. I call on the Prime Minister to put this issue on the CHOGM agenda. 2843813:59:0028438Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—On Friday, it was revealed to me that the New South Wales state government's study into development on the Kurnell Peninsula is fatally flawed. I have been informed that Australand—one of the largest developers in New South Wales and owners of the land in question—has funded the study by providing the Department of Urban Affairs and Planning with $250,000 to employ a so-called `independent' consultant. Clearly, this is an untenable state of affairs. The minister concerned, Dr Refshauge, has received representations from the federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services, the federal Minister for the Environment and Heritage and local council urging that development not be countenanced in this area. Local sentiment, from the surveys and public meetings that I have organised, is clearly against the proposal, with just under 70 per cent opposing it and 24 per cent in favour. Yet he continues to seriously entertain the option and, worse, has commissioned a study the findings of which are tainted before they are released.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the time for members' statements has expired in accordance with standing order 106A.Ministerial Arrangements2843814:00:0028438Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—Before I deal with ministerial arrangements, could I say how pleased we all are to see the member for Canning back. We wish her well for the future. I inform the House that the Minister for Health and Aged Care will be absent from question time this week. He is leading the Australian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly special session in New York on HIV-AIDS. The Minister for Aged Care will act as Minister for Health and Aged Care and will answer questions on his behalf.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition.4T4Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham—It is called the hospital pass.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call. The member for Banks is extending him no courtesy at all.14:01:0028438Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, can I acknowledge the friendly remarks of the Prime Minister directed towards the member for Canning, and can we welcome her on this side of the House. She has put up a long, brave fight and it is great to see her back here.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I know that all members of the House will wish to be identified with the sentiments expressed by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition.Miscellaneous2843814:01:0028438SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—Members may notice that additional microphones have been placed at the centre table and at a small number of empty desks around the chamber. The microphones will be present today, Tuesday and Wednesday to assist in the analysis of sound levels in the House. They will record the unamplified voices of members during debates and question time and background sounds levels in the chamber. They are not part of the sound reinforcement system, nor are they part of the broadcasting system. The additional microphones will assist with and supplement the audio calibration of the sound reinforcement system, which is regularly conducted by technical staff of the Department of the Parliamentary Reporting Staff. The recordings will be analysed by specialist audio engineers and the results used to review the calibration of the system. If necessary, variations will be made during the winter recess. Questions Without Notice284392843914:02:0028439Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Do you recall when you announced your petrol tax inquiry on 1 March that you promised to release the terms of reference:... in the next week or two.Prime Minister, given that 17 weeks have now passed with no terms of reference released, can you explain the go-slow? Isn't it because you want the inquiry to run until after the election so that you can then jack up fuel prices? If not, will you rule out any increase in fuel tax, any cut to eligibility for the diesel fuel rebate or any cut to the Fuel Sales Grants Scheme?28439Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for that question. It enables me to inform him that when he sees the terms of reference he will find an explicit commitment to maintaining the value of those grants and rebates.2843914:03:0028439Georgiou, Petro, MPMr GEORGIOUHM5KooyongLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House why the visit of President Wahid has been delayed? What will be the main focus of the talks that you will be having with him when he arrives?28439Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the honourable member for Kooyong for that question. Unfortunately, due to mechanical trouble with his plane, the President of Indonesia was obliged to make an unscheduled stop in Darwin. I can now inform the House that he and his party, via three Royal Australian Air Force Falcons, are on their way to Canberra. I expect that they will arrive in Canberra shortly after 5.00 p.m. this afternoon.I look forward to meeting the President tomorrow. As well as our having a one-on-one meeting, he and his ministers will meet me and their ministerial counterparts in the government. This is a very important visit. It is not only symbolically important—it is certainly that—but it is also important for the contribution it will make to the ongoing relationship between our two countries. Everyone in the House knows that relations between Australia and Indonesia went through a difficult time over matters concerning East Timor. It is the desire, I know, of the government, and I am sure of the broader Australian community, to move on from those difficulties and to make certain at a political level that the strength of the relationship between our two societies is further strengthened. I would offer the view that the events surrounding East Timor, although they caused tension at a political level, did not essentially undermine the strong people-to-people links that have existed between Australia and Indonesia over a long period of time.In our discussions tomorrow, the President and I will discuss a range of issues across our broad relationship. I welcome the strong growth in the economic side of the relationship. For example, trade and investment remains very solid. Indonesia is Australia's tenth largest market for exports and Australia is ranked as Indonesia's tenth largest investor. Last year's Australia-Indonesia Ministerial Forum made good progress in many practical areas, and I will be discussing some of these with President Wahid, including our desire for continued and, if possible, increased cooperation in the very difficult area of people-smuggling.We respect and support, and will continue to advocate in international fora, the territorial integrity of the Republic of Indonesia and will continue to express our hope that secessionist tensions can be resolved, including through autonomy provisions. We welcome the transition to democracy which has been undertaken in Indonesia in recent years. It is a very large country and it is a very important neighbour of Australia. I cannot emphasis too much the significance, both symbolically and otherwise, of the visit. It is the first visit to the national capital for 29 years by a serving Indonesian president. It is the first visit to Australia since 1975—the last being by President Suharto to Townsville in 1975. For those and many other reasons, it is a very important moment in the foreign relations of this country. When the President arrives in the national capital this afternoon, he will be very warmly welcomed on behalf of all the Australian people. Honourable members—Hear, hear!Distinguished Visitors2844010000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Speaker of the Queensland parliament, the Hon. Ray Hollis, and Mrs Hollis. I would also inform the House that we have in the gallery Mr Simon Power, a member of the New Zealand parliament, who is here as part of the DFAT exchange program. Mr Power is the member for Rangitikei. I extend to our Queensland guests and to our New Zealand guest a very warm welcome on behalf of the House.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice284402844014:08:0028440Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, when were you first made aware of the use by Job Network providers of their own labour hire companies to receive a payment from the government for placing people into phantom jobs? Can you guarantee this House that you were not personally aware of this practice prior to Senate estimates on 4 June?28440Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—For starters, the government has no truck with anyone that puts anybody into a phoney job, a ghosting job or any other term that you wish to use. The government is providing employment services to Australia's unemployed to get the best person into the job that they can. As far as using labour hire companies is concerned, the government has no problem with companies using labour hire companies whereby the employment is for real jobs. As you are aware, and as I made the House aware last week, there is an inquiry under way currently in relation to these matters and I intend to make a statement as soon as the interim report is available.As far as my own knowledge of these matters is concerned, the department became aware that there were some irregularities in regard to an organisation and commenced inquiries prior to Senate estimates. My own knowledge of this matter became clear at Senate estimates.2844014:10:0028440Hawker, David, MPMr HAWKER8H4WannonLP10—My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of the current state of play in Australia in relation to the information economy and, in particular, its value for country Australia?28440Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Wannon for his ongoing interest in the way in which Australia has embraced information technology and the way in which, through the use of information technology, as distinct from the manufacture of those things that contribute to it, this country has been able to boost its economic performance and to lift its productivity. Recently—in fact, a few hours ago—the National Office for the Information Economy released a survey called `The current state of play: June 2001'. That report revealed a number of interesting pieces of information that demonstrate that Australia is up there with the best in relation to the use of information and computer technology. It revealed, for example, that 65 per cent of Australians aged 16 and over have access to the Internet, placing Australia in sixth place out of the 20 developed countries and putting Australia, I understand, ahead of the United Kingdom, Ireland and Japan, and that almost seven million adults—that is, 50 per cent of Australians—had used the Internet in the year to November 2000. This was a staggering 61 per cent increase over a period of two years. The proportion of adults in regional and rural Australia who use the Internet has grown strongly from 25 per cent in November 1998 to 44 per cent only two years later in November 2000. The report found that there was strong growth in Internet usage across all age groups and across all income groups and that, as at June 2000, an estimated 56 per cent of employing businesses were connected to the Internet, and this was a staggering 93 per cent increase over a two-year period. The report also cites Economist Intelligence Unit research which found that Australia was ranked second behind the United States in terms of providing an environment conducive for the development of e-business opportunities. The EIU determined that Australia's regulatory regime geared to e-business was a critical factor in its second place ranking out of 60 countries—second only to the United States in a ranking of 60 countries in the study. This is further evidence of how wrong it is of the Leader of the Opposition to talk down the knowledge base of the Australian economy. It reminds us yet again that the opposition leader, having failed to talk down the strength of the Australian economy, has now turned his negative rhetoric to the intelligence base and information base and the capacity and adaptability of the men and women of Australia in relation to information and computer technology. Just as he failed in relation to the economy generally, so he will fail in his latest attempt to talk down the achievements and the adaptability of the people of this country.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Before I recognise the member for Dickson, I point out to the House that at the beginning of question time I made reference to a sound evaluation program that is going on in the chamber. If members thought the microphones were remarkably well concealed, they are right. I am told the sound evaluation program commences tomorrow.2844114:13:0028441Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, can you confirm that your department advised Job Network providers, in your presence, on 1 June—that is, before Senate estimates—that up to 10 per cent of all payments made to Job Network providers for job matching placements were in fact spurious? Minister, are you seriously asking this House to believe that your department advised Job Network providers of spurious claims before it advised you? I ask again: when were you first made aware of the use by Job Network providers of their own labour hire companies to receive `phantom job' payments?28441Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—I am aware of the meeting you refer to, and yes, I was present. At that meeting, a departmental person did indicate to the meeting that there were a number of job placement payments which had to be retracted. This was as a result of a survey they conducted of 963 placements showing that 61 debts were raised, meaning that a Job Network member was required to repay their placement fee. Only 17 debts related to job seekers working for fewer than 15 hours. The need for a Job Network member to make a repayment does not imply fraudulent activity, as you are suggesting. Indeed, all 61 debts were overpayments which came about for a variety of reasons, such as where an employer agreed to a job seeker taking on more than 15 hours and then did not require them for 15 hours so a payment had to be made back, or where a job seeker found their own employment. More than half of those payments identified—32 payments—related to Employment National. We will continue to raise these issues to improve that, but are you seriously suggesting that the Commonwealth's own agency is trying to rort the Commonwealth? I might add that I believe that Employment National has that question in hand. Let me emphasise that the September and November random audits have not identified a single overpayment as a result of fraud, and all debts are in the process of being recovered. However, this flies in the face of the old CES. Let us talk about what happened there and talk about fraudulent claims. An office in a town of about 4,000—one office in a town of 4,000 people—recorded 1,000 referrals and placements to a particular employer on the last day of the month each month in order to increase the referral and placement statistics. Another office that operated with four staff created so many phoney registrations and referrals under the Labor Party CES that the staffing formula indicated that 35 staff would have been needed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Firstly, on relevance, there was absolutely nothing in the question which justified this. Secondly, the fundamental question has not been answered: `Did you know prior to that briefing on 1 June?' 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The Leader of the Opposition has a point of order on relevance. The second matter is not a point of order. The minister has been asked a question about spurious claims, and it was in that context that I allowed him to continue, but he does need to link the remarks he is making to the question asked. 2K6Mr BROUGH—On another occasion, in an office which was not referring the appropriate number of disabled job seekers, the problem was easily solved under the Labor Party's CES by classifying every person with spectacles as disabled. Is that the sort of behaviour that the member for Dickson considers to be appropriate? When an office did not have enough people who were of non-English speaking background, anyone without an Anglo-Celtic name was referred also, because they probably could not speak English as well. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister is clearly defying your ruling last time—which was that he has to tie this attempt to avoid the question to the question. We want to know what he knew and when he knew it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have indicated to the minister that he has an obligation to tie the remarks he is making and the comparison he is making to the question asked. I call him.2K6Mr BROUGH—The connection is simple. It is that, under the Labor Party CES, CESs were actually granted more staff as a result of referrals regardless of how spurious they may have been. The Labor Party provided on outcomes which were a training program; under the coalition, outcomes are jobs. This government pays for people to get into work. It does not support under any circumstances anyone being paid for a position, a job, which is not a real job, which is a phoney job. Any such cases are investigated in full. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I ask the minister to table the document from which he was quoting. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Was the minister quoting from confidential documents?2K6Mr BROUGH—I was.2844214:19:0028442Charles, Bob, MPMr CHARLESOT4La TrobeLP10—My question is to the Treasurer. Has the Treasurer seen claims that the economy is experiencing booming exports, strong retail and motor vehicle registrations and strong jobs growth? Where have these claims been made and how do they accord with government projections and policy?28442Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for La Trobe for his question. I have seen claims that the economy is experiencing booming exports, strong retail trade and very strong motor vehicle registrations, because I have been reading political advertising. In fact, I read some in the Weekend Australian on Saturday, and I was about to ring up my office to ask which of the Commonwealth government ads it was when I realised it had been placed by Premier Steve Bracks, boasting about all of the new investment in Victoria and then finishing off by saying:Victoria's exports are booming ... Retail trade turnover is 11.2% up ... Motor vehicle registrations are up 16.2% ... dwelling approvals represented 31% of the national total. And all that in an economy which has been king-hit by the GST, I thought to myself. What an extraordinary thing. The federal Labor Party has been running around a'wishin' an' a'hopin' an' a'thinkin' an' a'prayin' for a recession, it has been telling us that the GST has been king-hitting the economy, and the Victorian Labor Party is boasting about how strong it is. When I was younger, I used to watch a lot of westerns. At this point, an old Indian would always look up at the US cavalry and say, `Me think he speaks with a forked tongue.' Methinks the Labor Party speaks with a forked tongue on these issues. If you listen to the federal Labor Party, it is, `Oh, the economy is awful.' But the Victorian Labor Party are taking out ads boasting about how it is booming. Who is right—federal Labor or state-run Labor? As it turns out, both are wrong, because the economy is strong, but it has precious little to do with any of the initiatives of the Bracks state Labor government. The ad says: Victoria's exports are booming ... One of the reasons Victoria's exports are booming is that we took $3½ billion worth of taxes off the exports of this country. That was something that was opposed by the Labor Party right to the bitter end, even though the Manager of Opposition Business conceded on 12 January 2000 that the GST overall should be good for exports. What about retail trade? What has the Victorian government done to encourage booming retail trade? Well, I can tell you that one of the things that has encouraged booming retail trade is the fact that every Australian income tax payer got an income tax cut on 1 July last year and now has more money to spend. That has been very good for retail trade. But of course the Labor Party opposed income tax reductions. And what about motor vehicle registrations, which are up 16.2 per cent in Victoria alone? Well, the biggest thing you could do for the motor vehicle industry in this country was to cut the 22 per cent wholesale sales tax on every vehicle, introduce a 10 per cent GST and wipe out taxation altogether for any business that buys a motor vehicle. From budget night in May this year, no business that buys a vehicle will pay any tax whatsoever—a reduction of 22 per cent in the tax on the wholesale value of that particular motor vehicle. The truth of the matter, as the Victorian Labor government says, is that the Australian economy is strong—and it is stronger because of tax reform. The falsity is in the hands of the federal Labor Party. It has done everything it could to try to talk down the Australian economy, and its only regret is that it has been unsuccessful.2844314:23:0028443Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Employment Services. When were you first made aware of the use by Job Network providers of their own labour hire companies to receive phantom job payments?28443Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the Leader of the Opposition. You have already asked me the question; I have given you the answer.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—When?2K6Mr BROUGH—What is quite clear is that—5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—What was the answer?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call.2K6Mr BROUGH—Quite clearly, as I said, the department became aware of irregularities regarding some use of labour hire companies prior to Senate estimates questions that raised these issues, and the time I became aware of those specific allegations was in fact at the Senate estimates. However, I will tell the Leader of the Opposition: there was no reference at the meeting on 1 June to labour hire companies. It was about the general point that repayments had been made back to employment agencies where it had been deemed that there was a necessity for a repayment. The department was working particularly with the Commonwealth's area of Employment National to improve that situation.2844314:25:0028443Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the measures taken by the government to reduce processing times for people making application in detention? Is the minister aware of other proposals to address this issue?28443Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for Moore for his question, because it does give me an opportunity to put this issue into some context. First, let me repeat what I have said in a number of places recently. Australia does not detain refugees, but we do detain people who arrive, undocumented, unlawfully, in Australia in order for us to be able to process and remove from Australia people who have no lawful entitlement to be here. The fact is that a year ago 4,100 people arrived by boat. This year, about 4,000 people have come already. I noticed that some people were fairly critical of me when I said that as many as 10,000 people could be packing up their bags—WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby—Whole villages.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Yes. And almost 9,000 are here now. That is the point, isn't it? But, on top of that, we have 7,000 onshore claims from people who arrived lawfully and who seek to test claims as well. The government have acted to reduce processing times for people in detention, with extra resourcing and streamlined procedures. People with documentation—let me make this point very clearly—with strong claims, are being released in as little as four weeks after arrival. In other words, if they are refugees who are able to establish clearly who they are, where they are from, what the nature of those claims is and to have them tested, people can be out in as little as four weeks. Eighty per cent of applicants get a primary decision within 15 weeks—that is, within 15 weeks, 80 per cent are advised whether or not they are accepted as refugees. The real delays— and people do cite cases of people who are held for two or three years—occur when people who have manifestly unfounded claims or no claims at all wish to pursue their case before our courts to test whether or not they have a basis to be here, or often simply to delay the inevitable and to be able to argue, `It's unreasonable to remove me because I've been here for so long.' Currently in detention there are 153 people who are either involved or were involved in litigation over protection visa applications, and there is a wider group of people who are involved in other matters before the AAT or in relation to security questions where those issues are being tested as well. The fact of the matter is that people are using every avenue available to them. That is where the delays are. Primary decisions are taken very quickly. The Refugee Review Tribunal has given priority to decisions in this area. If somebody goes before the Federal Court, before a single judge, on average it takes 222 days. If they appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court, the average is 165 days. So, in combination, it takes more than a year, and that is before they even try the High Court—and something in the order of 70 immigration matters are now before the High Court.What does the opposition have to say about these matters? The opposition says, `Speed up the system.' The shadow minister said, `The reality is the system can be quickened up. I think it needs to be streamlined.' He said that on the Sunday Sunrise program on Sunday. He got even more specific when he said, `We can speed up the process. Let's look at it and see if we can speed up the court system.' Well, the Attorney has been liaising with the court over those matters, to ensure that they are dealt with expeditiously.Let me just say where the real delay is. The real delay is where people are able to abuse the legal system. The Labor Party think it is good enough to remove casino decisions from the purview of the courts for examination in New South Wales. They have approved privative clauses elsewhere, but in the next fortnight in the Senate we will, I suspect, see them again oppose the introduction of a privative clause which would ensure that people had access to appeal but did not have access to unreasonable opportunities to exploit our judicial review system when they are non-citizens and have no entitlement to be able to access that system to delay decisions in relation to their presence here in Australia.The fact of the matter is that the opposition can be part of the solution in these matters. They should not be out there baying that this is a problem that has to be dealt with. They can be part of the solution. They do not have to be part of the problem. All they have to do is support the reform of the system and we will have a much more expeditious system. We will have those people available for removal and then we will be able to set about ensuring that they do go home.2844414:31:0028444Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, isn't it a fact that you were directly informed in February by Leonie Green, Managing Director of Leonie Green and Associates, of the fact that she placed her Job Network clients into her own labour hire company, for which she received what had turned out to be phantom job payments? Minister, isn't it also a fact that you told her that you did not wish to know the details?28445Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—I thank the member for Dickson. I do not recall any such conversation with Leonie Green. Let me make amply clear what the government's policy is in relation to putting people into labour hire companies. The jobs filled by job matching providers must meet a threshold of 15 hours over five working days, for a payment to be made. The government has no issue whatsoever with labour hire companies being utilised by Job Network members in order to do that. We are aware that Job Network members in some cases outsource to such companies and in some cases own them. What we are interested in and will continue to be interested in is ensuring that real employment is offered in all cases. As the member for Dickson is aware, the situation involving Leonie Green is under investigation by the department. I have asked them to expedite that inquiry and I am expecting to be able to have an interim report this week. It will take some time longer than that for the complete inquiry to be formalised, but it is my intention to ensure that the Job Network is in fact protected from the slander that has been coming from those opposite, and the innuendo that malpractices are in fact widespread, and to ensure that the integrity of the service—PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. It was a very specific question asked. The question was: did he meet Leonie Green in February? The minister is yet to answer it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition, by any measure the minister was relevant. Has the minister concluded his answer?2K6Mr BROUGH—In conclusion, the Job Network is providing twice the job applications of the old CES, at half the price of the CES. What we are seeing here is the unemployment policy, not the employment policy, of the Labor Party being enunciated.2844514:34:0028445Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister inform the House of the implementation of the government's boost to quarantine funding? What are the priorities for the upgrading of our quarantine services? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies which would put the government's tough quarantine policies at risk?28445Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—I thank the member for Hinkler, who displays a keen interest in quarantine defence issues. It is perhaps not widely known that the port of Bundaberg, in the honourable member's electorate, is actually one of the busiest small craft arrival ports in Australia. It is a place where quarantine and customs officers work cooperatively together to ensure there is an appropriate quarantine barrier. Many Queensland members have expressed concern about the need to upgrade Australia's quarantine services and to ensure that we have an effective barrier against disease in our country. With the honourable member for Leichhardt, I visited Cairns airport a week or two ago, where initial work is being done to achieve the government's new objective of 100 per cent inspection of passengers on arrival and 100 per cent inspection of cargo coming into this country. In Cairns, new staff are already being recruited to help achieve this objective for both customs and quarantine, three new X-ray machines are under order and there is an extra dog team being trained. This is a vital national initiative, absolutely essential to protect our country's clean and green image.The honourable member asked whether there were any risks to this magnificent $600 million investment by this government in quarantine. There is an alternative policy and that is one of the pet projects of the Leader of the Opposition—the coastguard. We have been hearing quite a bit about the coastguard over recent times, the so-called free coastguard that the shadow minister for defence often refers to. But we learnt over the weekend that in fact the coastguard is a major threat to the government's investment in quarantine expenditure, because the honourable member for Bowman let the cat out of the bag as to how the coastguard is actually going to be funded under the Labor government. The pet project of the Leader of the Opposition is, as I understand it, supposed to be modelled on the US Coast Guard, which costs about $7.2 billion a year and employs 42,000 people. RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—Don't be silly. Read the document.GT4Mr TRUSS—If you decry that, are you aware that it has about the same size land area as Australia? I think the US actually has a smaller coastline, and so it might even cost more to run a coastguard in Australia than it does to run one in the US. We were finally told yesterday on Sunday Sunrise by the member for Bowman, the shadow minister for immigration, how this coastguard was going to be paid for. I think this has already been referred to by the minister for immigration. According to the member for Bowman, Labor would pay for a coastguard by using funds from other services, including quarantine and customs. He said, `There are fisheries, quarantine, customs and there is a lot of money being spent. We are talking about possibly pooling these funds to get a coastguard.' So that is the fact: they will roll back quarantine expenditure, roll back all the effort in relation to customs and increase fees for fishermen so that the rival navy and air force being proposed by the Leader of the Opposition can be funded.So this is where coastguard is coming from: a wind back, a roll-back, of our effort to upgrade Australia's defences at the border—the $600 million expenditure on ensuring a 100 per cent inspection of passengers' luggage, a 100 per cent inspection of cargo, a 100 per cent inspection of mail. All of that sort of thing is at risk because the Leader of the Opposition wants to set up a rival air force, army and navy so that a $2 billion coastguard can be established around the country, destroying the cooperation between the various services—the police, the Air Force and Navy—that exists at the present time. He wants to destroy all that and wind down the quarantine effort so that he can set up this rival army and air force—that is, coastguard. That is a threat now to the quarantine effort that this government is putting in place that has been so warmly welcomed by the rural industries of Australia and, indeed, by the whole nation. We know our disease-free status and our clean and green image is vital to our nation. The opposition leader wants to trade this off for a McHale's navy.2844614:39:0028446Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, did you meet with Ms Leonie Green on 16 February? Did you discuss Job Network issues with her? Have any notes been produced from that meeting? If there have been, will you table them here?28446Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—I would be only too happy to answer the Leader of the Opposition's question. I will check the details with my office. I think I was sworn in only on 14 February, but you probably know that better than I. There is nothing here whatsoever to hide, because the fact is that the Job Network has been working well.While we are on the Job Network and the 15 hours issue, I should explain why 15 hours has been chosen. It seems to be raising so many questions. The member for Dickson on television on Friday night said that 15 hours is not a real job. Well, under the CES, two hours was a real job—for example, unloading the truck was enough. Do anything for three hours and that was enough, and then the CES would get a payment in the form of additional staff. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister—2K6Mr BROUGH— What checks and balances were there under the Labor Party? None at all.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister—2K6Mr BROUGH—But because we pay on performance—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister—2K6Mr BROUGH—we ensure that the people—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister—2K6Mr BROUGH—who are receiving Commonwealth payments are doing so thoroughly and properly.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will resume his seat. I call the Manager of Opposition Business.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—You've now sat him down. 2844714:41:0028447Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Minister, how does the Australian Defence Force contribute to the government's tough quarantine policies? Minister, are you aware of alternative policies that may prevent the Australian Defence Force from maintaining this important role?28447Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The Australian Defence Force is an absolutely integral part of the protection of Australia's coastline and an integral part of the very highest priority that this government gives to quarantine issues. If I was asked to nominate some of the best things that the Howard government has done, I believe history will show that the work we have put into Coastwatch and the additional funding and the resources applied to the quarantine task were not only justified but thoroughly in the national interest. Within that system, none does a better job than the Royal Australian Navy. I believe that we ought to keep the Royal Australian Navy undertaking the tasks that it does. We have not only the Royal Australian Navy but the Royal Australian Air Force with the Orions which play, again, a vital role in protecting this country against the incursions of diseases or pests which could literally decimate the great agricultural industries that underpin so much of our living standards.I join with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry in expressing real concern about the hotchpotch of policy that we get from the Labor Party on this issue. To my knowledge there are something in the order of six different policies from the Labor Party on this vital issue, all of which lead to a downgrading of the Royal Australian Navy's work on the Australian coastline and of the vital work of the Royal Australian Air Force. The shadow minister for industry in February last year was going to give us 15 purpose-designed vessels. Then the shadow customs spokesman was going to give us not 15 but 12, plus another description of ships. The shadow fisheries spokesman just two weeks ago said that we would have specialised vessels. That proposition was costed at about $850 million. The shadow minister for justice then popped his head up again and said that it was not actually going to cost us anything; so now we have a free coastguard from the Labor Party. Now we have Conroy candour in the lower house—his opposite number. I think it is fair to say that Senator Conroy is a person of discretion and of judgment and a person who understands the basic mechanics of putting together a federal budget. I say that, on this occasion—the words may come back to haunt me—Senator Conroy was prepared to speak the truth. It seems that, faced with a proposal for which there is no money, the member for Bowman thought that he would let a bit of Conroy candour out into the media. He said, `Well, there is a lot of money being spent. We're talking about possibly pooling some of those funds, taking them from each of those places and being able to get, if you like, a coastguard.' In other words, strip down what we are already doing in Coastwatch to set up, should I say to my colleague, not a pretend Navy or Royal Air Force but, in fact, an army of bureaucrats. I say that based on none other than the report which the Leader of the Opposition signed off in the 1980s when he said this was not a good idea, in today's dollars it would cost $2 billion and it would not be more effective— in fact would be less effective than the then system prevailing, which we, of course, have significantly enhanced.This policy from the Labor Party is a disaster. It puts second the national interest. The Labor Party is putting it up, and it has got six different positions, all as part of some sort of fraud on the Australian public as to what it is going to do. The fact is you do not have a buck to do this. It is not a good idea. You yourself have been opposed to it. As I suggested to you last week, you ought to get all of your shadows—there are five or six of you now—together and actually finally put this whole policy in the wastepaper bin, where it belongs.2844714:46:0028447Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, isn't it a fact that on 16 February this year a senior officer of your department, Ms Lesley Riggs, the Group Manager of the Job Network Group, gave verbal approval to Leonie Green for the practice of her using her own labour hire company to place her Job Network clients for which she received payments for phantom jobs? Minister, are you really saying that the department approved this practice in February but did not tell you until June? 28448Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—I do not know how many times I have to state this for the member for Dickson's benefit, but this department, this government, is not accepting placing anyone into phoney jobs, phantom jobs or whatever you care to mention. The fact is we have no problems with Job Network companies utilising the services of labour hire companies as long as those jobs are real.2844814:47:0028448McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation. Minister, what real improvements have been made to telecommunications services in outer metropolitan, regional, rural and remote parts of Australia? Are there any ongoing examples of these real improvements being misrepresented?28448McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGAURANXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—I thank the honourable member for his question. He and all members on this side would take as much pleasure as I do in the improvement in the service levels for his constituents and all Australian telecommunications consumers. We have an objective, arms-length assessment—indeed, proof—of that by way of the March quarter survey of the Australian Communications Authority into the consumer service guarantee framework that the government introduced in 1998. What that survey has found is that Optus had the best national performance, at 96.5 per cent, for connecting new services within the new and tougher consumer service guarantee time frames. Telstra was at 90 per cent. Telstra's performance in connecting new and in-place services has remained strong. For new infrastructure in major rural areas, compliance is 84 per cent, a substantial improvement over the previous—December—quarter when compliance was 75 per cent. And Telstra's performance in meeting the consumer service guarantee standard time frames for fault rectification stands at 85 per cent, up from 81 per cent in the December quarter.But, believe it or not, there is somebody who, in the face of this objective survey by an independent body charged with furthering the interests of consumers, contests that. It is none other than the member for Perth, who claimed on the AM radio program this morning:On anyone's estimate, whether it is the Besley inquiry, whether it is the Australian Communications Authority, service levels by Telstra in outer metropolitan, rural and regional and remote Australia are inadequate.How does that tally with the Australian Communications Authority's survey showing that service levels are increasing? The member for Perth himself has issued press releases at different times in the past congratulating the carriers for this improved level of service. So the member for Perth knows that his statement was false on the AM program this morning, and not only in regard to the ACA. The Besley inquiry found that Australians generally receive adequate phone services, and it is in rural and remote areas where services are not adequate. The government is addressing that.The member for Perth was able to con his way on to AM, which is supposed to be the flagship radio current affairs program of the ABC. He was invited on the strength of this attack on the government because of some internal memo within Telstra which has no management endorsement and is not part of any business plan. Doesn't it occur to the producers of the AM program and those other journalists who ran his story—as is par for the course when he puts out something on a Sunday; it invariably gets picked up and he backs away—why there is no question in this House? And there will not be a question in this House. Yet he gets a national audience. He has once again slimed his way into the media consciousness. He has got a track record on this. He verbals people left, right and centre. He will say anything at the time just to gain some media attention. He never substantiates it; he never follows through. For instance, he said on 5 March this year by way of a press release, so it was not a mistaken comment: That is why the Prime Minister could say last week that he and the government regard the full privatisation as a certainty.The Prime Minister has never said that. There is no transcript, there is no statement, and you have put in quotes as if it is the Prime Minister's own quote. Another verballing. This time he amends his own transcript; he doctors his own words. According to an ABC web site, when asked on AM— AM again—5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr Stephen Smith—I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. The minister used the phrase `doctored', which I regard as offensive, and I ask that he withdraw it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Perth will resume his seat.XH4Mr McGAURAN—Doctored, falsified, rewritten—what does it matter? It is the same thing.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—It matters a great deal, but I do not determine that `doctored' is unparliamentary. I call the minister. XH4Mr McGAURAN—According to the ABC transcript of his interview on AM on 22 March last year, when asked to substantiate his attacks on the integrity of the independent telecommunications service inquiry, the Besley inquiry—and remember his very personal attacks on the integrity of the Besley inquiry—he said, `That's not the point.' In other words, he backed off. When asked to substantiate his claim, he says, `That's not the point.' But when the transcript appeared on the ALP web site on 6 March, he says, `Well, that's the point.' So he is brave with the ALP transcript—Government member interjecting—XH4Mr McGAURAN—Exactly. If some of those journalists who are so easily fooled or beguiled by the member for Perth want to come along to either Senator Alston or me, we will give them chapter and verse on his long history of complete misrepresentation. We have got the ABC lies, the Besley lies, the GST lies, the Telstra service lies, the Telstra pricing lies, the mobile phone tower lies—it goes on and on.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Mr Speaker, we do not object to this standard if you are going to allow it to be uniform, but this series of statements about things being `lies' is not something which you have traditionally allowed. I do not object to it, but I am requesting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Does the Manager of Opposition Business have a further point of order?5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I want to conclude the point of order to say that if you intend to allow the minister to continue to say that without requiring him to withdraw it—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—As the Manager of Opposition Business is well aware, occupants of the chair have been very consistent about what is parliamentary or unparliamentary language. It is distinctly unparliamentary to call anyone `a liar'. I was listening very closely to the Minister for the Arts and Centenary of Federation. That was not an accusation he made. In fact, I thought that his statement was very poorly worded and it could have been determined that a number of the issues he was raising had in fact been raised in error or deceitfully. I will clarify the matter with the Manager of Opposition Business with reference to the Hansard at a later date. I am allowing the minister to continue and, if the Manager of Opposition Business believes I have been in error in my comments, I will report back to the House.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—So you are saying that accusing someone of telling lies is okay?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I am indicating that, as is consistent with past practice, it is of course quite improper to call anyone `a liar'. I did not hear the minister say that. That does not mean I like the language that the minister was using, but my intervention was consistent with the actions of previous occupants of the chair.XH4Mr McGAURAN—The member for Perth thinks it is clever politics to misrepresent in this way, but it is all part of the public's perception that the opposition is policy lazy and will do anything to get its way into government. Opposition members—Lies!XH4Mr McGAURAN—The lies being told are by the opposition about telecommunications services. So the dimmer of the glimmer twins has struck back. He is a masked deceiver— 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister shall resume his seat. I do not believe that the member for McMillan is in any way assisting the Manager of Opposition Business, nor do I believe that the actions of those on my left have been at all responsible.XH4Mr McGAURAN—I challenge the member for Perth to ask a question on the press release he put out yesterday and on his media interviews today. He received some coverage in most newspapers, so it says something about the member for Perth or it says something about political media coverage in this country that the member for Perth can regularly and in an uncritical manner be represented in the media. Ask your question if you believe what you said earlier on.2845014:56:0028450Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment Services. Minister, can you give a guarantee to the House that the departmental inquiry you have commissioned will examine precisely when you first became aware of the practice of Job Network providers creating their own labour hire companies to receive payments for phantom job placements? Will it examine who advised you of this practice and will it examine what action you took after you first became aware of this practice? In any case, Minister, how can you guarantee an internal departmental inquiry will get to the bottom of this practice when it was the department itself that gave its approval?28450Brough, Mal, MPMr BROUGH2K6LongmanLPMinister for Employment Services10—Are we to take by this question from the Leader of the Opposition that he does not accept the integrity of the Commonwealth Public Service? Is that what we are to take by the Leader of the Opposition questioning that public servants are going to not provide honest advice to the government of the day? The fact is that this will be a full and thorough investigation. I have given a commitment to this House that I will return to this House—presuming that we are able to do so before the House rises this week—with an interim report and then provide a full report, because the integrity of the Job Network and the services that are provided at half the cost and with 16 per cent better outcomes than the old CES—XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Dickson!2K6Mr BROUGH—is something that this government is very proud of. It is something that is doing a lot for the unemployed of this country, and we stand by it.2845014:59:0028450Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—My question is directed to the Attorney-General. Attorney-General, domestic violence is a crime which touches the lives of many Australian families. What action is our government taking to address this distressing issue?28450Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—I thank the member for Hughes for her question—there is no doubting her commitment to addressing the awful problem of domestic violence in this country. The Howard government places a high priority on addressing domestic violence. This is not a private matter; it is a serious issue for our whole society. Domestic violence affects about a quarter of women in relationships. It affects their children, their work and their health. It leaves wounds that can take generations to heal.The profound effect that domestic violence has on all aspects of our society led the Prime Minister to convene a national domestic violence summit in 1997. At the Prime Minister's summit, heads of government agreed to work together in Partnerships against Domestic Violence, a strategic collaboration aimed at more effective prevention of domestic violence. The Commonwealth underpinned this initiative with funding of more than $25 million over 3½ years to June this year, and a further $25 million was provided in the 1999-2000 budget to June 2003.Over the first 3½ years, the partnerships initiative has funded over 130 diverse and often innovative projects to find the best ways to identify, intervene in and prevent domestic violence. Resource material has been prepared for use by everyone from victims to service providers to government agencies. The partnerships initiative has determined the best ways to intervene to prevent domestic violence—how to help women cope and survive and how to help the perpetrators change their behaviour. It has also highlighted and made visible the particular concerns of vulnerable groups in the community, such as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, culturally and linguistically diverse communities, older women and women with disabilities. But we are not stopping there. Over the next three years, the second phase of the partnerships initiative will be implemented. This will include development of a national community awareness campaign to break the intergenerational cycle of violence. We will fund the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearing House, look at early intervention projects to improve the wellbeing of children affected by domestic violence and develop programs for perpetrators. We will also fund the second tranche of the National Indigenous Family Violence Grants Program to assist indigenous community based organisations to develop local solutions to family violence.To assist indigenous communities, the Commonwealth and ATSIC have jointly developed a national strategy focusing on better targeting of existing resources to support community driven initiatives and of improved coordination of programs and policies at all levels of government. In April this year we hosted a national forum on indigenous family relationships which was attended by over 400 indigenous community leaders and service providers. At the forum we launched the Commonwealth funded `Walking into doors' campaign to bring domestic violence out into the open. At the same time, ATSIC has this year committed $3.9 million for its national family violence legal prevention program.Just last week, the Deputy Prime Minister launched a booklet providing information to people in rural and regional areas about family violence programs near where they live. In my own portfolio, the National Crime Prevention Program has domestic violence as a key priority. In the first phase we have produced a major research report on programs for perpetrators. In the past year the program has focused more strongly on issues relating to sexual violence, violence in indigenous communities, older people and fear of crime, evaluation and early intervention. In dealing with domestic violence, it is clear that we cannot ignore it—it must not be kept behind closed doors. If we are all committed to recognising and addressing this insidious social problem, we will all help make our communities more secure places to live in and our families safer.2845115:04:0028451Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, do you recall telling this House on 2 September 1999:... where there is a [nursing] home where people are at a risk ... unannounced visits are part of our policy.Minister, does this remain your policy?28451Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—In the course of this year, since the first accreditation period was completed, there have been in excess of 1,300 spot checks conducted across Australia as part of our monitoring system and visiting system of residential aged care homes. In addition to that, there have been support visits and visits by the RCS nurses, who go to monitor the care plans to ensure that the care delineated in the care plan, against which the subsidy is paid, is in effect being delivered.2845115:05:0028451Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Is the minister aware of statements being circulated about Commonwealth funding for education in Queensland? Minister, what are the facts of this important matter of the record Commonwealth support for the education of young Queenslanders?28451Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KEMPBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—I thank the honourable member for Moreton for his question. I am aware of very misleading statements being circulated in Queensland, first of all by the Queensland Teachers Union and then by the Beattie government itself, to promote the election of a Beazley Labor government. This is a campaign based on disinformation. It is a campaign that is squandering the funds of union members in Queensland, conducted by a union which has long been opposed to all funding for non-government schools. The Australian Education Union submission to the Senate inquiry last year said: The Australian Education Union has long opposed any funding to private schools, and will continue to do so.And when the Secretary of the New South Wales Teachers Federation, Sue Simpson, was asked, `Do you want the government to stop funding private schools in all shapes and forms?' she replied:That is certainly the ideal position of the Teachers Federation.They are keen to promote this campaign of disinformation because they know that a Beazley Labor Party government will be cutting funding to non-government schools. They have already established their hit list of 58 schools. They have already indicated that they intend to rewrite the formula. They have already indicated that they intend to introduce a new schools policy to reduce funding to non-government schools. This campaign by the Queensland Teachers Union is nothing more than a shallow, dishonest political campaign designed to support the Labor Party. The only definite policy for funding in relation to Queensland schools at the moment from the Leader of the Opposition is a proposal to cut $3,000 per student from a community school on the Darling Downs.This disinformation campaign is continuing also with the support of the Beattie government. I noticed that in the recent budget the Beattie government was busy promoting the money that it was putting into quality teacher training. It announced that $3.7 million will be spent on developing the quality teacher program, which aims to improve and update the skills of teachers. Every single dollar of that $3.7 million to improve quality teaching in Queensland is Commonwealth money. Every single dollar comes from the Commonwealth, yet the Beattie government is claiming that it is its own funding. It is trying to mislead Queenslanders that, somehow or other, money going into quality teaching in Queensland is coming from the Queensland Labor government and not from the Commonwealth government.Commonwealth funding for government schools in Queensland is at an all-time high—some $440 million going into government schools in Queensland from the Howard government. We are promoting quality education for all young Australians; the Queensland Labor Party and the unions which support it—the Queensland Teachers Union—are out there trying to mislead, dishonestly, the parents of Queensland.2845215:09:0028452Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—My question is to the Minister for Aged Care. Minister, given your policy of 2 December 1999 for unannounced spot checks of nursing homes at risk, are you aware that the New South Wales manager of the accreditation agency stated in a meeting with the agency on 30 May 2001 that nursing homes were notified by telephone prior to spot checks being carried out? Minister, given that residents were clearly at risk in the Yagoona Nursing Home, can you guarantee that spot checks were conducted at the Yagoona Nursing Home without prior warning?28452Bishop, Bronwyn, MPMrs BRONWYN BISHOPSE4MackellarLPMinister for Aged Care10—Spot checks are conducted as unannounced visits, with the officers seeking immediate access to the home. In a very small number of cases there can be less than 30 minutes notice given to remote country areas or urban fringe areas. The spot checks are conducted both by the agency and by the department. In the case of the Yagoona home, I know that some of those visits were conducted by the department, which conducted them in the way that I have just described.PG6Macklin, Jenny, MPMs Macklin—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table a statutory declaration from a member of the accreditation agency of New South Wales which states that nursing homes were notified by telephone prior to a spot check being carried out.Leave granted.2845215:11:0028452Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Would the minister inform the House what measures have been taken to help Australian men and women who invest in shares? Is he aware of any alternative policies in this area? UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—What should they do with their Telstra shares?28453Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—You have got a few.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr Horne—You want to know—DK6Mr HOCKEY—He wants investment advice. I can't give that.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will address his remarks through the chair.DK6Mr HOCKEY—How ironic: they oppose it, and then they buy them!CT4Costello, Peter, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The chair is not being assisted by the Treasurer or the member for Paterson.DK6Mr HOCKEY—I thank the member for Pearce for her question. The good news is that in just five days time stamp duty on the transfer of shares will be abolished. This is an unfair tax. It is a tax on individuals who saved to invest in wealth creation—I know the member for Paterson would be interested in that—and it is a tax on self-funded retirees who rely on their investments for their quality of life. It is a tax on investments and jobs, because it has made Australia an expensive place to buy and sell shares. When our stock market represents just two per cent of the world's stock market, every dollar counts, and our competitiveness in the past has been affected by this tax. In five days time this is going to change.The tax will remain in the United Kingdom, in the United States, in Singapore, in Hong Kong and in Switzerland. However, from 1 July it is abolished in Australia. This is good news for Australia's eight million shareholders. Australia is, under the Howard government, the largest share owning nation in the world: 52 per cent of our population owns shares, either directly or indirectly. In fact, 48 per cent of people directly owning shares in Australia earn less than $60,000 a year. Every Australian who has superannuation pays this tax.Professor Peter Swan from the University of Sydney has conducted a study into stamp duty. In that study he found that the elimination of stamp duty will increase turnover by up to 50 per cent on the Australian stock market. He has also found that the other transaction costs, including the costs of share trading, should fall as a result of the abolition of this tax. In fact, the estimates from Professor Swan indicate that the total value of the Australian Stock Exchange should increase by around $50 billion as a result of the abolition of this tax. When the tax was halved by the Queensland government in 1995, investor wellbeing rose massively and immediately. Within three hours of the announcement nearly 1.8 per cent—about $4 billion—was added to the value of the All Ordinaries Index.I have been asked by the member for Pearce about alternative policies. I had a look at the Labor Party's corporate governance policy, and in it the Leader of the Opposition refers to the fact that 5.7 million Australian adults now directly own shares—40 per cent of the Australian population. It is actually 52 per cent now. In it he said that in 1991 it was just 10 per cent of the Australian population. That is exactly right. As a result of the initiatives of this government, we have halving of capital gains tax, we have reductions in income tax and now we have the abolition of stamp duty on the transfer of shares. If the Labor Party is serious about creating wealth for individuals, if it is serious about—Government members interjecting—DK6Mr HOCKEY—It is hard to believe, but if the Labor Party is serious then the Leader of the Opposition can, right here and now, rule out that, under a Beazley government, he will reintroduce this tax.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Minister, we have dealt with the matter of rhetorical questions.DK6Mr HOCKEY—He can put it in writing, Mr Speaker. I am happy to accept it in writing. If the Leader of the Opposition truly believes in the interests of the Australian people, if he truly believes in share ownership by Australians, then right here and right now—in writing if he pleases—he can rule out reimposing stamp duty on the transfer of shares. You cannot trust Labor. As soon as they have an opportunity—if they ever get an opportunity—to reintroduce a tax on shares they will do it. PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—I raise a point of order. I seek indulgence to answer that question, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition is aware that appropriately I intervened and instructed the minister not to ask the rhetorical question. If the Leader of the Opposition was unaware of that, he was not listening to the remarks made from the chair.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Business2845415:17:0028454Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPLeader of the House10—by leave—I move:(a) the House, at its rising, adjourn until tomorrow at 2.30 p.m.; and (b) so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the routine of business for the sitting tomorrow being as follows, unless otherwise ordered:(1) Questions without notice.(2) Presentation of papers.(3) Ministerial statements, by leave.(4) Matter of public importance.(5) Notices and orders of the day, government business.I do not speak to the motion. It simply means that we have sufficient time for the lunch tomorrow. We thought a resumption at 2.30 p.m. was appropriate, and I believe that is supported by the opposition.15:17:0028454McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALPManager of Opposition Business00—I thank the Leader of the House for his courtesy in advising us in advance. We support the motion.Question resolved in the affirmative.Personal Explanations2845415:17:0028454Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—I have been misrepresented in two entirely different matters. My attention has been drawn to an article in today's Australian entitled `US power needs to give uranium second life'. In that article the journalist concerned writes:Former ALP resources spokesman Stephen Smith, while endorsing the party's so-called three mines policy, indicated to the mining industry that if there were new proposals a Labor government would not oppose them.Mr Speaker, I did not speak to the journalist concerned. If I had, I would have advised him as follows: firstly, on my recommendation the 1998 ALP national conference changed its three mines policy to a no new mines policy; secondly, I agreed then and I agree now with that policy; and, thirdly, my views in this area are substantially reflected in a speech I gave to the Australian uranium summit in Adelaide in February 1998. The article conveys the impression that I have not or do not now—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Perth has indicated where he has been misrepresented. He cannot enter into an argument about it.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Mr Speaker, I have not.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Perth most distinctly has indicated where he has been misrepresented. If he has a further misrepresentation, I will of course hear it.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—I do have a further misrepresentation, Mr Speaker. I have been misrepresented by both the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts in a press release and by the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation during question time. In respect of the minister for arts and his comments during question time, like you I will check the Hansard to see whether there are any further matters I need to return to. As far as the press release of the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, which was repeated by the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, is concerned, I have been misrepresented. The minister for communications in a press release today makes a suggestion that I have misled people by saying:On anyone's estimates, whether it is the Besley inquiry, whether it is the Australian Communications Authority, service levels by Telstra in outer metropolitan, rural and regional remote Australia are inadequate. Minister Alston concedes that rural and remote areas are inadequate, as found by the government's own Besley inquiry. So far as metropolitan—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Perth must come to where he has been misrepresented.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—So far as metropolitan service levels and regional service levels are concerned, Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the latest Australian Communication Authority's report, pages 29 to 32. The statistics for December quarter 2000 make it absolutely clear that service levels in those areas are below par.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Perth has indicated that he has been misrepresented and knows that he cannot advance an argument.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Secondly, Mr Speaker, in his press release today the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts says that Mr Smith also stated that any job losses would be `in breach of the Nyngan declaration'. In my comments on the Prime Minister's Nyngan declaration I have made it crystal clear that job losses are linked to service depletion, and the job losses in question here are from national network services, which go to service levels. Thirdly, the minister alleged—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the member for Perth have a further misrepresentation?5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—I have a further two, Mr Speaker.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will hear the member for Perth. I want a succinct indication of where he has been misrepresented because, by any standard for personal explanations, the chair has been generous.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Thirdly, during question time today the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation alleged that I doctored a transcript. This defamation is untrue. Finally, in the course of question time he generally blackguarded me and accused me of lying. This is untrue. I will return to the House when I have had a detailed look at his transcript.Questions to the Speaker284552845515:21:0028455Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—Mr Speaker, I ask that you write to the Prime Minister under standing order 150 for an answer to the question asked more than a year ago, on 7 June 2000, pertaining to the mandatory detention of refugees.28455SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised by the member for Calwell, as the standing orders provide.Personal Explanations2845515:21:0028455Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—Yes, most maliciously.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.UU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—During an answer given by the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation it was implied that I was the owner of Telstra shares. At no stage have I bought or sold Telstra shares. As a matter of fact, my shareholding was decreased by 49 per cent when this government privatised 49 per cent of Telstra.284551The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:28455286RH45I4Mr Kerr;Mr McMullanTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to:(1) our strong support for our independent national public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation;(2) the sustained political and financial pressures that the Howard Government has placed on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), including:(a) the 1996 and 1997 Budget cuts which reduced funding to the ABC by $66 million per year; and (b) its failure to fund the ABC's transition to digital broadcasting;(3) our concern about recent decisions made by the ABC Board and senior management, including the Managing Director Jonathan Shier, which we believe may undermine the independence and high standards of the ABC including:(a) the cut to funding for News and Current Affairs;(b) the reduction of the ABC's in-house production capacity;(c) the closure of the ABC TV Science Unit;(d) the circumstances in which the decision was made not to renew the contract of Media Watch presenter Mr Paul Barry; and(e) consideration of the Bales Report, which recommended the extension of the ABC's commercial activities in ways that may be inconsistent with the ABC Act and the Charter;Your petitioners therefore ask the House to:(1) protect the independence of the ABC;(2) ensure that the ABC receives adequate funding;(3) call upon the Government to rule out its support for the privatisation of any part of the ABC, particularly JJJ, ABC On-line and the ABC Shops; and(4) call upon the ABC Board and senior management to:(a) fully consult with the people of Australia about the future of our ABC;(b) address the crisis in confidence felt by both staff and the general community; and(c) not approve any commercial activities inconsistent with the ABC Act and Charter.60Mr KerrRH4Mr Kerr (from 60 citizens) and226Mr McMullan5I4Mr McMullan (from 226 citizens).284565475I4Mr McMullanTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament:The petition of the undersigned draws to the attention of the House the decline in funding for the ABC and asks the House to call the Federal Government to:1. so as to eliminate the practice of making political appointments to the ABC Board, support the establishment of a Joint Parliamentary Committee to oversee ABC Board appointments;2. support the independence of operation of the ABC Board, management and program makers, and support an ABC that is free from both commercial and political pressures;3. make an immediate increase in funding to the ABC, to allow the ABC fulfil its Charter obligations to be a producer and broadcaster of innovative and comprehensive programs; and4. make available funds for the ABC to convert to digital technologies, thereby ensuring that the production of radio or television programs is not compromised or diminished.547Mr McMullan5I4Mr McMullan (from 547 citizens).28456320008K0Mr ByrneTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of the citizens of Victoria draws to the attention of the House the less than satisfactory performance of the Mauritius office of Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Port Louis. It is the experience of the Australian based members of the Mauritius community that short stay holiday visa applications take between 3-4 weeks to process.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs look into the performance of the office with the purpose of seeking a quicker processing procedure.320Mr Byrne008K0Mr Byrne (from 320 citizens).28456940WF6Mr DanbyTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of residents of the City of Port Phillip draws to the attention of the House the Federal Government's approval of Centrelink's intention to close its South Melbourne branch on 22/6/01, which provides customer service to 17,500 people.We, the below signed petitioners, strongly believe that this branch is essential for the well being of the local community and recognise the difficulty and financial cost that thousands of elderly and disadvantaged members of our community with limited mobility would face in having to travel to the Windsor branch of Centrelink.We also note the written assurances given by the Minister for Community Services, Mr Larry Anthony to the Federal Member for Melbourne Ports, Mr Michael Danby MP, that the branch's customers will continue to receive full customer service from South Melbourne Centrelink, including emergency assistance when required. Your petitioners therefore request the House to provide residents of the City of Port Phillip with a continued presence of an accessible Centrelink office within the community.940Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby (from 940 citizens).2845715183NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the Government take action to preserve bulkbilling and to strengthen the Medicare system.The cessation of bulkbilling by many general practitioners as a direct result of government policy has caused great hardship to many local residents on low incomes particularly the elderly and those with young children.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives introduce legislation to ensure that bulkbilling is preserved and that our Medicare system is strengthened.151Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 151 citizens).284573508H4Mr HawkerTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the extremely high prices of food, cost of living, goods, services, petrol, gas and other fuels and the increase in the amount of tax on foods, goods, services, fuel due to the Government's failure to keep its promise that we would be better off with the new tax system on 1 July 2000.The charging of the GST on the food and fuel excise, making tax on tax. Your petitioners therefore request the House to hold the Government to its promise; support a full Senate inquiry into the taxation and pricing of food, services, petrol, gas; consider the best way to return the food, fuel, services tax windfall to Australians.350Mr Hawker8H4Mr Hawker (from 350 citizens).284571483ZMrs IrwinTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of the residents of Bankstown/Liverpool and its environs brings to the attention of the House our desperate concerns regarding the proposed expansion of Bankstown Airport.The noise, traffic and pollution generated by such an expansion will not only be catastrophic to the residents, it will devastate the quality of our lives as well as the value of our properties.The residents consider it vital that an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be undertaken regarding any proposal to upgrade Bankstown Airport.The undersigned petitioners request therefore that the House not proceed with the proposal to expand Bankstown Airport to permit regional aircraft and/or 737 jet aircraft from operating in and out of that facility.Your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House take action to stop the expansion of Bankstown Airport.14Mrs Irwin83ZMrs Irwin (from 14 citizens).2845774RH4Mr KerrTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain citizens of Australia of El Salvadorean origin, now residing in the state of Tasmania, and of relatives and friends of those same citizens of El Salvadorean origin draws to the attention of the House the terrible plight of tens of thousands of people in the Central American Republic of El Salvador. As the House will be aware, large areas of the country have been affected by a serious earthquake and a series of major after-shocks. The earthquakes have created massive destruction of social and economic infrastructure, left thousands of people homeless and in a situation where food supplies are becoming scarcer and more expensive. There is also a growing threat of the outbreak of disease. News reports and information obtained from friends and relatives in El Salvador since the beginning of the earthquakes in January 2001, are that many people have been reduced to living in makeshift `tents' built of plastic and cardboard. The onset of winter rains is now only a few weeks away, and the plight of those whose homes have been destroyed, or which are unsafe to inhabit, will become even more serious than it currently is. Relief aid provided by the Government of Australia and aid organisations is gratefully acknowledged.Nevertheless, the extent of the damage, following so soon after the widespread destruction that Hurricane Mitch caused in 1998, mean that the resources available to the nation of El Salvador will be insufficient to help rebuild the lives of those affected.The El Salvadorean community of Tasmania has demonstrated its ability to adapt, socially and in terms of employment, to life in this its new home, but nevertheless feels a great anxiety for the present plight and future difficulties of those now suffering in El Salvador. Your petitioners therefore pray the House will give consideration to admitting to Australia as refugees as many as possible of those affected by recent events in El Salvador.74Mr KerrRH4Mr Kerr (from 74 citizens).2845839RH4Mr KerrTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the Senate the growing desire for Australia to become a republic.Your petitioners therefore request that the House conduct a plebiscite asking the Australian people if Australia should become a republic with an Australian citizen as Head of State in place of the Queen.39Mr KerrRH4Mr Kerr (from 39 citizens).28458432083AMs LivermoreTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The undersigned citizens and residents of Australia draw to the attention of the House, the lack of a coherent public health policy and disability services/provisions for persons impaired by Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Fibromyalgia Syndrome and respectfully request that the House legislate the following:1. Recognition that ME/CFS/FMS can be a severely disabling and even life threatening illness.2. Recognition that the ME/CFS/FMS impaired are genuinely disabled persons entitled to access disability support services/benefits.3. Establishment and maintenance of a comprehensive national register of ME/CFS/FMS patients, to enable statistical evaluation of the prevalence and outcomes in the community.4. Commitment of National Health and Medical Research Council funding for research into the physical/organic aspects of ME/CFS/FMS.5. Regulation of Government and Private Insurance Sectors everyone ensure the fair and transparent assessment of ME/CFS/FMS disability claims.4320Ms Livermore83AMs Livermore (from 4,320 citizens).2845862183AMs LivermoreTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of the citizens and residents of the Livingstone Shire of Queensland draws to the attention of the House the imminent closure of the Yeppoon Full Service School.Yeppoon Full Service School has operated for 20 months targeting 15-17 year olds who struggle to fit into the mainstream environment by offering an alternative of school subjects and other programs. This has improved the self-esteem of at-risk young people and helped minimise the incidence of youth suicide and self-harm. This initiative has also improved literacy and numeracy levels of young people and helped decrease the incidence of crime, vandalism and drug and alcohol abuse involving coastal young people. It has also helped reduce youth unemployment and the incidence of boredom and aimlessness experienced by many young people on the Capricorn Coast. The school has achieved this by intervening positively in the lives of young people who would otherwise have no immediate pathway into mainstream society.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to ensure the continued funding of the Yeppoon Full Service School in its work of educating at risk students and engaging them in a pathway towards a positive lifestyle.621Ms Livermore83AMs Livermore (from 621 citizens).284581083483CMs Jann McFarlaneTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of certain residents of Australia draws to the attention of the House that approximately 8,000 bears are being kept in cages in China for the purpose of extracting bile for medical purposes and that the cages are so small the bears cannot move, which results in some of them going mad. It is further brought to the attention of the House that the Chinese plan to increase the number of bears, for these purposes, to 40,000.Your petitioners therefore respectfully ask the House of Representatives to object most strongly to this horrendous and tragic practice and ask that steps be taken to stop it immediately.10834Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane (from 10,834 citizens).28459495I4Mr McMullanTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:. That since 1996, over 1,500 bank branches have closed throughout Australia, reducing communities access to financial services;. That since 1996, the fee for a transaction conducted in a banking branch has increased by as much as 400 per cent and that since 1997 banks' fee income from households has increased by 53 per cent;. In the last year the number of complaints made against banks increased by 22 per cent.Your petitioners believe that by closing bank branches and continuing to increase bank fees, banks are not meeting their social obligations to the community.We therefore pray that the House will immediately implement a `social charter' to ensure that banks properly recognise the needs of the community.49Mr McMullan5I4Mr McMullan (from 49 citizens).28459509V5Mr PyneTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The following pensioner citizens of Australia remind the House of the broken promise of 4 per cent to pensioners which is now reduced to 2 per cent.Your petitioners therefore request that the House takes action to give pensioners what they were originally promised when the GST was being introduced.50Mr Pyne9V5Mr Pyne (from 50 citizens).2845912983KMs RoxonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House our concerns about mandatory sentencing laws in the Northern Territory and Western Australia. They prevent judges from exercising discretion in sentencing. We feel such laws breach Australia's international treaty obligations to uphold the principles of the Racial Discrimination Act. Such laws unfairly discriminate against Aboriginal people and contravene the findings of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. They also breach Australia's international treaty obligations on the rights of children.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:. Use its external affairs powers to overturn mandatory sentencing laws in the Northern Territory and Western Australia; and. Implement all the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody, including the funding of specific programs aimed at preventing juveniles from engaging in criminal activities.129Ms Roxon83KMs Roxon (from 129 citizens).2845939UK6Mr Kelvin ThomsonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Members of the Coburg Christian Fellowship (Worldwide Church of God), Coburg, Victoria 3058 and the Wesleyan Methodist Church, Glenroy, Victoria 3046, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we as in duty bound will ever pray.39Mr Kelvin ThomsonUK6Mr Kelvin Thomson (from 39 citizens).2845927HV5Mr WakelinTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.The petition of predominantly rural citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the financial burden that is placed on country residents to support their dependent children undertaking tertiary studies away from home compared to their city counterparts. This burden equates to approximately $10,000 per student/year compared to their city counterparts of approximately $1,000. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House review, improve and increase financial assistance for rural families of dependent tertiary students living away from home.27Mr WakelinHV5Mr Wakelin (from 27 citizens).Petitions received.Private Members' Business284602846015:25:0028460Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I move:That this House—(1) notes that 28 May 2001 was the 40th anniversary of the formation of Amnesty International;(2) notes the large membership and total cross-party support for the Australian Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International;(3) congratulates Amnesty International on its continuing vital work on behalf of political prisoners around the world; and(4) notes with regret that the work of Amnesty International remains indispensable because of continuing worldwide human rights abuses, including torture and summary execution of political prisoners.I rise in support of the 40th anniversary of Amnesty International and recognise that we have many members of this organisation in the House who support the aims and objectives of this organisation. An ancient Chinese proverb says, `It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness.' This ancient Chinese proverb inspired Peter Benenson's choice of a symbol for Amnesty International—a barbed wire entwined candle that today represents an organisation that received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1977 and has grown to become one of the world's most highly respected defenders of human rights. Amnesty International was launched in 1961 by Peter Benenson, a British lawyer, after he read about two Portuguese students who had been sentenced to seven years imprisonment for raising their glasses in a toast to freedom. This incident prompted him to launch a campaign, which he called `Appeal for Amnesty 1961', through an article published in the Observer newspaper on 28 May of that year. The appeal spread world-wide and brought in more than 1,000 offers of support for the idea of an international campaign to protect human rights. Within 12 months, this fledgling organisation had sent delegations to four countries to make representations on behalf of prisoners, had taken up 210 cases and had organised national branches in seven countries. Amnesty International, as it has become known, was established.Today, Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of more than one million members and supporters in over 160 countries and territories. These activists and supporters, of whom there are more than 30,000 in Australia, work together to prevent violations by governments and opposition groups of people's fundamental civil and political human rights. Amnesty International believes that mass public pressure, expressed through effective forms of action, is critical to stopping human rights violations.Amnesty International's main focus of campaigning is: to free all prisoners of conscience—people detained anywhere for their beliefs or because of their ethnic origin, sex, colour, language, national or social origin, economic status, birth, or other status, provided they have not used or advocated violence; to ensure fair and prompt trials for political prisoners; to abolish the death penalty, torture and other cruel treatment of prisoners; and to end political killings and `disappearances'. In its 40 years of existence, Amnesty has dealt with the cases of 47,000 prisoners of conscience and other victims of human rights violation. More than 45,000 of these cases are now closed.Amnesty International remains independent of any government, political persuasion or religious creed. It is funded by its members and donors. No funds are sought or accepted from governments. Amnesty International is also impartial. It does not take sides in political conflicts. It neither supports nor opposes any government or political system. What it opposes are violations of the specific human rights it has undertaken to defend. Amnesty International is particularly effective because of its accuracy and impartiality. Research departments at the London based research and coordination centre, the international secretariat, devote substantial resources to obtaining accurate information about prisoners of conscience. Amnesty International has established a reputation as a credible source of information. This credibility is, however, conditional upon its independence from all governments, political or religious factions and economic interests. Reflecting on Amnesty International's anniversary, Peter Benenson has recently written: Forty years on, Amnesty International has secured many victories. Its files are full of letters from former prisoners of conscience or torture victims thanking the organisation for making a difference. Torture is now banned by international agreement. Every year more countries reject the death penalty. The world will soon have an International Criminal Court that will be able to ensure that those accused of the worst crimes in the world will face justice. The Court's very existence will deter some crimes. But the challenges are still great. Torture is banned, but in two-thirds of the world's countries it is still being committed in secret. Too many governments still allow wrongful imprisonment, murder or `disappearance' to be carried out by their officials with impunity.Benenson still stands by his original public message: if you think these things are wrong and must stop, speak out, take action and ask others to speak out as well. Benenson also said:Those who today still feel a sense of impotence can do something: they can support Amnesty International. They can help it to stand up for freedom and justice.Today, 40 years after his first public appeal, countless people are facing persecution the world over. I commend Amnesty International. (Time expired)15:31:0028461McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I am delighted to rise and second the motion moved by the member for Cook. I speak as both a member of the parliamentary Labor Party, which lends its support to this motion, and as a colleague of the member for Cook in the Amnesty International Parliamentary Group. I know from my numerous and broad ranging discussions with the member that he has a genuine commitment to human rights. He has been a friend to me in my time in this House and I value his friendship and his counsel. In seconding this motion, I support the member's comments about the cross-party work of the Amnesty International Parliamentary Group since it started in 1973. It is a unique group which is now reflected in many other parliaments around the world having cross-party Amnesty International parliamentary groups. The frank discussion of human rights issues that occurs in the group is conducted in a more constructive way than the standing orders—and at times the manners of members— allow in this chamber.The motion acknowledges the 40th anniversary of the formation of Amnesty International on 28 May 1961. Since then, as the member for Cook has pointed out, Amnesty International activists have worked on more than 45,000 cases on behalf of people in danger of human rights violations, with more than one million members in 140 countries united by the aim of eradicating the abuse of human rights. Amnesty International works independently and impartially to promote respect for all the human rights set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The main focuses of its campaigning is to free all prisoners of conscience, ensure fair and prompt trials for all political prisoners, abolish the death penalty, torture and other ill-treatment of prisoners, end political killings and disappearances and ensure that governments refrain from unlawful killings in armed conflict. Amnesty International also works to: oppose abuses by armed political groups, such as the detention of prisoners of conscience, hostage taking, torture and unlawful killings; assist asylum seekers who are at risk of being returned to a country where they might suffer violations of their fundamental human rights; cooperate with other non-governmental organisations, the UN and regional intergovernmental organisations to further human rights; ensure control of international military, security and police relations in order to protect human rights; and organise human rights education and awareness raising programs. Amnesty International is a democratic, self-governing movement. Major policy decisions are taken by its international council, which is made up of representatives from all national sections.The motion concludes, with regret, that the work of Amnesty International remains indispensable because of continuing worldwide human rights abuses. This gives me pause to reflect on Australia and how we as a nation have contributed to the international efforts to reduce human rights abuses. I am aided by the recently published Amnesty International report for 2001. It can be found on their web site: http://www.web.amnesty.org/web/ar2001.nsf. This report provides the opportunity to reflect on the sort of nation we wish to create for ourselves and the reluctance at times of government to participate in human rights dialogue at an international level. Many of my constituents and groups in Stirling have contacted me and strongly contend that we should increase our participation in international human rights instruments so that we might be at the forefront of democratising international government. The announcement of the shadow minister for foreign affairs that Labor, in government, will appoint an ambassador for human rights is an example of how this might be done. Many of the people who live in Stirling have come here as refugees because of these human rights abuses, so it is a subject dear to the hearts of my constituents and some of my local groups. The report acknowledges calls for Australia to adopt a bill of rights to safeguard the rights provided in international human rights treaties to which Australia is party. At present, treaty rights have no legal status in Australia and cannot be invoked in domestic courts. Other common law nations, such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom, have bills of rights. We must ask ourselves why it is that we do not. In my view, Malcolm Fraser is correct in saying that the common law does not give Australians sufficient protection against the possibility of unreasonable government interference. The report also notes the arbitrary detention of 500 children of the families of asylum seekers. We must ask ourselves if it is appropriate that we detain children behind barbed wire in remote areas while their parents' applications are being processed.The report told of a three-year-old boy who had spent his whole life behind barbed wire at the Port Hedland Detention Centre. Do we consider this to be an appropriate place and manner to raise a child? In September, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had to cancel plans to investigate Australia's immigration detention regime after the government failed to allow it to visit, arguing that it had no obligation to do so. What sort of example are we setting to other countries by not allowing UN scrutiny? If we do not, why should other countries? The report also acknowledged criticism in the other place of Australia's deportation of a 32-year-old Algerian asylum seeker despite a written request by a UN committee. I commend this motion to the House. (Time expired)15:36:0028462Gash, Joanna, MPMrs GASHAK6GilmoreLP10—I rise with great pride and am honoured to support this motion because of the work of Amnesty International. I congratulate the member for Cook on bringing it to the attention of the House. For 40 years Amnesty's members around the world have taken the role of our conscience when we have been caught up with other things. They gently remind us of global problems by concentrating on individually specific examples in our own patch. In Gilmore we have many Amnesty members and supporters, represented by three branches—Southern Highlands, Kiama and Shoalhaven. In fact, just last Saturday the Kiama, Shoalhaven and Southern Highlands branches, together with Wollongong, participated in a regional conference in Kiama. The aim of this conference was to give feedback to New South Wales Amnesty for consideration by the national office in forming the next five-year plan and policies. I believe the message was fairly simple: in the words of Martin Luther King, `Let the one stand for the many'. Through highlighting the plight of one person, through working to free just that one person, all else will be revealed and understood.Mr Deputy Speaker, I think this is very wise. For if you said to me, `Joanna, let us end torture in this world,' the problem would be overwhelming. I would not know how to start and I might be defeated before I began. But if you said to me, `Joanna, help me work to free this one person from torture,' then I could believe I could make a difference and I would start to plot with you as to how we might work together to free this person. And so it is for me with Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma—a democratically elected woman held in exile in her country. So in a way it is kind of freeing to have a problem that you believe can be solved, and through that work the other issues will rise to the surface and be addressed along the way. For 40 years this is how Amnesty International has worked its magic—one person at a time. Each branch is notified of a person who is in a bad situation, through conscience or politics, and who needs support. And the Amnesty members `engage this person with their heart, rather than with their minds'. They write letters to officials of that country, and others who may have some influence on the situation, asking that the prisoner be freed. Kiama branch has been doing this for 25 years and, of the 26 prisoners they have worked for, 22 have been released—not that they would claim credit for this.I thought I would give a couple of examples of the situations that these prisoners are in. The person for whom the Southern Highlands Amnesty branch is working is called Dr Zaw Min. The House may remember a democratic election held in Burma in 1989 where the National League for Democracy won 81 per cent of the vote. The military junta refused to accept the people's verdict and relinquish power. A huge rally in support of democracy was held and the military opened fire on the people, killing over 2,000 and wounding countless others. Dr Zaw Min's crime was to attend to the wounds of students and others who were injured in this rally in support of democracy. For tending their wounds, he was sentenced to 20 years jail. On appeal, this was subsequently reduced to 10 years jail. But that was in 1989 and this is 2001—12 years later—and Dr Zaw Min is still in jail, two years past his release date.The Shoalhaven branch is working for the release of Maung San Hlan whose nickname is Evac. It is ironic that he is in jail partly because of the actions of some Australians. He was the right-hand man of Aung San Suu Kyi, and these days you will notice when Aung San is on TV that there is a space to her right where he used to stand. In 1996, Australian journalists who were working for a local current affairs program that specialises in international events interviewed this man. He was dressed in a plain T-shirt, had a hanky over his face and was speaking softly while pointing to some scars on his arm. The journalists did not reveal what he was saying but dubbed over the top an explanation that they could not reveal anything because, just in speaking to them, Evac was in danger. While we sat in our lounge rooms marvelling at this story—or maybe not really even listening—Evac was being arrested and sentenced to seven years jail for talking to foreign journalists.Just last week this same program ran another story on Burma, only this time it was talking about Thailand. In its efforts to clean up the drug trade, it keeps running into supplies from Burma. In Burma, it is believed the military control the growing, sale and distribution of drugs to the world, thereby raising the funds for their arms and their corruption. So now Australia is assisting the Thai government to look at how to end this military trade in drugs for arms. But I for one will be in there, writing letters to the government of Burma, suggesting it must now act to free Evac and Dr Zaw Min as a gesture of active goodwill.I commend the work of Amnesty International, congratulate the members on their efforts, and wish for further success in the next 40 years. This to me explains why it is I am so proud to be a member of Amnesty and a member of the cross-party parliamentary group. My only sorrow is that I am sure there will still be a need for Amnesty International in another 40 years.15:41:0028463Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—It is a privilege for me to be able to participate in this debate—a debate that recognises an organisation that has dedicated itself to promoting all human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international standards. 28 May 2001 marked the 40th anniversary of Amnesty International. It is very important that we in this parliament acknowledge its fine work throughout the world and its contribution to humanity. Amnesty International is a worldwide movement that has over one million members and operates in 162 countries and territories. Amnesty was born in 1961 when London lawyer Peter Benenson read about a group of students who were arrested and jailed for raising a toast to freedom. Following that he was inspired to launch a one-year campaign and he called that campaign `Appeal for Amnesty'. The campaign was an enormous success and, by the end of 1961, the organisation Amnesty International had come into existence and was flourishing. The principle of Amnesty was that all people have fundamental rights that transcend national, cultural, religious and ideological boundaries. That is a very fine principle. Amnesty has always focused on the plight of prisoners of conscience, people who have been imprisoned because of their political or religious beliefs, gender or racial or ethnic origin. Amnesty is an organisation that is about people and ensuring that all people have basic human rights and that they are not denied these rights or persecuted for pursuing them.The first symbolic Amnesty candle surrounded by barbed wire in remembrance of prisoners of conscience was lit on the steps of St-Martin-in-the-Fields in London in 1961. This is now Amnesty's worldwide symbol and it is derived from the Chinese proverb `Better to light a candle than curse the dark'. That is exactly what Amnesty seeks to do—light the candle of hope for all those who have their human rights abused, are tortured, held without trial or not charged, or live under the threat of violence, and those who are facing the death penalty.In its early days Amnesty was involved mainly in individual letter writing on behalf of prisoners of conscience. Its focus was on individuals, not countries or political systems. In the 1980s, Amnesty evolved and the local groups of Amnesty International focused on adopted prisoners and specific country or issue campaigns. It was at this time that I became a member of Amnesty. I was a member of a local group in Newcastle. The work of the group mirrored the work of Amnesty worldwide and its membership demonstrated the growth and the diversity of people that were involved in Amnesty throughout the world.The defining feature of Amnesty is the fact that it works. It has achieved much through its activities. The fact that it works was acknowledged in 1977, when it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. The opposition to the work of Amnesty by human rights abusers is testimony to its effectiveness. The effectiveness of Amnesty International can be attributed to some extent to its accuracy and impartiality. Its credibility is tied to its independence from all government and political parties, religious factions and economic interests. There is no hidden agenda. This is reflected in the Australian Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International here in this parliament. The group has cross-party membership; a large number of members of this parliament support the principles of Amnesty and are members of the group. The group was formed in 1973 and it has adopted all the principles of Amnesty. One of the things that it concentrates on is working within the political sphere. It behoves all of us as members of parliament to work hard to see that the human rights of people throughout the world are enshrined. They are the principles of Amnesty and they are the principles that we support. I commend this motion to the House.15:46:0028464Nehl, Garry, MPMr NEHLAE4CowperNP10—I support this motion proposed in a bipartisan manner by the member for Cook and the member for Stirling. Amnesty is an organisation that must not ever disappear. It is an organisation that the world really needs, regrettably. I am proud to be a member of the Australian Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International, of which I am a vice-chairman. The three major issues that are the driving force behind Amnesty are the ending of torture and of the death penalty, prompt and fair trial for political prisoners and the release of all prisoners of conscience who have not condoned violence. Who can argue with any of those three major principles?I have enjoyed my association with Amnesty. For instance, I have been to China five times, including three visits to Tibet. On every occasion, I have raised questions of difficulties and the need for observing those three core principles of Amnesty. Human rights are vitally important. Yet, in all fairness, I have to say that I am very perturbed by an article on Friday, 1 June this year in the Financial Review by a gentleman called Peter Phelps, who has attacked Amnesty in some ways and who gives you pause for thought if you are going to be at all objective. I do not believe that Amnesty should be regarded as a sacred cow. I do not believe it should be beyond criticism. If there is an element of truth in the claims made by Mr Phelps, Amnesty should do a little bit of soul-searching and perhaps look where it is going. An area where I have had a little doubt on its attitude concerns one of our own members, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, who was subjected to some attacks by the national body of Amnesty. I believe it was even suggested that he should perhaps be expelled. That is perhaps too strong a word, but I was perturbed by that. I do not know of any man in my lifetime experience—I do not know of any person in this parliament—who has more compassion than Philip Ruddock or who has a more genuine, soul-searching interest in human rights. I know there are many among us who share that, but I was very upset that Philip Ruddock was attacked in that way.I am also concerned by some of the points brought forward in the article by Peter Phelps about the number of criticisms that Amnesty has been making of free democratic countries compared with what he calls closed, despotic countries. For instance, the United States—and these are all in the period 1991 to 2001—had 72 separate criticisms from Amnesty, compared to nine of Cuba. Israel was criticised 37 times compared to Hamas and the Palestine Authority, which were criticised six times. Malaysia was criticised 13 times, Vietnam once. Turkey was criticised 39 times, Iraq five. The point that he makes is one that we should encourage our friends in Amnesty International to look a little more closely at. It is important that Amnesty operates like Caesar's wife: it has to not only be on the right track, but also be seen to be on the right track. Amnesty would do well to do a bit of soul-searching about this article by Peter Phelps so that Amnesty International can continue to be one of the most outstanding organisations that the world has ever seen. I hope that it continues and expands and divorces itself from any action which can result in criticism of this kind. (Time expired)15:51:0028465Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—As secretary to the Parliamentary Group of Amnesty International, I welcome the opportunity afforded by this motion to pay tribute on the 40th anniversary of Amnesty. Two weeks ago, I participated in a tree planting ceremony at the Cringila community park in my electorate to commemorate this birthday. Only last Saturday, I addressed the regional meeting of Amnesty International at Kiama. Of course, Amnesty has come in for some criticism. Because I was involved in another meeting, unfortunately I was not here for the whole debate and I did not hear all of what the honourable member for Cowper said, but I did hear—and I have heard him mention this before—him refer to an recent article in the Financial Review by Peter Phelps. That article has been answered, not least by the chair of our group. The honourable member for Cook, I feel, very eloquently answered some of those criticisms. Also, only last Monday, there was another reply in the Financial Review from—from memory—the President of Amnesty International. Of course, every so often Amnesty International is going to be criticised for having political bias, bureaucratic overload and all those things. But these claims are made because many of Amnesty's reports are controversial, and, of course, once you bring down a controversial report, you are accused—as I know from recent personal experience—of being naïve, biased or lacking in world experience. And while ever Amnesty International challenges some of the issues that should challenge each and every one of us, there are people with vested interests who have an interest in trying to discredit Amnesty International. Perhaps some of the critics of Amnesty International should talk to some of the freed prisoners of conscience that Amnesty International works for. Sometimes comment is made that Amnesty appears more critical of open societies than of closed societies. But surely any robust democracy can stand scrutiny. Also Amnesty International has to be able to verify all its facts, thus you might find that North Korea is not as criticised as South Korea. I represented Amnesty International at a meeting in South Korea last year and I raised the issue of North Korea. Of course, while North Korea remains a closed society, it is impossible to get in there and verify all the facts. What would the critics of Amnesty International say if Amnesty International got it wrong? Before they bring down their reports, Amnesty International are sometimes overcautious, especially if they are going to criticise the death penalty somewhere or they are going to criticise the detention of some prisoners of conscience. That criticism is often directed at government and it is open to immense scrutiny, so they have to be very careful of their facts. Of course, we in open societies always rejoice in that, but part of the price of an open society is that we are under more scrutiny. But surely our society is so robust that we can stand that. As I always say about Australia and the way we always overreact to any hint of criticism: while ever we are prepared to go around the world pontificating and pointing the fingers at others, we should be able to stand a bit of scrutiny ourselves.The parliamentary group within this parliament was the first of its kind in the world. It has enjoyed bipartisan support not always evidenced in other parliaments. I remember that, when I was talking to the Korean parliamentary group of Amnesty International, I was stressing that if there were a change of government and the group re-formed it would have to be bipartisan. They did not really have the same idea of a bipartisan group in the South Korean parliament as we have in this parliament. Too many people in democracies think that their countries have such a good record that they are above scrutiny. No country is above scrutiny, be it the US, Australia or any other country. Organisations such as Amnesty International do play an important role in achieving a more just and humane society, and I am proud to have been a member of the parliamentary group for the 18 years that I have been a member of parliament. I was a member of Amnesty International before I came into this place, and I will remain a member long after I leave this place, because I believe firmly in the ideals for which Amnesty fight. We as political activists do not know whether one day we might need the benefit of Amnesty International. So I say: congratulations to Amnesty International for surviving 40 years.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.2846615:56:0028466Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—I move:That this House: (1) acknowledges that almost one third of all Australian workers are now working more than 50 hours per week; (2) notes that the French Government has recently legislated for a 35 hour week; (3) conduct a review of the operation of the French legislation, and its success or otherwise; and (4) consult widely with the community, the business sector and trade unions, to explore the appropriateness or otherwise of applying similar values to an Australian context.Recent data on work practices in Australian workplaces indicates that a significant proportion—approximately one third—of all Australian workers are now working more than 50 hours a week. Indeed, data outlines that Australia now has the second largest group of workers working 49 hours or more a week of all 20 OECD countries. Further, a recent ACTU survey of almost 7,000 Australian workers found that more than 60 per cent of all overtime worked in Australia is unpaid. This figure translates into Australian workers performing 11.4 million hours of unpaid overtime per week—the equivalent of 300,000 full-time, 38-hour-a-week jobs.In 1999-2000, the total number of hours of overwork—this includes both paid and unpaid overtime—reached 1,034 million. As a rough guide, this is equivalent to around 500,000 full-time jobs. At present, 585,000 Australians are officially looking for work. In the finance sector alone, about one million hours of unpaid overtime are worked. This equals 23,000 full-time jobs, which is almost exactly the number of jobs lost in that sector since 1995. I believe that, at this time in Australia's development, when many people find themselves underemployed or unemployed, Australians working excessive and unpaid hours is unacceptable. Working excessive and unpaid hours creates a variety of negative consequences including: the effects on workers' family lives and health, with subsequent consequences upon community health services and facilities; economic effects on families and communities, including consequences related to welfare and PAYG tax not forwarded to the Commonwealth for hours not paid; and what would seem to be an ever-widening gap in wealth between people at various socioeconomic levels in Australia.I agree with Greg Combet, the ACTU secretary, when he said recently that reducing the pressure to work unreasonable hours is not only smart but fair. Despite one of the longest periods of economic growth in our history, income inequality in Australia continues to grow. Working families simply are not getting their fair share of the extra productivity that longer and more flexible working hours have delivered for Australian business. I believe that, as parliamentarians, we must work towards the formulation of national policy which will, as far as can appropriately be achieved, see an overall reduction of excessive and unpaid hours being worked by Australian employees and the establishment of dialogue with the ACTU and other interested parties to achieve the same.The pursuit of decent working conditions is forever an issue in Australian politics. Proper working hours are fundamental to a good workplace. Presently these are under serious threat. In France, the socialist government has implemented a 35-hour working week to help reduce unemployment and improve workers' quality of life. Employees can actually work up to 44 hours a week on overtime. It is argued that a 35-hour working week would give workers a better quality of life and help cut unemployment by creating more jobs. The pledge by the Prime Minister of France was incredibly popular amongst working people. The 35-hour week was central to the high standing of the French government among workers and typifies the swing to the left in French politics in recent years. That swing dates from December 1995 when massive public sector strikes paralysed the nation. As a consequence of the strikes, the Socialist Party moved to the left, and the Greens and the Communist Party won increasing support. The leftward shift in the whole of French society saw the plural left coalition win government in 1997.There are five main provisions of the French law. The law confirms a new, legal working week of 35 hours, spells out the rules governing overtime, sets forth new arrangements for organising work hours, introduces new tax breaks on employer contributions, and creates a wage guarantee system for minimum wage employees. As Adele Horin reported in the Sydney Morning Herald in May:The doomsayers predicted the worst. But more than a year after France legislated a 35-hour week, the economy is flourishing, unemployment is falling, consumer confidence has hit a historic high and most French say their lifestyle has improved.People are spending more time at the gym and more time with their kids; they dine out more often, take more holidays and spend extra leisure hours sprucing up their homes.The Reuters news agency reported (in May) that 59 per cent of workers polled felt their daily life had improved as a result of the shorter hours. The happiest workers were those who regularly took a half-day or full day off work, or extra holidays. The 35-hour week was propelling the French into stores, cinemas and travel agents.Britain's The Daily Telegraph reported earlier this year that subscriptions to France's leading gym chain had soared, the Paris traffic was thinner on some weekdays and polls showed `workers were happier than at any time in recent memory'.The motion also refers to the application of shorter working hours to an Australian context. In 1999, the ACTU launched a national health and safety campaign titled `Reasonable hours are safer hours'. Longer working hours have been linked to a higher risk of heart disease, and can worsen existing medical problems, including diabetes, epilepsy, hypertension, asthma and digestive problems. Fatigue is a growing health and safety concern. It is estimated that fatigue may be a contributing factor in up to 40 per cent of accidents. The ACTU survey of occupational health and safety delegates representing more that 800 workplaces around Australia revealed that 78 per cent of respondents frequently or sometimes work more than five days in a row; one in four people say their ability to take rest and meal breaks at work has decreased; 78 per cent complain of fatigue either frequently or sometimes; 42 per cent report that working hours contribute to accidents, with nearly one in seven of them specifying car accidents or near misses; 45 per cent say their health has suffered because of their working hours; and 56 per cent of those surveyed indicated that shiftwork systems operate in their workplaces; but less than one-quarter expressed a preference for shiftwork.Last week the ACTU filed a test case in the Australian Industrial Relations Commission which set out to create new award guidelines for reasonable working hours. In this test case the ACTU seeks to establish new award guidelines that ensure hours of work are not unreasonable. Factors such as employee safety, family responsibility, workload and the total number of hours worked over an extended period will be considered in determining reasonable hours of work. All workers and, in particular, working women will be major beneficiaries if unions are successful in their bid to have reasonable working hours guidelines introduced into Australian workplace awards. If employers are prohibited from requiring employees to work unreasonable hours, it will be of significant benefit to working men and women struggling to balance the demands of work and family.During the process of filing the test case, Sharan Burrow, ACTU president, said it was time for unions, the government and employers to work together to find practical solutions that would bring balance to the lives of working families. Employers have a legal duty of care to ensure a healthy and safe workplace and safe systems of work. Although employers have been trying every way possible to frustrate the case being heard, reasonable hours of work are essential to this. Governments need to act to safeguard the health and safety of citizens by creating an industrial relations environment where health and safety are not put at risk through dangerous working hours, and to re-establish community standards regarding working hours and workloads, based on health and safety principles.As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker Jenkins, all of the great initiatives in improving the working conditions and the conditions of life of working people and their families have been fought for and achieved by the combined efforts of the industrial and political arms of the great labour movement. Australia led the world with the eight-hour day. The conservatives have always opposed these innovations. According to them, the economy could never afford higher wages or a shorter working week. On the achievement of every innovation, the conservatives have been proven wrong. It is absurd for anyone to claim that with the great improvements in technology and the great increases in labour productivity the time has not arrived when the working people of this nation can be rewarded with a shorter working week. We know that a shorter working week will eventually be realised. It may be realised in our working lives or in our children's working lives, but we should grasp the nettle and do it now. Workers and their families would applaud us.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:06:0028468Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise to speak to the motion moved by the member for Charlton regarding a reduction in the number of working hours as per the recent French legislation reducing the number of working hours from 39 hours to 35 hours per week. The first point of this motion makes a claim that around 33 per cent of all Australian workers work more than 50 hours per week. I dispute this claim and question the validity of this information, since `all Australian workers' include part-time, casual and seasonal workers. Statistics actually place 25 per cent of the Australian work force as working no more than 45 hours a week, so I would like to know to whom those figures were attributed. The ACTU will quote from a recent OECD report into the working hours of member countries that actually places Australia as second, behind the US, for the greatest number of average weekly working hours. However, closer inspection of the OECD report actually produces a different treatment of the statistics. The report itself notes that the results should not be used to weigh country against country on the issue of the number of hours worked, as the sources of information were different. In other words, you cannot draw the inference taken by the ACTU and the opposition because the data obtained was not subject to the same controls.For some Australian businesses and sectors longer working hours is an issue; however, it is not an issue in every sector or industry in Australia. Consequently, any use of the French legislation as an ideal should be carefully considered in the light of regulatory frameworks in the French workplace being very different from those in the Australian workplace. The French legislation that reduces the number of working hours from 39 to 35 is based on the premise that the reduction in working time contributes to an improvement in the quality of life for employees, particularly for part-time employees, the majority of whom are women.Reductions in working hours have also been seen as a measure to combat unemployment through work sharing arrangements. The notion of work sharing has been a very popular one amongst the trade union movement and is the premise of this French legislation called the Aubry law, after the Minister for Employment and Solidarity, Martine Aubry. It is interesting to note that in Australia the idea of work sharing or job sharing as part of a redistribution of working hours was abruptly dismissed by the federal Labor government during the preparation of the green and white papers on unemployment policy during the early 1990s. I am a great advocate of job sharing and have been since the days I worked in an employment agency. I believe that you should give women the choice either to work in a job share situation or to work full time, because our life cycles change according to where we are at our time in life.Under the Howard government's changes to the workplace relations system, workers and employers have the opportunity to negotiate their own workplace agreements. This particular process encourages flexibility in the workplace, and the great winners of this have been women. They have been able to organise more flexible work hours and conditions. Today the participation rate of women in the work force stands as one of the highest, at 55 per cent. Between March 1996 and April 2001, some 448,400 additional jobs in the female labour market were created under the Howard government, including 184,500 full-time jobs. Only 80,400 full-time jobs were created under Labor between July 1990 and March 1996.The implementation of the Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Amendment Act 1999 ensures equal opportunity outcomes for women by allowing employers to focus on actions and achievements. One of the principal objects of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 was to assist employees to balance their work and family responsibilities. Under this act the Howard government has taken action to remove arbitrary restrictions on part-time employment and encourage increased award provisions for part-time employment.In addition, there has been an overall increase in the number of family friendly provisions in collective agreements, with approximately 76 per cent of agreements in 1999 containing at least one family friendly measure, including flexible hours provisions. The French legislation to reduce the statutory number of actual work hours to 35 hours came into effect on 1 January 2000 for companies employing more than 20 people and will come into effect on 1 January 2002 for companies employing 20 or fewer employees. The figure of 35 hours a week effectively defines the threshold beyond which overtime is calculated. One of the most interesting components of this legislation is that it does not reduce the statutory minimum wage of the worker— called the SMIC in France—even though the actual number of hours has been reduced from 39 to 35 per week. The Aubry law provides that companies pay a top-up wage differential, which is effectively equal to 11.4 per cent, to ensure that the 35 hours work by SMIC recipients will be paid the same as under the 39 hours per week agreement. State subsidies have been granted to compensate companies for their extra expenditure, and in France these are in the form of a reduction in social security contributions. I do not see what the sense of that is.The law also institutes a 10 per cent tax on the first four hours of overtime worked by employees who have not had their hours reduced. This money would contribute to a fund for financing the reduction of working time and, in addition, a 15 per cent premium would be paid to employees. From a company perspective, overtime will continue to cost a company 25 per cent more than normal hours. This would reflect little change if the total number of hours worked per employee remained static. However, the reduction in total hours worked would incur additional overtime costs to a business and have a considerable impact on the cash flow of small to medium sized enterprises. Although these measures provide monetary benefits to employees, Alexandre Bilous in 1998 noted that they would have a negative effect on the state budget.Another issue of the Aubry law is the requirement of a signature on a company agreement by a mandated employee. In a company where there is no trade union delegate or work force delegate performing the function of a union delegate, the law requires that a relevant company agreement may be signed by an employee expressly mandated to do so by a nationally representative trade union. In France this aspect of the law raises considerable concern for small to medium sized enterprises because trade unions are currently absent from the small to medium sized enterprise sector. It is estimated that 65 per cent of French companies with 50 to 90 employees and 45 per cent of those with 100 to 199 employees have no trade union delegate. The law effectively provides a unique opportunity for trade unions to gain a foothold and have influence over work related decisions in this sector and this measure is supported by the French government. Indeed, a national French trade union, the CGT, has argued that it will use the law as an opportunity to find its footing again on union territory.The motion before us today calls for a review of this French legislation to consider its application in the Australian context. The OECD has conducted a number of studies of work sharing initiatives, particularly given the growing interest in these practices in Europe. Because countries have different indicators of growth, productivity and employment outcomes, difficulties do arise in the development of an effective methodology to study work sharing initiatives between countries. A number of studies have concluded that precise results cannot be calculated, and this is especially so in the French situation, where industrial regulations are tightly regulated and subject to a complex and interwoven legislative framework. Although still in its implementation stage, the Aubry law has had a mixed reception from both employer and trade union organisations. The principal employer organisation in France, the CNPF, remains critical of the reduction in statutory working hours to 35 hours per week, and many sector level employer federations have had to scrap and redraft collective agreements to accommodate the Aubry law changes. The central argument of this law is that work sharing arrangements should create employment, that it should not encourage deployment.An article in last week's Business Queensland on long working hours recounts the saga of Dupont in Australia in dramatically increasing productivity and preventing a plant closure. During that saga, the staff were called together and the situation was explained. They backed the company and worked longer hours. The reason that staff did this? They were part of a process that incorporated their ideas within a company vision. The result for Dupont Australia was that the local plant was so successful that they increased the distribution of chemicals to Japan. I conclude by saying that any review of legislation to reduce the number of working hours should not be limited to the French legislation and that we have a different situation here in Australia. (Time expired)16:16:0028471Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—The employment debate in Australia is incomplete, and has been for a long time— at least 20 years. Employment equations continue to bedevil governments of all political persuasions around the world. In the last 50 years in the developed world, capitalisation has quadrupled, productivity has tripled, energy consumption has tripled, but—and here is the real catch—employment has only grown by a third.I said at the outset that the employment debate in this country is incomplete. It could also be accused of being dishonest. Until about 1980, employment rates were reasonably accurate in this country and instances of underemployment and overemployment were not highly significant. That has all changed. Although I cannot substantiate the following figures, the more important point is that they cannot satisfactorily be disputed either. For an unemployment rate of seven per cent, read 700,000 people without a job. But on top of those 700,000 you could add another seven per cent, or another 700,000 people, who are underemployed—in other words, they want to work full time but cannot. And yet there is another seven per cent, another 700,000 people, who want to work but are excluded from the labour market. That makes 2.1 million people affected by unemployment. But it is much worse than that. Increasing numbers of Australians are working longer and longer hours. What a paradox!As the developed world creates a more and more chronic and endemic unemployment problem, attempts are made to reduce official rates of employment by misrepresentation of casual employment, underemployment and yet for others exclusion from the labour market, and then overemployment. But there is one absolute: current economic orthodoxies appear incapable of solving the problem.Economic growth alone will not solve the unemployment problem or the overemployment problem. As stated in the motion by the member for Charlton, almost one-third of Australian workers are now working more than 50 hours per week. You only have to read the ABS to find that out. That is happening when possibly up to 2.1 million Australian workers are unemployed, underemployed or not even counted in the labour market statistics. I am not suggesting that a reduction in working time, as suggested by the French legislation, on its own can solve the unemployment and underemployment problem. However, no analysis of the employment debate will be complete if working time reorganisation is omitted. In fact, one of the criticisms in the analysis of Working Nation was that it ignored the reduction in working time.Several years ago John Moorhouse, from the University of South Australia, pointed out that, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, 20 million hours of overtime were worked in Australia and since 1978 overtime for males has increased by 78 per cent and for women by over 100 per cent. A simple notion of 20 million hours of work equates to 500,000 40-hour per week jobs. It is understood that not all those overtime hours are paid overtime. Nevertheless, I believe it is a reasonable proposition to suggest that, given serious consideration, at least 100,000 and possibly 200,000 jobs could be released.It is true that many people in labour market studies have shafted—as the member for Petrie did—the reduction in working hours propositions. But, essentially, the criticisms by some academics, bureaucrats and financial writers are purely economic. They take little or no account of the social costs of unemployment with increased crime, suicide and depression. Nor do they mention an inefficient economy with fragile and increased occupational health and safety hazards, lost productivity caused by fatigue and boredom—and productivity in this country has not gone too far in 20 years—increased compensation claims blowing out of the sky and redundancy payouts common as dirt. The criticisms are in fact wrong. Many economists suggest that the proposals for reducing working hours suffer from an argument called a `lump of output fallacy'—that is, the total amount of work to be done is fixed and therefore the only way to employ more people is to share the work more frequently—that is, in and out of employment. That is nonsense. In the last 100 years, the lifetime hours of work for men have fallen from probably more than 160,000 to around 80,000. Is anyone suggesting productivity fell during that period? Is anyone suggesting capital investment fell? Of course not. The `lump of output fallacy' is a discredited argument.Reducing working hours and job sharing will not on their own solve the unemployment problem. However, the arguments for reduction of working hours must be analysed and given serious consideration in a more complete debate on employment. I conclude my remarks with a quote from Thomas Carlyle:Work is the grand cure of all the maladies and miseries that ever beset mankind.16:21:0028472Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—I welcome the opportunity today to talk about this important issue of working hours and I congratulate the member for Charlton for raising it. I enjoyed listening to the contributions of the member for Port Adelaide and the member for Petrie. At the turn of a new century—now well into the 21st century—it is appropriate to discuss what is a reasonable working week. There are all sorts of social changes occurring within our society and, as the member for Port Adelaide acknowledged, while the model for Australia may not be derived from the French Socialist government, there is no particular philosophical opposition in law—if there is, it should be looked at—to a set working hours week.We know that there has been a great casualisation and feminisation of the work force and that technology and mechanisation has occurred at a rate that has fundamentally changed and will continue to change the work force. I will not propose to try to define an ideal of what those hours should be in the three or four minutes I have—Utopia is very much in the mind of the beholder—but clearly there is plenty of scope for creativity, for the enjoyment of the new technology and for an improving outcome for Australian workers. However, if you were to legislate on the French model, would you bring MPs under that model? Would we be required to work only 35 hours and how would you actually do that? I am sure that we would debate that. Nevertheless, for the people of Australia, it is reasonable to say that there is a very much lower union participation rate, there are enterprise agreements, there are share ownership issues and the question of what today constitutes full employment, with our quite strong welfare system which does give a reasonable safety net.I have particular concerns about working hours as they impact on the family, particularly where there are two parents working. The government has endeavoured to strike a better balance for families with younger children, because it is important that children be well cared for whatever the parents' situation—whether it is in child care or child care combined with quality care in home.It is a worthwhile discussion to have. I have a couple of things that I could throw across to the opposition. Simon Crean, the shadow Treasurer, when asked about Labor's industry policy, said: ... I think we have to admit that we didn't get it all right ... That is an interesting statement made on ABC Radio National on 11 August 1997. So there are challenges for the full parliament— not just for the coalition but for the Labor Party as well. I have, as I have indicated, no particular strong philosophical opposition to working hours that are fair and reasonable, but instead of laying down a 35-hour or a 39-hour working week we really want to protect that freedom which is critical. I challenge my colleagues: how do you regulate the working hours of a politician? We would really need to have an open, transparent approach to this and it is a discussion well worth having. I congratulate the member for Charlton for her contribution.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for next sitting. Grievance Debate28473Question proposed:That grievances be noted.2847316:26:0028473Gillard, Julia, MPMs GILLARD83LLalorALP00—My grievance today relates to the question of body image. I was motivated to speak in this place on this issue by a May edition of the Sunday Herald Sun, which I have here now. On page 1, there is a huge photo of Geri Halliwell, formerly Ginger Spice, in a bikini. The headline is `Look Who's Lost Weight'. The article commences with high approval of the fact that Geri Halliwell has lost 13 kilograms and is now described as `super slim'. The very attractive shot of her in a bikini is displayed next to a very unattractive shot of her when she clearly weighed more.The whole message is that women are to be valued for their bodies. Never mind the fact that, even with the extra 13 kilograms, Geri Halliwell would have been at a perfectly acceptable weight in terms of health. The article is concerning enough in and of itself because of its likely effect on the perception of women and girls about matters related to body image, but the thing that completely amazed me about this edition of the Herald Sun and motivated me to raise the matter in this place was the fact that in the very same edition of the newspaper—indeed, leading from the Geri Halliwell piece—was an article headed `selling starvation'. As members can see, the article is accompanied by photographs of very emaciated girls wearing high fashion items. This article—I will read the first two paragraphs for the House—says: Sickening websites that promote deadly eating disorders and glorify starving women and stick-thin celebrities are thriving on the Internet.More than 100 shocking `proanorexia' websites encouraging women to starve themselves can be accessed by vulnerable young Australians at the click of a computer mouse.So we have in the one edition of the Herald Sun this incredibly disturbing juxtaposition. On the one hand, on page 1, we have an article in which a woman is being lauded for losing weight and yet, further into the newspaper, we have an article which is railing against eating disorders and, particularly, anorexia. This is a great illustration of the conundrum facing women about body image. They are told on the one hand by the media that it is desirable to be super thin; they are told on the other hand by the media that one needs to watch out for eating disorders. One wonders, if one is a woman, how you win this game.I know that a number of women's magazines have put forward the view that the media cult of ultra-thinness is abating and we are on our way back to a more realistic view of body image. Frankly, I dispute this and believe there is as much reason to be concerned now as there ever was. A clear example of this phenomenon is the Ally McBeal television program and the continuing debate about the weight of its star Calista Flockhart. There has been a great deal of commentary about whether or not Flockhart has an eating disorder or is just naturally thin. I think the facts speak for themselves. Calista Flockhart is 166 centimetres tall—or five foot 5½ inches. She weighs what is described as `not quite' 42 kilograms—or six stone six pounds. That is not a healthy weight for an adult woman, and the charts issued by the Australian Nutrition Foundation show her to be clearly in the underweight range.The culture that drives the body image of Flockhart and others who star in the Ally McBeal show was revealing, detailed in an article in this week's Sunday Life magazine of, once again, the Sunday Herald Sun. The article details an interview with Vonda Shepard, who is the singer on Ally McBeal and features in each episode. She states:Is there pressure on me to stay slim because I'm in Ally McBeal? Of course there is. There's pressure on everyone ... I wish it wasn't the case but Hollywood pressurises women into staying super-thin.Shepard is described in the article as being 173 centimetres tall and weighing 60 kilograms—that is, she is five foot seven inches and weighs nine stone six pounds. At that weight for height, Shepard would fall at the lower end of the healthy weight range, as defined by the Australian Nutrition Foundation. She expresses in the article a desire to lose three kilograms, a reduction which would take her into the underweight range. Shepard says about her lifestyle: I work out six days a week for at least an hour and a half at a time. I know that it's part of my job to stay thin. I know that I'm healthy but I would always love to be thinner.She goes on:You never see anyone eat (that is on the Ally McBeal set). But we're all on the same diet ... it's just salad and steamed vegetable, and maybe a little bit of protein such as grilled fish or boiled chicken without the skin. Salad dressing is always on the side. No pasta. No bread. It's so boring. I hate it. I've started letting myself have pasta once a week just to feel normal. But the pressure to be thin is overwhelming in this town.Everywhere I go, there are girls skinnier than me.Another star of the show, Courtney Thorne-Smith, actually quit the series, claiming she had been pushed to the brink of anorexia. Thorne-Smith has said:The truth is I was systematically depleting myself physically, by under eating and over-exercising ... to be impossibly thin.If this were just a matter involving a few individual women, it would be a private tragedy. But it is so much more than that, because the media imagery of super thin as desirable has a clear effect on women and girls. I will take the House through some statistics in that regard. The women's Health Australia Survey found that adult women who diet frequently were 50 per cent more likely to be depressed than those who did not diet. A 1999 survey found that 62 per cent of girls who were described as extreme dieters reported high levels of depression and anxiety. Adolescent girls who diet only moderately are five times more likely to develop an eating disorder than girls who do not diet. Young Australian women who start dieting before the age of 15 are more likely to experience depression, binge eating and purging. Girls who diet severely are 18 times more likely to develop an eating disorder than girls who do not diet. A total of 50 per cent of primary schoolchildren want to weigh less, 30 per cent of women and 17 per cent of men are on diets, and 26 to 30 per cent of boys want to be thinner. More than half Melbourne's schoolgirls, aged 15 to 16, are on diets, even though 49 per cent are a normal weight and at least 20 per cent are underweight. Only 1.6 per cent of young Australian women say they are happy about their weight. About 2,000 calls a year to the Kids Help Line are solely regarding self-image issues. In general, girls make two-thirds of the calls to the Kids Help Line, but there are a significant number of boys who ring to express their fears, doubts and troubles. Almost half of these callers state they are experiencing persistent feelings of low self-value or severe feelings of worthlessness.Against this background and the damage it causes, why does the media idolise super thin as the best body type? That I think is a very difficult question to answer. The super-thin stereotype is of course not our historic vision of beauty. Marilyn Monroe was a curvaceous 37-23-36. Of course, in those days we measured inches. In the last 25 years we have moved from the hourglass stereotype to the super-thin one. I would venture the view that this change has not occurred because of some radical shift in the view of men about what are sexually attractive female body shapes. Indeed, I suspect that most heterosexual men would indicate a preference for the Marilyn Monroe body shape over the Calista Flockhart one.However, I think this shift in media stereotypes of body image is related to the changes in women's roles. I note with approval a female comedian's pithy statement that the last 100 years for women could be viewed as a shift from emancipation to emaciation: `No, don't give me a whole vote; I couldn't possible finish it.' Our cultural understanding, as reflected by the media, needs to urgently move from emaciation back to emancipation and from emaciation to reality—to move to an understanding that an individual's value is not about appearance and that beauty and self-worth cannot be measured in kilograms.2847416:36:0028474Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I want to congratulate the member for Lalor on a fine speech, and I agree with her wholeheartedly.I rise today to bring to the House's attention the consistent failure of the Beattie government and the state member for Redcliffe, Mr Ray Hollis, to honour their promise for a rail link to the Redcliffe Peninsula. The state government announced in the budget that $5.5 million would be spent for a third rail line from Northgate to Petrie. The member for Murrumba, Dean Wells, on page 4 of the Redcliffe Herald on 20 June, said that a third line was a necessary precondition for the rail link from Petrie to Kippa-Ring. He goes on to say: ... this does not mean the government is going ahead with building the Kippa-Ring link but it does demonstrate that we are serious about providing the connection in the medium to long term.How long is medium to long term for the state government? It is a bit like asking how long is a piece of string. We have been waiting for this railway for 100 years. How long is the short to medium to long term? I would like to know. When the state member for Redcliffe was returned for his fifth consecutive term, he told the local Redcliffe Herald on 28 February of this year that the long-promised rail link was now in its planning stages. In fact, he declared that rail was one of two `high priorities'. The other priority was the duplication of the Houghton Highway. He made this very bold statement that the promised rail link was in its planning stages, with the location of stations being considered and consultation on property access for local landowners in progress.A quick look at a June 2000 document by Queensland Transport on the Petrie to Kippa-Ring transport corridor already lists the sites of the proposed stations and refers back to the 1980s when a rail link to the peninsula was first touted. That effectively means that during the entirety of the member for Redcliffe's term in office he has done little to advance this rail link beyond its planning stages. All we see from the member for Redcliffe is feasibility study after feasibility study after feasibility study. A feasibility study becomes out of date: another feasibility study is ordered. The recent budget announcement provided improved access for all lines north of Brisbane. Although it may one day benefit the proposed Redcliffe and peninsula rail link, it is not included in the planning document by Queensland Transport as part of that plan.When Mr Hollis was returned for his fifth term he made the duplication of the Houghton Highway, the longest bridge of its type in the Southern Hemisphere, his second priority, along with the rail link. He was quoted in the local press as saying that he saw a second bridge as a definite prospect and alluded to the fact that this may take effect in the next five years or so. In that article he said:I'll be working very hard this year to see that planning is put in place for a second bridge to Redcliffe as soon as possible.During the state election the Beattie government announced that $1.6 million would be spent on upgrading the safety features of the 21-year-old Houghton Highway. Last week's budget announced a $1.25 million spending proposal to complete installation of traffic management systems to upgrade the tidal flow lane control system on the Houghton Highway bridge, thus improving its efficiency and safety. However, Mr Hollis did not announce this funding in his interview with the local paper.When I announced back in April an additional $40 million for the Bruce Highway upgrade, I received a scathing letter from the member for Redcliffe, Mr Hollis, regarding the spending of funds on a road that `effectively abandoned Redcliffe'. Mr Hollis, I must tell you that I have not abandoned Redcliffe. Mr Hollis also forwarded this letter to the local press. In his letter he said that the announcement of the $40 million upgrade— in addition to the $35 million that I had already obtained in funding for stage 1 of the highway, which began in January of this year—effectively abandoned Redcliffe by forcing an end to hopes for the duplication of the Houghton Highway in the foreseeable future. The Houghton Highway, for the member for Redcliffe's information, is a state road, and it is his responsibility to do something about improving the conditions on that highway. It is called a highway, but it is a state road. Mr Hollis claimed that the Bruce Highway upgrade would make this route the primary access route to Redcliffe. In fact, Mr Hollis made the claim:No government, State or Federal, would be able to justify such expenditure on a secondary route. Interesting words when less than two months previously he had said the duplication of the bridge was a definite prospect. But Mr Hollis was just repeating the Labor mantra of `blame the Howard government'. It is interesting to note that Mr Hollis's own colleague, Steve Bredhauer, the Minister for Transport, wrote to me late last year urging me to lobby for more funds for the Bruce Highway. In his letter he said that Queensland's major priority on the national highway system in the Sunshine Coast corridor includes eight and six lanes between Pine River and Caboolture. The $40 million plus the $35 million contributed to this route by the federal government in extending the roadworks from Pine Rivers bridge up to Burpengary includes Mr Bredhauer's wish list of eight and six lanes between Pine River and the Caboolture region. In last week's state budget $29 million was pledged by the state government to assist the upgrade. I am proud of the $75 million in funding that has been delivered to my region for the Bruce Highway. I have delivered that for the people of the northern and outer northern regions of Brisbane. In my 1998 election promise I pledged that I would increase funding and lobby for funding for this vital route that serves a number of my constituents. Contrary to what the member for Redcliffe claims, the upgrade of the Bruce Highway does not abandon Redcliffe.The Bruce Highway is the major arterial road northbound from Brisbane. Funds will alleviate the most congested northbound route out of Brisbane at peak times. Each day between 48,000 and 72,000 vehicles use the route between the Pine River bridge and Caboolture, and around nine per cent of these vehicles are commercial. This upgrade will improve travel time for commuters and delivery times for agricultural and manufactured goods to cities and regions north of Brisbane. Tourism is the largest industry in Queensland, and the upgrade of the highway will provide a world standard motorway for the thousands of visitors who come to Queensland during their Australian visits. Close to half of the international visitors to Australia also include Queensland in their stay, and many of those visitors use road transport.These funds will deliver to the people of Brisbane and Brisbane's outer northern region—an area where Beattie's government has failed to deliver adequate public transport. The city of Redcliffe, in the outer north of Brisbane, has a population of approximately 58,000. A council survey during the 1990s found that, of those people in the available work force, approximately 67 per cent worked outside the city and around 13,000 of these worked in Brisbane. There are two ways to get to Brisbane: you can go along the Bruce Highway, accessible from Anzac Avenue, or you can use the Houghton Highway. Commuters can catch a bus along the Houghton Bridge to Sandgate and pick up a rail link there.The upgrade of the Bruce Highway will benefit the people of Redcliffe. It will benefit those people living in Mango Hill and also those who live in Rothwell. This is the third fastest growing region in Australia. It is populated mostly by young families. It is estimated that in 10 to 15 years Mango Hill will grow by some 25,000 people. The growth alone is expected to increase the local work force by 13,000. Redcliffe city will be one of the beneficiaries of the Bruce Highway upgrade, as will Mango Hill and Rothwell. Those people along that highway have little option but to drive to work in Brisbane.Five years for a rail link is a long time for the people of the peninsula to continue to experience congestion in their travel to Brisbane, and increasing the time spent travelling to and from work will depreciate their quality of life. The state government have failed consistently to provide adequate public transport for these communities, yet they gripe when funding is given and delivered to them. I ask that they stop griping and complaining and get on with doing something about fixing up the Houghton Highway and creating a link from the Redcliffe Peninsula. We have been isolated for long enough. The federal government's funds will see an improvement in both the travel time and quality of life for the 13,000 people who travel and who are regular commuters and drive the 70,000 vehicles that use this route every day. I am looking forward to seeing the completion of this highway that will make it a world-class highway and deliver benefits to the people in my region. 2847716:46:0028477Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—I rise today in the grievance debate to refer to the management and operation of gene technology regulation in this country, and to highlight some of the issues around the recently launched Interim Office of the Gene Technology Regulator. Firstly, I would like to refer to an article from the Weekend Australian on 16 June 2001 by Natasha Bita. Titled `Crop busters', the article essentially goes through what the situation is going to be in terms of regulation of gene technology in Australia now that the regulator is going into play. I would like to read a couple of quotes from the article:“This legislation has been a long time coming,” says the regulator's acting head, Elisabeth Cain. “From June 21 this is law. We're going to be out there on the ground monitoring it in a hands-on way—inspections, audits and checks of procedures.“When we identified the non-compliance in Tasmania, it wasn't because the companies came forward and said, `How ya going Liz? We think we've stuffed up a bit.' It was because I had our guys out there checking they were doing as they should, and they weren't.”The article also reads:Cain, however, is adamant that the location of all 120 GM test sites in Australia will be listed on the regulator's website on Thursday.“[Aventis] is not correct,” she says. “It's very clear in the legislation we are releasing the field trial site locations. That's what people want to know. It would be nonsense for me to tell my mother-in-law about GPS coordinates when she wants to know if the farmer down the road is trialling GM crops.”I would like to go through a couple of points with respect to that quote. The tenor of the article is very much supportive of the gene tech regulator and the fact that this is a new tough and rigorous system which will dramatically improve what has been occurring around this area. I hope that that is the case, but I do have some doubts because of the history of gene tech regulation in this country, particularly over the last couple of years. For example, look at what happened in Tasmania. I would like to read from a media statement from David Llewellyn, the state Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, headed `Duplicity from the federal government'. I am going to read this in its entirety because I think it makes very clear what the Tasmanian government thought about the Interim Office of the Gene Technology Regulator in terms of the work it was doing:The Federal Government's duplicitous and dishonest approach to the issue of GMO breaches in Tasmania has been revealed in State Parliament today.Minister for Primary Industries, Water and Environment, David Llewellyn, said the Federal Government through its Interim Office of Gene Technology Regulator (IOTGR), had refused a demand from the State Government to provide detailed information of the breaches as required under Tasmania's Plant Quarantine Act.“This is the height of arrogance from the Federal Government. They are treating Tasmanians like country cousins.“This paternalistic and patronising attitude that they know what's best for Tasmania on this issue is abhorrent. They are deliberately keeping this information from the State Government, despite our legal right to have it.“Not only has the Federal Government been negligent in their monitoring of GM crops in Tasmania, they have refused, despite repeated requests, to provide us with either the compliance report—now three weeks old—and now the details of the problem sites as required by our Plant Quarantine Act.”Mr Llewellyn said the head of the IOGTR Liz Cain had acted to deliberately mislead and confuse journalists and the public on several fronts. Ms Cain told journalists (see Mercury March 3) that she was unaware of requests from the State Government for detailed information about the site locations. Those requests were made both to her office and to Ms Cain personally by DPIWE officers.Ms Cain also told journalists in Hobart that “if the State Government is concerned about non-compliance with state legislation (ie: the Plant Quarantine Act), [it] has absolute power to access all the information ... and that would include site location.” (The Examiner, 3 March 2001).She is now refusing to provide the State Government with the information as demanded under the Plant Quarantine Act. Mr Llewellyn said Ms Cain's comments were little more than rhetoric to shield the Federal Government from criticism.“Liz Cain has shown she has no intention of co-operating with the Tasmanian Government or working with it on this issue. Her words are empty.“She has instead challenged the advice of Solicitor General Bill Bale—declining to provide the documents and information sought.”Mr Llewellyn said the Federal Government had also reneged on its promise that Tasmania would be involved in follow-up monitoring of the breaches.“Officers of the IOGTR were in Tasmania last week monitoring the sites where the problems have occurred. The Federal Government again failed Tasmanians miserably by not honouring their commitment for my officers to be part of the Monitoring team.“They didn't even have the courtesy of advising my Department they would be in the state.“I have now instructed officers of my Department to visit every one of those trial sites in Tasmania to satisfy the Government that no further contamination exists, and to take samples of any material found and samples from surrounding areas that may be necessary.”In terms of the Tasmanian government's view on the actions of the IOGTR with respect to breaches in Tasmania, they thought it was so well done that there was a need to put out a press release like that and to instigate checks by the Tasmanian government themselves.When we look at the actions by the IOGTR with respect to monitoring, there really was not much monitoring going on in relation to GM sites around the country until a story was broken in about March last year by the Age regarding a problem in Mount Gambier with respect to a herbicide tolerant canola site that is being trialled by Aventis. Essentially, only after those allegations was any inquiry made by the IOGTR. Following that, there was quite a bit of criticism about the IOGTR's actions at that time. I would like to read from the report Work in progress: proceed with caution regarding primary producer access to gene technology. That report, dated June 2000, is from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Regional Services, a committee of which I am a member. As members would know, that committee has members from both sides of the House and even an independent on it. That committee, on an unanimous basis, found the following:The committee was very concerned to hear allegations earlier this year that Aventis' (formerly AgrEvo) trials of herbicide tolerant canola in the Mount Gambier area of South Australia had breached GMAC guidelines. It is even more worried by the manner in which the IOGTR has investigated the alleged breaches, in particular its tardiness in completing its investigation. The IOGTR began its examination of the allegations on 24 March 2000 and, as at 18 May, the results of this examination had not even been forwarded to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, let alone been publicly released.The committee is of the view that the alleged breaches would have been much less likely to have occurred if stringent, transparent regulatory processes, such as those described in the next sections of this chapter, had been in place. The committee is unanimous in believing that rigorous, independent regulatory processes must be instituted as quickly as possible. A more prompt, open, transparent approach must be taken to breaches of guidelines. It is essential that the OGTR act much more efficiently and effectively than the IOGTR has been able to if it is to reassure the Australian people that their interests are being strenuously protected. If this does not happen, public confidence in GMOs and their regulation will be badly prejudiced.I would like to say that we have seen significant improvements since that time, but I have some real concerns about what has happened in this area as recently as the last couple of days. The legislation was passed in the end with the support of the opposition. We worked closely with the government in order to ensure that some amendments were put in place that would improve the transparency of the system and place more publicly available information on the record in order to ensure that there was a rigorous capacity to understand what the regulator was doing and in that way ensure a better regulatory system. We were not totally happy with what was passed, although we believed that, other than in a couple of areas, it was very good legislation. I concur with the view of the government that at this stage the legislation is world's best practice, although I think it still could have been improved to a degree. The important thing was that we needed to get a system in place and, if we did not get a system in place sooner rather than later, then the problems which already existed would get much worse. But what have we seen? Having some six months to address the legislation's implementation and with Ms Cain being on the record as saying that six months would be enough time to do so, we saw a situation where, when the system was in operation last Thursday, only about half the applications for deliberate releases into the environment were on the web site. Of the applications that are there, about half of them have commercial-in-confidence claims being put on them by those who submitted them, about the question of location of sites. We saw a range of information that was on the previous GMAC public information sheets not included in the information that is currently on the web site—one would hope that will be remedied in the near future. And we saw a situation where although, for example, there were blanket removals of applications by Aventis and Monsanto claiming commercial-in-confidence, we also saw 11 out of 30 applications from the CSIRO seeking to keep location details secret. In total, out of the 30 that are there, overwhelmingly it is government organisations who are asking for these exemptions. That is a very bad start for the new system. (Time expired)2847916:56:0028479Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—Today I want to grieve about the state of the Murray-Darling Basin and perhaps come up with a suggestion which the Commonwealth government might like to take up with a view to improving the regulation of the Murray-Darling Basin—namely, that a referendum be held to remove the power over the Murray-Darling Basin from the states and give it to the Commonwealth government. To do that would require the removal of section 100 from the Constitution and the placing of a new head of power under section 51 of the Constitution saying something like `the control and regulation of the Murray and Darling River Basin and the use of the water thereof'.This is not a new issue; it is a very old issue which goes right back to the Federation debates in the 1890s, particularly in Adelaide in 1897 and also in Melbourne in 1898 where South Australia and other states came very close to giving power over the Murray-Darling Basin to the Commonwealth government but were defeated in their efforts by the activities of George Houston Reid, who was the Premier of New South Wales and went on to be the Prime Minister of Australia. He defeated South Australia in its efforts to have this as a Commonwealth controlled area, but now 100 years later the evidence is overwhelming that it is pointless leaving the Murray-Darling Basin in the hands of the states when they have proved themselves incapable of managing such an important resource for Australia.In the 1890s, it was the navigation of the waterways that was at issue in the convention debates. Today, the economic and ecological importance of the Murray-Darling Basin is undisputed, yet it remains in the hands of the states, who bicker about it and fail to achieve consensus about how it should be approached. As a consequence, the Murray River is slowly dying and the people of Adelaide and all along the Murray who rely on it for water are the sufferers. Australia as a whole is suffering because of the selfishness of some states in their approach to the Murray-Darling Basin. I single out particularly for comment the state of Queensland, which is peculiarly selfish with respect to the water that flows into the Darling and should then be flowing into the Murray but is not.I would propose that the power should be a concurrent power so that the states would be entitled to continue to legislate with respect to the Murray-Darling Basin but that any laws that they introduced that were at odds with the Commonwealth power would be invalid and the Commonwealth power would override whatever state law was in place to govern a particular aspect of the management of the Murray-Darling Basin system. There is ample evidence to show that there are good reasons for the people to vote in a referendum to give the Commonwealth power over the Murray-Darling Basin. These include the major environmental issues that need to be addressed: in-stream and dryland salinity, over-allocation of water to consumption, land clearance, soil structure decline and water and wind erosion. The Australian dryland salinity assessment 2000 identified some of the following issues in the Murray-Darling Basin and its subcatchments: by 2050 over 40 per cent of wetlands within the Goulburn-Broken region will be in landscapes with shallow water tables; in the Murray Basin of South Australia, the estimated area affected by salinity in 1998 was 19,800 hectares, and this is expected to increase to 29,600 hectares in 2020 and 34,000 hectares in 2050; ground water modelling suggests that vegetation clearance in the Mallee will cause salinity to increase by 115 electrical conductivity units by 2050 at Morgan, costing consumers an additional $16½ million each year; and areas at risk from rising water tables include extensive tea-tree shrub lands and native grasses in the Coorong district and seasonal wetlands and watercourses in the upper south-east. And that is not all. The National Land and Water Resources Audit's Australian water resources assessment 2000 also noted the following trends in water quality issues: the Lower Murray recorded total nutrients, phosphorus and nitrogen levels that exceeded the audit's water quality guidelines; salinity readings exceeded the audit's water quality levels at monitoring stations from all the South Australian river basins, thereby indicating the widespread nature of salinity as a water quality issue in South Australia; and the Lower Murray also exceeded the water quality values for turbidity. The Murray-Darling Basin Commission's salinity audit also raised major concerns that Adelaide's drinking water will be undrinkable two out of every five days within 20 years.Even today in the Advertiser there is further evidence of the mismanagement of the Murray-Darling Basin by the states, with calls for the federal government to take over control of the management of the murray cod. A new report has shown that the species is `seriously threatened'. The Advertiser says:The report listed the six main threats to the Murray cod as habitat degradation, pollution (including cold water pollution from deep dams) inappropriate river flow, migration barriers such as weirs, introduced species such as European carp and commercial, recreational and illegal fishing.The Advertiser indicated that the report said:State governments currently set the rules regarding cod but Senator Hill said he would instruct his department to investigate whether the fish should be given Commonwealth conservation status.... ... ...Senator Hill said it was odd that there were different state laws regarding cod when the fish lived in the same river system.I could not agree more with Senator Hill. It does seem odd, even on an issue like the murray cod, which is a threatened species in the Murray, that still the states attach their own particular rules and regulations to the management of the murray cod and have put that fish at risk. Some people will say, `Well, it's a minor issue whether the murray cod survives or not,' but the reality is that it is a pointer to the ecological health of the Murray and Darling River basins. Clearly, from all the evidence that I have tabled today—from the assessments given by government departments and in anecdotal evidence in today's Advertiser—there is a very strong case that the states have mismanaged the Murray-Darling Basin system and that the Commonwealth should take it over. The only way that can be done is if the people give us the power to do so through a referendum.The Queensland government is particularly egregious in its attitude towards the other states, and particularly South Australia, in its management of the Darling Basin. On something as simple, obvious and logical as capping the amount of water taken from the basin, the Queensland government has still failed to sign up to the capping agreements that have been in place since 1997 based on water taken in 1993 and 1994. South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria have all signed up to water capping agreements in 1997, based on water taken in the early nineties, and Queensland has still failed to sign up to these capping arrangements and still puts them off, obfuscates and throws up hurdles in the path of simple and logical measures like capping the water taken from the Darling system that is to flow into the Murray. In fact, in the case of the Condamine River, every drop of water is taken from the Condamine River that would normally have flowed into the Darling River and then into the Murray River. Of course, this is a modern phenomenon. In history, the Condamine River would have flowed into the Darling and the Darling would have flowed into the Murray but, because of the actions of technology and state government ineptitude, particularly from the Queensland state government, the flow of rivers is being stopped that would normally have flowed into the Darling and then into the Murray. I do not believe that the Queensland government ever intends to sign the capping agreements that the other states have signed. They have shown in other areas as well— particularly in the area of land clearing—that they have no regard at all for the environment, for the future of our children and for our grandchildren, and they do not care about the pressure placed on them by other states or by the Commonwealth government. So I am asking that the Commonwealth proceed with a referendum at the next federal election to delete section 100 from the Constitution and replace it with a head of power under section 51 that would give the Commonwealth power over the Murray-Darling Basin. The Advertiser editorial from some weeks ago makes this comment:At the very least a national vote among the states and territories would give the Murray's—and this state's—future the priority it demands and generate the awareness it requires.I hope that the Commonwealth will listen to my call and heed it. I look forward to the opportunity to cast a vote to give the Commonwealth the much needed power over the Murray-Darling Basin.2848117:06:0028481Corcoran, Ann, MPMs CORCORAN009CWIsaacsALP00— Not long after I was elected to this parliament, I was approached by a number of residents who have been trying for many years to have Cranbourne included in the Melbourne telephone call zone. Cranbourne is presently outside the Melbourne call zone, and this is inconsistent with telephone charging arrangements in other suburban areas and nearby towns. For instance, Mount Eliza is further from Melbourne than Cranbourne but it is in the Melbourne call zone. Cranbourne is outside the Melbourne zone for historical reasons, as it was once a country town, but times have changed and so has Cranbourne. It is now very much part of the metropolitan area. Technology has changed too, and there is now no good argument for continuing to exclude Cranbourne from the Melbourne call zone.Earlier this year, I tabled a petition signed by more than 3,500 people calling for Cranbourne to be included in the Melbourne call zone. In April 2000, Telstra announced its zoning review and the outcomes of the review were finally made public last week, some eight months after the expected date. It is very disappointing that the outcomes do not provide the relief Cranbourne residents and businesses were looking for. It is also disappointing that the new arrangements include complicated choices for consumers, and it is not clear that many people will actually benefit from these proposed changes. The key point here is that the review has not moved the zone boundaries and Cranbourne is still considered to be outside Melbourne. A look at the map of the zone boundaries shows a decided kink around Cranbourne—a kink in the wrong direction and leaving Cranbourne out in the cold. The fact that this most recent review was conducted by Telstra itself, and not by an independent body, makes the outcomes more difficult to accept. Labor has called for an independent review as the only way to ensure a thorough and fair review of the current zone arrangements. On a slightly different tack, these new arrangements do nothing for those who do not use Telstra as their carrier. There are no announced changes to wholesale prices.The new arrangements are very complicated. At first glance, the offer of a 25c flat call rate to Melbourne is good news, but once the fine print is read, the good news disappears. Consumers who take on the wide area call option lose their access to neighbourhood calls at 15c and will now have to pay 22c for these calls. It should also be pointed out that any savings made under the new arrangements need to be offset against the recent increase in line rental of $2.26 per month. These new arrangements are not good enough for Cranbourne, for three reasons: firstly, Cranbourne is still not included in the Melbourne call zone, despite changes in demographics and technology since the zones were established; secondly, the new charging arrangements are only available to Telstra customers, and then not all Telstra customers; and, thirdly, the options are too complicated, leaving many consumers confused and suspicious. Mr Deputy Speaker, let me tell you about Chicquita park. Chicquita park is an area of open space in suburban Mentone which is owned by the Department of Defence and which the department now wants to sell. I was approached last year by a group of local residents who are, understandably, upset at the thought of losing their park. I have been working with these residents to try to find a way of preserving the area as open space. The local council, Kingston, is also keen to see the area remain as open space. The department originally offered the land to Kingston council for something approaching $3 million—an amount well beyond what Kingston can reasonably be expected to pay for an area to be kept as open land. The value was based on the land being zoned for residential purposes and not open space.Earlier this year, as my office discussed the issue with officers within the Department of Defence, the message we were getting loud and clear was that the intention was to sell the land before the end of June 2001, come what may. The picture we were getting was that the government was hell-bent on selling the land, regardless of community concerns or even price. The risk at that stage was that the land would be sold quickly and at a less than optimal price, as zoning issues were still to be worked through. The risk was that, as a community, we would lose the open space but not get the optimum value for this loss—in other words, an outcome to no-one's benefit, except the purchaser.Early in May this year I received two letters in quick succession from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence. Both letters indicate quite clearly that the government is determined to sell this land. The first letter, dated 4 May 2001, was in response to a letter from me to the minister dated 28 March 2001. The response simply sets out the history of the proposed sale. It also indicates a willingness on the minister's part to work through `relevant issues' with the council following advice from the council which was expected by the end of April. As this letter was dated 4 May, I can only assume that there was a delay between drafting and the parliamentary secretary signing the letter.The second letter I received was dated 9 May 2001 and was in response to my letter to the minister and the parliamentary secretary on 17 April 2001. This second letter answered some of my more specific issues about the processes being followed. However, the letter also talked about a meeting with Kingston council and community group leaders on 10 May 2001—too late for me to be involved, despite my ongoing correspondence with the minister. I am disappointed that the parliamentary secretary did not see fit to invite me to this meeting, despite my ongoing correspondence with him on the matter and despite the fact that the Liberal candidate was invited. This is very poor and does no credit to the minister or his office. More importantly, though, this letter makes it very clear, again, that the land is to be sold.About this time Kingston made an offer of $500,000 for the land—a fair price based on the land remaining as open space, but to date no response has been made by the minister or the department to this offer. Recent questions in the defence estimates committee pursued this matter and officers of the department indicated that the offer is most unlikely to be accepted. I am disturbed by the handling of this issue as it seems that the local community are being led a bit of a dance. A recent newspaper article in the Mordialloc-Chelsea News indicates the offer is being considered, but departmental officers have already said that the offer is most unlikely to be accepted. It is time for the minister to take a stand and announce that he will take steps to ensure the land remains as open space. At the risk of repeating what I have said in this place and what others have said before me, I would now like to take a few minutes to express my dismay and that of Chelsea residents at yet another bank closure. In two weeks the Chelsea branch of the National Australia Bank will close. This follows the closure of the National Australia Bank in Mordialloc late last year and other bank closures earlier last year. The concern of the community is increasing as these closures just keep on coming. The NAB's announcement of the last two closures typifies the lack of care and concern the banks are displaying. Both announcements listed alternative branches available once the Mordialloc and Chelsea branches are closed. Needless to say, all the branches are some kilometres from Mordialloc and Chelsea, but two of the three alternatives are very difficult, if not impossible, to get to via public transport. Both of these branches are located in industrial areas a long way from residential areas. Anyone with local knowledge would not have suggested these as reasonable alternatives.I find the fact that the bank did not take the time or effort to check out the facts indicative of the attitude that is growing daily—that household customers are not important and that adequate service to them is not critical. It is critical that all Australians have adequate access to financial services. This is so on social justice grounds and also economic efficiency grounds. The government must accept that the tin god called competition does not always provide what is necessary for people. Banks do have social obligations that go beyond commercial considerations and that are broader than the responsibilities of most other commercial organisations. The bank licence brings with it responsibilities as well as privileges, and it is time banks took those responsibilities more seriously.I would like to take the last few minutes to congratulate Merinda Park Community Centre on receiving the Innovation Award in the City of Casey Community Volunteer Award Program recently. The award was won for Merinda Park's `Getting it together' training course. The course was judged to be good and innovative. The purpose of the course is to train volunteers to become effective mentors. The course was developed by Merinda Park in association with Youth Futures in Frankston. There are a number of older people in our community who have loads of life experience and who are keen to pass on their knowledge. There is a place in our community for these skilled older people to mentor and assist younger people. The course developed at Merinda Park focuses on the development of respect, trust and support in relationships and also provides participants with the skills necessary to become effective mentors. The mentors can then help young people in the area with support and guidance.Volunteers are very important in our community, and this course provides an opportunity for volunteers to hone their mentoring skills and develop confidence in their ability to pass on their useful life skills to others. The course was developed for volunteers working with young people, but the skills it teaches can be applied to any situation where an experienced person is trying to help someone new in the field. I encourage other groups who use volunteers to contact Merinda Park to talk about this course and perhaps see how it can be useful to them.2848317:16:0028483Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10— Much has been said recently about the need to improve facilities within the immigration reception and processing centres to ensure that the government's policy of humane detention is adhered to. This is an important issue, and has been the subject of some ill informed, though perhaps well-meaning, criticism over the past few weeks. No-one is suggesting that this is not a very difficult, very complex issue indeed—to the contrary. Simplistic responses as proposed by some commentators have been tried in the past and have failed. When such comments are reported in the Australian and international media, they are seized upon by people smugglers. Illegal immigrants' expectations are raised unnecessarily so that they think that when they arrive in Australia they will be immediately released into the community or will be in detention for a very short period regardless of whether they have any genuine claims to remain. When refugees are advised that they have no right to remain in Australia, their unmet expectations give rise to a culture of protest and, in some cases, unlawful, riotous activity. All people commenting publicly on these matters in Australia should at least inform themselves of the global nature of the issue, the complexities and the involvement of criminal gangs and the sheer determination of many people to live in Australia. Today I received a copy of the 2000 edition of Protecting the border: immigration compliance, which is put out by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. I want to quote a few figures from that publication, which certainly has changed my view of some of the comments that I have made in the past about what we should be doing with some of these illegal immigrants. On page 13, the publication gives some figures in relation to people-smuggling to Australia. It says:The total number of unauthorised arrivals in Australia increased from 1556 in 1994-95 to 5870 in 1999-2000. Unauthorised air arrivals constituted 29 per cent of all unauthorised arrivals in 1999-2000.Unauthorised boat arrivals constituted 71 per cent of all unauthorised arrivals in 1999-2000.Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the PRC, Malaysia, South Korea, New Zealand, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia make up the top 10 countries or territories of citizenship for all unauthorised arrivals in 1999-2000.The majority of unauthorised arrivals were aged 20-34 years.People smugglers are using increasingly sophisticated methods. The Australian Government has developed a comprehensive whole-of-government strategy to combat people smuggling and stem the illegal flow of people to Australia.This publication defines people-smuggling as follows:People smuggling involves the illegal movement of people across international borders, usually for payment. This implies a voluntary agreement between the organiser and the person being smuggled.It goes on to define people-trafficking as:... the illegal movement of people, often against their will, across international borders. There is often ongoing exploitation to pay off a debt owed to the organiser. Traditionally, this has applied to people involved in the sex industry, but neither the definition nor the reality are limited to this form of employment. The figures continue. In relation to immigration malpractices detected, the publication says:Immigration malpractice detected at Australian airports in 1999-2000 included document fraud, malafide visa holders and identification of facilitators of irregular entry.32 per cent of people refused immigration clearance presented either bogus documents or no documents at all.The most common type of document fraud is a photo substituted passport. 63 per cent of people refused immigration clearance were considered to be malafide visa holders. Of those people who were refused immigration clearance on the basis of their bonafides, 21 per cent were from Malaysia.In 1999-2000 ALOs intercepted 90 people in Bangkok, 105 in Singapore, 74 in Kuala Lumpur, 77 in Hong Kong SAR and 7 in Denpasar.I want to continue to quote some of the figures, but it is very important to highlight the magnitude of the problem. I refer now to unauthorised boat arrivals. The publication says:There were 4175 unauthorised boat arrivals in 1999-2000, compared with 926 in 1998-99 and 157 in 1997-98.So the problem is escalating dramatically. The document continues:Of the 75 unauthorised boats in 1999-2000, 73 (97 per cent) embarked from Indonesia.The main landing site for unauthorised boat arrivals in 1999-2000 were the Ashmore Islands and Christmas Island. The top 3 countries or territories of citizenship for unauthorised boat arrivals in 1999-2000 were Iraq with 2297 arrivals, Afghanistan with 1263 and Iran with 227 unauthorised boat arrivals.60 per cent of all unauthorised boat arrivals in 1999-2000 were aged between 20-34 years.There were 331 illegal Indonesian fishermen apprehended in 1999-2000 by the Australian Fisheries Management Authority.Much has been said about Australia's activity under the refugees convention. We are required under that refugees convention to admit people who arrive in our territory in an unauthorised fashion where there is a question about them needing protection. Australia does this. We are not, however, required to permit full access to the Australian community until we know who they are and we have undertaken health character and security checking. Immigration detention in Australia is consistent with the UNHCR's detention guidelines and Excom's conclusions on this matter. It is designed to ensure that applicants are available while their claims are assessed, to facilitate identification, health, character and security assessment and to ensure that they remain available for removal from Australia should they prove not to be eligible for the grant of a visa. That is why we have the policy of mandatory detention, which still has bipartisan support. These people are in Australia unlawfully and we have not previously had the opportunity to check their identity and assess their claims. On that point, I note that on 21 June this year in an adjournment debate Senator McKiernan from Western Australia said:Recently there was a demonstration around Australian capital cities where banners were flown that said, `Free the refugees'. I agree with that; I support that. I do not believe any refugee should be detained in this country. But just as I do not believe a refugee should be detained, I do not believe that anybody who arrives unlawfully on our shores and who claims refugee status is automatically a refugee. Many of them are refused, and I think that something like 1,000 people have had their claims for protection refused and are now awaiting removal from Australia.In my capacity as chair of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee, I have had many opportunities to look at individual cases through the course of our inquiries. I want to draw reference to one particular applicant for refugee status who was the focus of an inquiry, among other things, of the Senate Legal and Constitutional References Committee and whose case was featured in a report of the committee called A sanctuary under review: an examination of Australia's refugee and humanitarian determination processes, which was tabled at about this time last year.He went on to say:There is a full chapter, chapter 7, that deals with Mr SE's case, and there is a chronology of events dealing with Mr SE at appendix 6. We called him Mr SE because he was an applicant for protection and we were respecting his privacy.He is not an applicant any longer, but it is interesting to read how Mr SE took in the Australian community, and not only the Australian community but the Australian judiciary—advocates on behalf of the individual—by lying through his teeth throughout the process as to who he was. We can talk about that because the Legal and Constitutional Committee actually went into the detention centre, talked to the person in question, took evidence from him and accepted the lies we were told, with his advocate present. Mr Sadiq Elmi arrived in this country in 1997 and made an application for protection that was refused. His appeal to the RRT was refused. I think he made about five or six requests to the minister to exercise his discretion, which were all refused. He was about to be removed from Australia when he convinced the pilot of the aircraft taking him out of Melbourne that he should not be removed. He then made application to the High Court of Australia. His advocates went off to the United Nations. The United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights requested non-removal from Australia and the person was taken off an aircraft out of Perth. The minister allowed Sadiq Elmi to make a second application for refugee status. When, under the natural justice provisions of application for protection in Australia, Mr Sadiq Elmi was shown that the department knew he was not who he said he was and that, therefore, he was not entitled to refugee status, he withdrew his application and made arrangements to go somewhere else. (Time expired)2848517:26:0028485Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—Today I would like to take up in more detail one of the issues I raised in my speech on the budget last week, namely aged care. The government has shown itself to be completely negligent in the area of aged care. There are three things that have come to light in the last week, for which the government must be held accountable—or, more particularly, for which the Minister for Aged Care must be held accountable. Firstly, it was revealed last week that the federal government has underfunded aged care to the tune of $1.3 billion in the next four years. Previously, the government has seen aged care budgets increase by an average of nine per cent per year over the last four years. So why does the government suddenly think it is satisfactory for it to budget for an average of just four per cent per year increase in the next three years? With an ageing population and the required improvements in facilities and standards of care, it is ludicrous for the government to believe that it will need less money to tackle the growing problem. The $1.3 billion shortfall between what it has budgeted for and what will be required shows once again the complete lack of commitment by this government to meet the needs of our older and frail population, and no $300 bribes or government advertising can change that. The second example in the past week of the government's inability to handle this area has been the appointment of another Minister Bishop mate to the so-called independent Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency. The appointment of long-time friend Mr. Harrowell to chair the board of the accreditation agency smacks of another attempt to muzzle the body that is supposed to conduct the accreditation system which regulates the aged care system. This appointment comes on top of the reappointment of Ms Bishop's own campaign manager to the board of the agency. These two incidents raise serious questions about the independence of the agency from government pressure. Significantly, both peak aged care organisations and the two largest aged care providers—Catholic Health Australia and Uniting Care Australia—have also stepped into the debate, calling for an inquiry to look at the lack of transparency of the government's agency.The third aged care problem which we highlighted last week was the ongoing saga of the Yagoona Nursing Home. Nine weeks ago, the government received a shocking report from the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency on the Yagoona Nursing Home. That report found that the nursing home failed all four care standards, with two being rated as `critical', and effectively recommended that the nursing home be closed down. The agency's report on Yagoona revealed that residents suffered temperatures of 48 degrees in summer, cold showers, the use of unauthorised restraints, a high rate of falls and a potential disaster in the event of a fire. In addition to this, the tragic death of former Yagoona patient Mrs Thomas has been revealed, coupled with the minister's failure to address the complaint from Mrs Thomas's son after his mother's passing.The government chose to ignore the recommendation from the standards agency and its own accreditation guidelines by allowing the Yagoona Nursing Home to continue to operate. Not only has the government allowed the nursing home to remain open; it failed to impose any of the sanctions it has available under the Aged Care Act. In question time, Labor revealed that the government reversed the decision to close down the Yagoona Nursing Home, which happens to be run by a company that has contributed $14,000 to the Liberal Party. We have heard that the nursing home believed that the agency would do nothing because the owner `knew people'. That obviously refers to the owner's link with the Liberal Party and the $14,000 donation to their coffers. This is no way to run a monitoring system. People must be assured that the nursing homes they place their loved ones into will be investigated without fear or favour. Sadly, in the case of Yagoona, it appears that this has not happened, and Labor will pursue the murky nature of the government's handling of the dreadful allegations surrounding this nursing home.As I said in the Main Committee last week, I cannot understand how the federal government could have framed a budget that was supposed to be full of goodies for older people yet neglected something as fundamental as aged care. The budget produced a $71 million cut from care subsidies that comes on top of the $90 million cut in 1999. The only additional money announced was $13.8 million for standards, monitoring and complaints resolution, which is an ineffective attempt to tackle the symptoms of declining care standards, and a $2 million aged care communication or spin doctoring strategy. Yet there was not one single extra bed in this budget. This is despite the fact that as at 30 June 2000 there was a national shortage of 10,500 aged care beds. The most critical shortage of beds is in my home state of Victoria, where a shortfall of 4,480 beds has been revealed by the government's own targets. As a result, waiting times for aged care in Victoria continue to grow. In 1997-98 just five per cent of Victorians assessed as needing nursing home care had to wait more than three months to find a bed. By 2000 that had grown to 20 per cent. It is intolerable that one in five Victorians needing nursing home care are forced to wait more than three months for a bed. This puts immense pressure on families and on Victoria's public hospital system.In my electorate of Chisholm there is a brand-new facility in Ashwood run by the Cabrini health group. They have already bought licences for 30 high-care places, and those are in operation. With that in mind, Cabrini bought a site and built a wonderful new facility that has 90 beds—30 for the high-care licence they had, and 60 which have been able to get no licence as a low-care facility. Anyone from Melbourne would be aware that Cabrini run a hospital in Malvern that has a fantastic reputation, and that they have a very distinguished history of delivering quality health care services. Despite this, the government has not granted Cabrini the 60 bed licences they need. Consequently these beds lie idle, while older people wait in hospitals, desperate for a nursing home bed.I had the pleasure of actually opening Cabrini Nursing Home very recently, and it was like an episode of Yes, Minister, walking around looking at this beautiful, state-of-the-art facility but with empty beds and no patients. I condemn the government for not providing to Cabrini Nursing Home the licences that are so desperately needed. The only conclusion I can draw is that the Cabrini Nursing Home has fallen victim to either government incompetence or penny-pinching in its failure to provide the bed licences the facility needs to start caring for residents. The minister dodges the whole issue of bed shortages by counting in her bed figures aged care beds which have been allocated but which are not built or operating. These are the `phantom beds'. They exist only in the imagination of Minister Bishop. To further illustrate the point, in the 1999 round Minister Bishop allocated 140 beds to an aged care provider to build in the Mornington Peninsula. The provider has had two years to get the beds operational, yet the building has not even started. What sort of crazy system do we have where 140 bed licences are handed out for beds not even built while I have 60 new beds lying idle in Cabrini at Ashwood? This just does not make sense.Lastly, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the dire shortage of nursing staff available to nursing homes in Victoria. Last Friday a gentleman came to visit me who lives in my electorate and runs a nursing home in Blackburn. He and his wife, a highly trained nurse, have been running this facility for the past five years. Last week, one of their sisters rang in ill to the nursing home. They have been blessed with a stable and caring staff and have had to rely on agency staff to fill only three vacancies in the past five years, but last week they had a need, because the accredited nurse on the shift was ill. They called 12 agencies and could not get a replacement for the shift. Some of the agencies even laughed and said that they must be joking if they thought they would find a qualified nurse to do a night shift in a nursing home. Other nursing homes rung by my constituent also spoke of the enormous difficulty in getting and keeping trained staff in nursing homes. Why would you work there, they asked, when you can earn more and do less work in a video store. This man is now faced with the prospect of having to break guidelines in order just to stay operational or else to ask his wife to work double or triple shifts to stay in business. It is a terrible situation.This is a problem that is particularly acute in Victoria where, under the Kennett government, around 2,000 nurses were cut from the system, leading to a staffing crisis and bed shortages. To its credit, the new Victorian government has begun a campaign to recruit 1,300 nurses from the pool of nurses in Victoria who have left the profession. Figures recently showed that 662 nurses signed up for free refresher and re-entry courses that they once had to pay for themselves. The Victorian Health Minister, John Thwaites, has said there is a serious shortage of critical care nurses across Australia. To help address this specialist shortage, the Bracks government will fund 201 scholarships this year, including 35 in rural Victoria. These initiatives will go some way to alleviating the problems faced by my constituent. This is not an issue we can afford to ignore, as the ageing population will see an increased demand for aged care nurses. It is yet another problem the minister has failed to provide leadership on. My constituent also expressed concern at the cost of implementing accreditation at his nursing home. Whilst he believed that accreditation was needed in the industry he asked why it had to be so labour intensive, why it had to cost so much and why it had to take qualified nursing staff away from their primary duty of caring for residents in order to fill in paperwork.In conclusion, the past week has proven that this government is not responsible enough to handle the complex issues of the aged care system. I look forward to the installation of the aged care plan announced by my leader in February that will see the following: a national benchmark of care, minimum staffing guidelines, more surprise inspections, a new aged care ombusdman, and tougher penalties for substandard nursing homes. Only when we have a Beazley Labor government will families in Australia be able to have any confidence in the monitoring, care and funding levels of this critical area.In the time remaining, I would like to place on record my sympathies to the family of Roy Longmore, who died last week at the ripe age of 107. I have had the immense pleasure of sharing with Roy and his family his 104th, 105th and 106th birthdays. Roy, as one of our last Gallipoli veterans, was a true symbol of what all Australians hold dear—the notions of mateship, a fair go for all, courage and a no-nonsense approach to life. Roy had lived for many years at the Elizabeth Gardens Hostel in Burwood in my seat of Chisholm, and to the staff and residents who have lost a friend and character, I send my sympathies. Roy presented to every meal at the hostel in his suit and tie and was constantly saying that he and those who served in World War I were not heroes but were just doing the job that they were told to do. Roy suffered serious injuries in France and was on the verge of losing his legs. Thankfully, this did not happen and following his return to Australia he married, had one son, Eric, and ran a successful business. I congratulate the state government on its decision to honour this true hero with a state funeral. (Time expired)2848817:36:0028488Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I was interested that the member for Sturt raised an interesting idea with regard to the Murray-Darling Basin. Whether his aspirations will ever be achieved is worthy of debate. I also would like to talk about a very important part of the Murray-Darling Basin, in particular a project associated with it that goes a long way towards meeting some of the serious salinity and water waste management issues that the member for Sturt raised. In particular, I refer to the Wimmera-Mallee stock and domestic water supply system. It is a good time, in the Centenary of Federation, to talk about this project and recognise the achievements of our pioneers over the past 100 years. There is very little doubt that, without this unique scheme, the arid regions of the Wimmera and the Mallee in the north-west of Victoria would never have been developed and never have grown into the granary of the nation. It is that important resource needed for stock and for domestic families—water.Apart from one small area, this project is completely contained in the federal division of Mallee. A small portion is associated with the western edge of the member for Murray's electorate, but virtually 98 per cent of it is contained within one federal division. It has been a challenge since its construction commenced in the 1890s, when horsedrawn scrapers struggled to excavate a channel system that ultimately ended up as 16,000 kilometres of network channel and became one of the largest open channel water supply systems in the world. It was quite an engineering feat for its time. Its construction continued through the turn of the century, right up to the 1940s, and in fact really continued with the construction of the last remaining storage at Rocklands in the mid-1960s. Since that time there has been a raging debate because of evidence of salinisation associated with the channel system, the excessive wastage of water and the need to have this scheme piped. It is a debate that has gone on since the sixties, and it was not until the early eighties that we finally got a commitment from the then Fraser government that at least the northern end, the Mallee end, of this scheme would be piped. It was very unfortunate that, with the advent of the Hawke Labor government, the commitment to piping in northern Mallee was abandoned. But we struggled on as a community and, recognising the very important need of this scheme and the preciousness of water, in 1993 the construction was commenced with bipartisan commitment from the coalition government in Victoria and the Labor government here in Canberra.The northern Mallee is roughly one third of the geographic area of the total scheme, which comprises 2.9 million hectares—about 20 per cent of the state of Victoria—and 16,000 kilometres of open channel for the whole system. After seven years we are just finally finishing about one quarter of it. That means there are three quarters of it yet to go, which is the challenge that I would like to speak about a little later.Just to give you some idea of this unique scheme, with storages in the southern end associated with the Grampian Mountains, it takes water, as the crow flies, about 350 kilometres in a channel system that reaches the Murray River. There is not a lot of logic in that, but that is the lie of the land for a gravity supply system. Storage capacity is about 450,000 megalitres of water, but the tragedy has been that, each year since the 1960s, we have been wasting 140,000 megalitres of water. That is an enormous amount of water—that is, 140 gigalitres of water. It is a volume of water that is hard to imagine. Virtually 60 per cent of the water stored is wasted through seepage into very sandy Wimmera and Mallee soils and through evaporation. Land-holders complain of salinity of water of 3,000 ECs arriving at their properties; it is almost beyond drinking and it is certainly creating problems with supply to stock.It is a great tribute that now in 2001 we are discussing the funding for the last stage of the northern Mallee—stage 7. Stage 6, associated with the northern and eastern areas of the township of Ouyen, which is right at the top end of the supply scheme, is virtually complete. Now the challenge is to marshal the political courage to tackle the piping of the rest of the Wimmera-Mallee stock and domestic system. The northern Mallee project that has been piped so far saves about 50,000 megalitres per year of about 140,000 megalitres. There is still a lot of water to save.Last year the Commonwealth, the states, local land-holders, municipalities and catchment management authorities funded a study to determine what the remainder of the scheme would look like, how much water it could save and how we could achieve the construction of the rest of the Wimmera-Mallee stock and domestic system. It is so big that you just cannot think about it being done in one year. It has taken seven years to do seven stages. The rest of the construction will take at least a decade, probably more. The Commonwealth funded the implementation study to the tune of $110,000, funded through a rural partnership program. When you ask the communities down in the Wimmera-Mallee what the issue is that constrains their economic development, you will always get the answer that it is to do with water and the better use of it. The Victorian government responded with funding of $130,000. Wimmera Mallee Water, which is the state instrumentality responsible for this scheme, funded $126,000. Powercorp, the electricity supply company, recognising the benefits for them of a much better coordinated system, contributed $11,000. Local councils and catchment management authorities contributed up to a net amount of $400,000 to conduct the study.After extensive consultation through the community, it is now ready for its public airing. I am looking forward to facilitating the provision of that report to Canberra and to those responsible to ensure that the momentum that we have gained now in the piping of the scheme can continue. The last two years confirm the very need as to why we should do this. The Grampians water storage, sadly due to lack of rain, is now down to 12 per cent of its capacity. In fact, the Wimmera-Mallee water authority has to pump from below low water level in some of the storages just to get a supply. We have a water supply crisis in the Wimmera, which highlights the point that, as a nation, we can no longer continue to waste the most precious commodity that an arid nation like Australia has. The member for Sturt has it right there, but I do not think it is a question of laying blame. At the time of its construction, the Wimmera-Mallee stock and domestic system was hailed as an engineering achievement, something of its time. It has been part of the contribution to the development of an important region, the north-west of Victoria. In hindsight, we can look back after 100 years and say, `We could have done it better.' But the advent of new technology, better science, better pumping systems, much cheaper construction for pipes and so forth and better materials provide us with an enormous opportunity now to continue the momentum.I will be looking forward to an opportunity to present a further case. Members in this place have heard me speak about this pet project of mine for many years—I suppose it is because of my engineering background—but there are just so many examples around the nation where we have got inappropriate water supply schemes such as this. The Wimmera-Mallee scheme provides a good model for other regions to follow so that, as a nation, we can look forward to another century with better use of water. So I support the member for Sturt's contention, but I am a little at odds with him on how to achieve that. We are in partnership as a nation with states, local authorities and local communities, who are far better placed to make their own decisions about what is best for them. One thing is very clear. The message I hear constantly in the Wimmera-Mallee is about the need to make much better use of resources and for the Commonwealth to fund projects of national importance from which the nation can benefit as a whole.10000Causley, Ian (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. I.R. Causley)—Order! The question is:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills28490The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Import Processing Charges Bill 2000Customs Depot Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2000Governor-General Legislation Amendment Bill 2001Dried Vine Fruits (Rate of Primary Industry (Customs) Charge) Validation Bill 2001Dried Vine Fruits (Rate of Primary Industry (Excise) Levy) Validation Bill 2001Migration Legislation Amendment (Electronic Transactions and Methods of Notification) Bill 2001Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001Bills28490S30728490Bill received from the Senate, and read a first time.Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills28490R121128490Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration at the next sitting.Bills28490R133428490Debate resumed from 7 June, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.17:48:0028491Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00—As an amendment to the motion for the second reading of the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 I move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) massively increasing the complexity of the tax system for small business, particularly the fringe benefits tax and its interaction with the GST;(2) massively increasing the taxation compliance burden for small business and for charities;(3) breaching the Prime Minister's 1996 pledge to halve small business red tape;(4) breaching its promise that the Australian economy, and all Australians, would be better off under the new tax system; and(5) wasting many millions of dollars on advertising and promoting the new taxation arrangements to try and cover the problems listed above”.The bill deals with a number of essentially unrelated income tax and fringe benefits tax matters. The major proposals are providing an exemption from FBT for free public transport provided to police officers between their home and their place of employment and treating state and territory governments on a consistent basis with the Commonwealth by allowing separate departments and agencies to be responsible for fringe benefits tax payments. The bill contains technical amendments to eliminate unintended instances of tainting of share capital accounts. It contains technical amendments to the dividend imputation provisions to close a loophole concerning life assurance companies. It contains provisions granting concessional fringe benefits tax treatment and gift deductible status to certain charities whose principal activity is the prevention or control of disease in humans. It contains technical corrections to the dividend imputation rules for refunds of imputation credits. Finally, there are miscellaneous technical amendments concerning personal income tax provisions.It is the opposition's understanding that, with the exception of the estimated $5 million annual cost for the police fringe benefits tax concession concerning public transport, none of these matters has any material financial impact. I will go through these matters one by one. First, there is the fringe benefits tax concession for police officers. That specific concession is needed as the existing fringe benefits tax concessions concerning public transport travel relate only to where an employee receives such a benefit from their employer. In this case, the police receive a benefit from the transport authorities. The exemption simply recognises existing practice, which we would assume improves security on public transport. The cost is relatively minor—$5 million per year. We support the proposal.Second, state and territory fringe benefits tax arrangements. Currently the Commonwealth devolves responsibility for fringe benefits tax liabilities to individual departments and agencies; on the other hand, states and territories are collectively assessed. The bill proposes to allow the states to devolve this liability, should they so desire. It has no financial impact for the Commonwealth. The measures can be utilised in the state budgetary context. Labor supports this amendment.Third, tainting of share capital. When the concept of par value of shares was abolished in 1998, provisions were enacted in the tax law to ensure that profits could not be disguised as a return of capital and hence gain preferential tax treatment. These have had to be amended on a number of previous occasions to ensure their correct operation. Another deficiency has now been discovered, which this bill attempts to correct. The anomaly arises in that the transitional rules that were introduced to assist companies with genuine share premium accounts, which are capital, apply only to those companies which are regulated under the Corporations Law. There are other companies which are not covered by the Corporations Law and cannot, therefore, qualify under the transitional provisions. These bodies are not identified in the explanatory memorandum, but it is our understanding that they comprise state statutory authorities, including agricultural organisations. The measure corrects this unintended consequence and has no financial impact other than avoiding a tax liability that should not have existed. Labor supports this. Imputation of life assurance companies. The provisions governing dividend imputation of non-mutual life assurance companies are complex. Broadly, they limit the extent of debits or credits in the company's franking accounts to the extent to which dividends can be paid to shareholders. Anomalies have been uncovered in the operation of these rules which put at risk significant revenue. Accordingly, the bill proposes to remedy these as a revenue protection measure, effective from 4 May 1999. As these measures protect the revenue and overcome an unintended tax loophole, Labor supports them.Charitable institutions. Public benevolent institutions are entitled to various fringe benefits tax and other tax concessions. Over time, some charitable bodies which were public benevolent institutions in the past have changed their activities so that they now no longer come within the definition of a public benevolent institution, although they still qualify for income tax exemptions and GST concessions. The bill therefore proposes to grant to certain charities whose principal activity is the prevention or control of disease in humans concessional FBT treatment, gift deductible status and a wholesale sales tax exemption. These medical and health bodies include organisations which typically focus on particular ailments: for example, asthma, cancer and AIDS. The amendments for fringe benefits tax apply from 1 April 1998, for gift deductible status from 1997-98 and for sales tax from 28 October 1992. The measures provide a retrospective benefit because the bodies concerned believed, based on prior experience, that the exemptions and other concessions continued to apply. It was the government's belief and intention that they should apply, and the proposals merely confirm what was thought to be the legal position. On that basis, Labor supports these amendments.There are also technical corrections to the dividend imputation rules for refunds of imputation credits. There are two areas of technical correction in the bill. These arise because of earlier amendments which unintentionally repealed provisions which (1) allowed superannuation funds and life assurance companies the entitlement for franking rebates, and hence refunds of excess imputation credits, and (2) allowed refunds of imputation credits for charities on dividends received indirectly through a trust. The bill simply restores the policy intent and we support it.There are also technical corrections flowing from the personal income tax cuts of 1 July 2000. When the government cut income tax rates on 1 July 2000, they did not properly amend all of the subsidiary legislation to take into account the income tax cuts in all situations. Consequently, there are three technical errors which this bill corrects. First, deceased estates: for the first three years of an estate, concessional tax treatments arise. The first $416 of income is tax free. There are then shading-in rules to avoid a very large increase in tax on a small increase in income over $416. Those shading-in rules were not adjusted to take into account the reduction in the lowest marginal rate from 20 per cent to 17 per cent, and this amendment corrects that anomaly. Secondly, with the monthly tax-free threshold, taxpayers who become or cease to be a resident in a year are entitled to a pro rata tax-free threshold. The monthly figure in the legislation was not increased to take account of the increase in the general tax-free threshold. The bill corrects that oversight. Thirdly, separate net income: the opportunity is also being taken to update the now redundant term of `child disability allowance' with the correct current term of `carers allowance'. These amendments are technical only and we support them.We support those provisions in the legislation as it comes before us. I have moved a second reading amendment which goes to the way in which the government has massively increased the complexity of the tax system for small business. I have mentioned in the House a couple of times the Treasurer's boast about how the GST and the new tax system were going to give us a simplified tax system and I have contrasted that with what has actually happened. For example, the taxation legislation now runs to around 8,500 pages compared with 3,000 pages when the Howard government was elected. We have taken, in this House, to weighing the legislation rather than trying to number the pages. It does produce a very difficult situation—we can joke about how much the Income Tax Assessment Act weighs—where now not only do ordinary taxpayers not understand what the legislation means or have any hope of being able to apply it to their own circumstances but accountants cannot understand or tell you what the taxation legislation means, where tax agents cannot tell you what the taxation legislation means and where the Taxation Office cannot tell you what the taxation legislation means. There are numerous examples of this. I will give the House just one example I have come across again recently, involving the application of goods and services tax to title searches—if you search out property or companies and so on. I have been told by Victorian title searchers that, based on Taxation Office advice, they have been charging GST based on their full fee—that includes both the statutory fee and the fee for their service—but that they subsequently learnt that their New South Wales equivalents, the title searching companies there, were charging GST only on the service component of their fee, not on the statutory component of their fee, and that they too were doing this based on tax office advice. Both of them had gone and asked the question of the tax office and they got different answers. When that was drawn to my attention, I wrote off to the Taxation Office, saying, `This looks a bit anomalous. Can you please explain?' Subsequently, I received a reply which was four or five pages long and had lots of attachments, but the bottom line was, `Yes, that's right, the Victorians are charging GST on the whole lot, but the people in New South Wales are not.'We are coming up to the anniversary of the GST in a few days time, and when 12 months on we have not got these sorts of anomalies sorted out, it is pretty hard for ordinary Australians to deal with the taxation legislation, which has become too complex not only for ordinary Australians but for tax advisers, practitioners, accountants, tax agents and the tax office itself. I read recently that one accountant has said, `It is like trying to fly in fog without radar.' It really is a very unsatisfactory state of affairs that the taxation legislation has become as complex as it has.Indeed, as we move to the commencement of a new tax year, those involved in dealing with the tax legislation are now trying to cope with more major tax changes from the start of the new financial year, and tax professionals have been making the point I just made about tax rulings still not being released and clarified. For example, there is a report in the Financial Review about the clarification needed concerning the rules which regulate GST on the sale of businesses, the issue of big and small businesses across all industries not having rules which are set out clearly and the confusion over long-term leases, the importation of intangibles and exporting services. So there are a whole series of areas where businesses simply have not had advice from the tax office about how those taxation laws are expected to operate. They are now expected to come to terms with a whole new set of rules involving what are described as the simplified tax system for small business, a new unified capital allowances system, thin capitalisation measures, a new test to distinguish debt from equity, a cut in the company tax rate and a series of measures that are to be introduced in the following year which include a consolidation regime, general value shifting rules, a non-resident withholding tax regime and simplified imputation arrangements.Given this and our 8,500 pages of taxation legislation, it now really is the case that tax agents and accountants are simply snowed under. A lot of them have been in the business of negotiating extensions to deadlines with the tax office. The tax office has been unwilling to agree to general extensions of deadlines. What that leads to is a whole lot of resources being wasted as individual taxation agents negotiate extensions to their deadlines with individual personnel from the tax office. They just have to be given those extensions, because it is impossible for them to meet the deadlines which have been set.In fact, for tax returns, the government and the tax office have now agreed to an extension until August, which effectively means that tax agents have been given 14 months to complete the last lot of income tax returns. They are saying, `You can have 14 months'—which is a pretty substantial admission of failure about the way in which the new tax system has been introduced—but they are then saying, `We are not going to give any deadlines beyond February of next year for the end of this coming financial year.' So they will be working on tax returns from the previous year and trying to sort out the GST and the PAYG arrangements and all the forms that are required there, but they will still be expected by the tax office to get in all the rest of the tax returns by February next year. No doubt this will cause considerable distress, and you will have all this negotiation going on absorbing an awful lot of tax office, tax agent and accountant time and energy. I think the tax office should be looking at greater support for people who are involved in small business and so on through extensions to deadlines but still making sure that the revenue is not affected—requiring, for example, the tax to be paid on lodgment. Where some of those extensions are arranged, I think it is reasonable to require tax to be paid on lodgment so that the revenue does not suffer as a result.I take this opportunity to raise some issues which have been brought to my attention by the Taxation Institute of Australia concerning the running balance accounts system. This has been causing quite a few problems for the 80,000 or so affected taxpayers and their agents. You have a situation where some of these taxpayers are receiving a second notice recalculating their annual 2001 instalment based on their recently lodged 2000 income tax return and then getting a second notice seeking payment of either more or less than the amount required by the first notice, with no guidance being given to taxpayers in the second letter about how they should respond to that letter and the potential disadvantages of relying on it.The Taxation Institute advises that the Commissioner of Taxation has been trying to deal with these things by publishing media releases or sticking things away in impenetrable parts of the Taxation Office's web site. I think it is pretty chancy to be relying on media releases to make these taxpayers aware of just what is happening with the running balance accounts system. It may well be better to notify those taxpayers by way of direct correspondence as to what their situation is and to explain specifically what their options are; otherwise people are simply not going to be aware of what is happening in relation to their running balance accounts.I note in saying this that the way that interest charges work through the running balance account and the general interest charge system is somewhat prejudicial to taxpayers either way. That is to say, the general interest charge is 13.86 per cent, so if you owe the tax office money you can end up paying interest at a pretty handsome rate, and people pay that interest even if they are only a few days late in making payments. Conversely, the entitlement to interest back is only in the order of five per cent. Indeed, it is my understanding that the tax office is not advising people who have a credit in their running balance account that they have that credit in their running balance account. So the tax office is assuming that people who have paid more than they should are of charitable intent and are making donations to the tax office. I suspect this is unlikely.It has been mentioned to me that there are cases of people having as much as $20,000 in a running balance account, being in credit, and the tax office does not advise them of that. Conversely, if you are $30 behind in your running balance account you are likely to get a follow-up call and a demand for payment. So there are some issues in relation to running balance accounts—concerns that have been raised by the Taxation Institute—on which I would be interested at some point to hear the government's response. Having made those comments, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the matters put forward by the government in this legislation.10000Mossfield, Frank (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Mossfield)—Is the amendment seconded?XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs Kernot—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak. 18:09:0028495Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I rise to speak on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001. The commitment of the Howard government on taxation reform is crystal clear—a cynic might say `too clear'. But it is worth while that we as a parliament and as a nation reflect on the particular circumstances that underlie the present state of political debate in this country. In August 1998 the government assembled a comprehensive, detailed response to the public's demand for far-reaching tax reform. It published that response and opened up public debate on its recommendations. Two months later the government put that comprehensive reform package to the people at a general election. At that election the government was returned and given a mandate to implement that policy on taxation reform. Notwithstanding this, the opposition refused to heed the call of the electorate in relation to tax reform, thereby abdicating its responsibility to act as a loyal, productive and—dare I say—constructive opposition.In the Senate the minor parties were similarly deaf to the voice of the electorate, but the Australian Democrats were at least alive to the prospect of considering the passage of a comprehensive reform program that has been the centrepiece of and the crucial deciding factor in a federal election. It is to the credit of the then parliamentary Leader of the Australian Democrats that she was willing to provide the required support for those reforms. Nonetheless, in amending those reforms, distortions were created that will be felt after the reforms become law. That was understood. The reforms that emerged from the Senate were not as welcome as those that had entered it. However, they were clearly preferable to the tired taxation system that had so clearly been rejected by Australians at the 1998 election.I believe that in debating this bill tonight this is a necessary recap and a most appropriate subject for consideration, for it seems to me that over the past 12 months public debate in Australia has lacked, sadly, a recognition on the part of the new tax system's critics that, first, the new tax system was endorsed by the people of Australia at an election in which it was the principal issue of difference; secondly, certain features of the new tax system and its implementation could be sheeted home to amendment rather than to the original program; and, thirdly, regardless of those amendments, the new system was consistently superior to that with which Australia was saddled prior to 1 July 2000.I make it clear that recognition of these facts neither precludes progressive amendment of the system as it presently stands nor discounts the necessity for future reforms. I have long been an advocate of further taxation reform in this country, long before I entered parliament, particularly in regard to income taxation and the taxation of capital gains. As recently as the debates last week I called for further consideration of cuts to marginal income tax rates. The bill before this House today carries on the process of the gradual improvement of the tax system, including elements which have recently changed and elements which have not.It bears repeating that—as I have noted in debate on previous taxation bills before this parliament, and there have been a number of them—there is no equivalence between these reforms and the mysterious roll-back, which seems to be a hidden article of faith on the opposition benches. Roll-back—the very mention of which sends a chill through the spines of Australian business and all who care about a fair and efficient taxation system in Australia—is predicated on the reintroduction of arbitrary treatment into the indirect taxation system. Roll-back would be of benefit only to those able to offer the Australian Labor Party a favourable headline or a similar quid pro quo in exchange for preferable taxation treatment. Such a measure would eschew the fairness inherent in a broad based consumption tax and the targeted public policy considerations that inform the use of excises by the Commonwealth. As I have noted in previous debates, a cynical taxation system of this kind would serve the needs of the news cycle but certainly not the nation.Having established what this bill is not, we should consider that which it is. The bill makes amendments to a range of taxes so as to meet myriad needs for public safety, fair treatment, consistency and charity. In relation to public safety, the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 will amend the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 to recognise the public's interest in a police presence on public transport. Across Australia, state and territory governments provide their police officers with free public transport for the purposes of travel to and from their employment. It is important to note that, according to the oaths of office by which these officers are bound, they are obliged to respond, in an official capacity, to incidents which they might observe, whether or not they are officially on duty. The Australian public has an obvious and abiding interest in ensuring that this police presence, and the related increase in safety and order on our public transit systems, is not inadvertently disadvantaged by the application of fringe benefits tax. Therefore, the free travel provided to these officers will not be subject to FBT from the FBT year commencing 1 April last year, and in all following years. This initiative will be known to the members of the House following its canvassing in the 2000-01 mid-year economic and fiscal outlook released by the Treasurer. Further to this reform to fringe benefits tax, the bill before the House also amends the means by which fringe benefits tax is applied to state and territory governments. By way of background, the Commonwealth is not considered an employer for the purposes of the FBT Assessment Act. Rather its individual agencies and departments are responsible for FBT administration and payment. Until now, the treatment of the states and territories has been at variance with the practice applied to the Commonwealth. State and territory governments have been subject to fringe benefits tax. These reforms will devolve that administration and payment responsibility to state and territory departments and agencies. This will ensure that, from the FBT year 1 April 2001 and in all following years, there will be consistent FBT treatment across the Commonwealth, states and territories.This bill also offers relief to those charitable institutions whose principal activity is in the promotion of the prevention or control of a disease afflicting humans. As a result of this initiative foreshadowed by the Treasurer at this time last year, the taxation treatment in relation to FBT, income tax and sales tax accorded to public benevolent institutions will be applied to these particular charities. As a result, these organisations will be granted concessional FBT treatment, status as tax deductible gift recipients for the purposes of income tax assessment and exemption from sales tax for the period prior to the introduction of the goods and services tax. The FBT benefits will be provided from the FBT year commencing 1 April 1998 and in following years, while the deduction changes will apply from the 1996-97 tax year and the sales tax exemption will be valid from 28 October 1992 to 30 June 2000. These organisations may well have been public benevolent institutions in the past but may have relinquished that status due to changes in the type of activities that they undertake. This bill will ensure that such organisations are not disadvantaged.The bill also makes amendments to the taxation of income, and those amendments are threefold: in relation to miscellaneous matters, to life assurance companies and to the special rules that apply to the tainting of share capital accounts. The miscellaneous amendments will ensure that the statute books fully reflect the intention of the changes to personal income taxation introduced by the government on 1 July 2001. As such, the amendments will, firstly, lower from $693 to $630 the level at which the tax rate drops from 50 per cent to 17 per cent for resident deceased estates where the deceased died not less than three years before the end of the year of income. Such estates will be subject to less tax as a result. Secondly, the amendments will increase the monthly allowance of tax-free threshold from $450 to $500 for each month that a taxpayer or trustee is eligible for a partial rebate. This reflects the increase in the tax-free threshold from $5,400 to $6,000. Finally, they will exclude carer allowance from separate net income for the purpose of determining dependent rebates. These measures will not adversely affect the financial position of the Commonwealth, as the related cuts to revenue were included in the original estimates of the tax cuts. With regard to life assurance companies, the bill before us will close a loophole that would otherwise have advantaged certain of those companies over others and inadvertently generated a loss to the Commonwealth's revenues. Franking credits and debits attributable to the statutory funds of non-mutual life assurance companies should be reduced by 80 per cent to take account of the limit on the proportion of the fund that can be distributed to shareholders because of applicable prudential requirements. However, without these amendments the imputation provisions of our taxation law would allow that principle to be circumvented where a life assurance company over-franked the payment of dividends and applied the resulting franking deficit tax so as to offset the company's final income tax assessment liability. In other words, the whole tax payment could generate franking credits were the loophole not closed. While this change was announced by the Assistant Treasurer in 1999, the bill also contains a transitional measure that will ensure alternative treatment in certain circumstances where a liability for franking deficit tax or deficit deferral tax arose before the Assistant Treasurer made his announcement.The final major measure contained in this bill will allow all resident companies, not simply those who are subject to the Corporations Law—more specifically, schedule 5 of the Company Law Review Act 1998—to benefit from the concessions to allow the transfer of genuine share premiums and capital redemption reserves to their share capital account, without incurring adverse consequences to their income tax liabilities. This measure was also foreshadowed by the Assistant Treasurer in September of last year and will apply to those transfers made on or after 1 July 1998.The bill also makes technical corrections to franking rebate rules and in relation to imputation credits. As will be evident from what I have just said, the bill contains useful measures, but it is unlikely to generate wild enthusiasm outside tax and accounting circles.In the time remaining, I should try to put the current taxation laws into some context. In my opening remarks I noted that there was room still for the consideration of further tax reform. I make the point that debate involves not simply the immediate question of taxation but the entire structure of government provision and infrastructure in modern Australia. I am pleased to see the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in the chamber this evening, for one of the most interesting and provocative works of economic history to be published in many years—I am sure the minister will have read it—is Niall Ferguson's The Cash Nexus, in which he takes to task those who would see history as the subject of economic determinism.In considering the coalition's commitment to tax reform and to economic reforms generally, this book makes for a worthwhile read. One need not agree with every proposition made or every conclusion reached by Ferguson to note that his exposition of what it means for modern democracies to chase the dream of the benevolent welfare state deserves a considered response. There are some fundamental questions to be asked and some fundamental debates to be had by policy makers and legislators in this country and internationally. I note that this parliamentary session is being broadcast, so I will leave the listeners of News Radio 585 in Perth and the Parliamentary News Network elsewhere and those online with some food for thought in the context of Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001. Is it the case, to paraphrase the 19th century French liberal, Frederic Bastiat, that the welfare state is `the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of someone else'? To what extent does progressive income taxation and income transfer reduce poverty? What ought to be the proper international role of developed nations in the 21st century? Are modern states playing unsustainable generational games with regard to debt, taxation and spending, especially considering the significant changes in demography they are currently experiencing? Should generational accounting be accorded a place in the analysis of public policy in modern states? What is to be done with states such as Japan, where it is estimated that transfer payments would have to be cut by over 25 per cent to achieve `generational balance', and Austria. Finland and France, where such a balance could only be achieved were income tax rates to rise overnight by over 50 per cent? To what extent has Australia been saved from those games by the principled commitment of the coalition government to the reduction of government debt? Ferguson lends his support to such an interpretation, arguing that amongst the developed economies it is Britain, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland who have `the least to worry about' in this regard. I suggest that questions such as these provide a useful framework for further contemplation. I am pleased to see the member for Rankin here, for I would encourage him and other members opposite who would profess their opposition to cheap populism to encourage their party leadership to abandon the politics of the policy vacuum and work with the government to achieve the best economic outcome for the people of Australia. Our country needs a willingness on the part of the opposition to lay aside politics for the common good, not simply in relation to technical reforms such as those contained in this bill but in relation to broader questions that confront Australia today. I notice the member for Rankin has disappeared again. The other issues that arise in relation to Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 have been dealt with in some detail by the first speaker and I have also been through them in some detail. Therefore, I commend the bill to the House.Sitting suspended from 6.27 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.20:00:0028498Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I indicate my support for the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001. I also indicate my support for Labor's second reading amendment, because the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 raises a number of issues relating to the complexity of the interaction of fringe benefits tax and the GST, and similarly it raises issues about the taxation treatment of charities. On the GST itself, as on just about every issue of public policy, this is a government of broken promises. Ever since breaking his promise that he would never, ever introduce a GST, the Prime Minister's yellow brick road of his great tax adventure has been littered with broken promises.Tonight I want to deal with two core promises that have been made by the government in relation to the so-called streamlined new tax system for a new century. The first of those core promises is that everyone would be better off under the new tax system, and the second is that the new tax system, in particular the GST, would be good for Australia. That is why I support the second reading amendment, which says:whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House condemns the Government for:(1) massively increasing the complexity of the tax system for small business, particularly the fringe benefits tax and its interaction with the GST;(2) massively increasing the taxation compliance burden for small business and for charities;(3) breaching the Prime Minister's 1996 pledge to halve small business red tape;(4) breaching its promise that the Australian economy, and all Australians, would be better off under the new tax system; and(5) wasting many millions of dollars on advertising and promoting the new taxation arrangements to try and cover the problems listed above.You may recall that the 1998 general election was touted as a referendum on the GST. In fact, the referendum was lost, because 51½ per cent of the voting population voted Labor, but Australians got the GST anyway. Indeed, the 48½ per cent of Australians who voted for the GST did not get the GST that they voted for.I now turn to the first of the major core promises, the promise that everyone would be better off under the GST. This is a promise that was made very conspicuously before the last election. I will use a couple of examples. In the actual document Tax reform: not a new tax, a new tax system,released in August 1998, on page 5 it says:The fact is that people will be better off.The Prime Minister was more expansive than that. On 28 September 1998, in an address at the Central Coast Leagues Club at Gosford, he said: And when you bear in mind that people buying those goods under the new system will have the benefit of lower income tax and will have more money in their pocket as a result of those lower taxes, you can understand why we make the claim that not only are people fully protected under our new system that in fact, they will be better off.So there is the Prime Minister promising that everyone will be better off under the new tax system, but the Treasurer joined the act on 14 August 1998. He said:This is a package where after tax disposable income jumps way in advance of prices, leaving people much better off in real terms.That promise was repeated on numerous occasions after the election. I will draw the attention of the House to one particular commitment. It is certainly not an off-the-cuff promise, because it was from the Treasurer in answer to question on notice No. 1247. This is obviously in the Hansard of 29 May 2000, where the Treasurer says:All Australians, including residents of caravan parks, will be better off under the new tax system.Do Australians agree with that assessment? Do they agree that that promise is being kept? The answer is a resounding no, because only 10 per cent of Australians consider that they are in fact better off under the GST. This is not the result of one poll but of three recent major public opinion polls, and they are remarkably consistent that only 10 per cent consider they are better off. What has gone wrong? Is it that the Australian people, in the minds of the Prime Minister and the Treasurer, just do not know what they are talking about? Is it a case that they have never had it so good? Is the Prime Minister asking what they are going on about? I would think that the best judges of whether they are better off or not are not the Prime Minister and the Treasurer but the people themselves, and they have delivered that verdict—that is, only 10 per cent consider that they are better off.How on earth does this come about when we had this ironclad promise, a core promise, before the election that everyone would be better off? There are a number of factors. The first of those factors is that price rises occurred ahead of the GST. How many people noticed the prices of supermarket goods going up before the GST was implemented as businesses got in before the date of introduction of the GST? The second factor is that price rises that occurred after the GST came in were much greater than was promised by the government. The government said that prices would rise by 1.9 per cent; they have risen by six per cent—that is the official CPI result under the GST. So price rises have been much greater than the government had forecast. The third factor is bracket creep. This government for its first four years gave back not one cent of bracket creep, whereas the previous Labor government over 13 years gave income tax cuts on no less than seven occasions and handed back every cent and more of bracket creep. This government gave back not one cent, and then on 1 July 2000 said that it was going to offer the biggest income tax cuts in history. Bracket creep is eroding those income tax cuts as we speak, because it is quite obvious from the budget papers that income tax in 2001-02 is as high as income tax collections in 1999-2000. Here we have a situation of the income tax cuts that were meant to be a major component of the compensation for the GST already being eroded by the operation of bracket creep.But of course the Prime Minister and the Treasurer are in denial on this. They say there cannot be anything really adverse in relation to the impact of the GST on living standards, at least not as far as the federal government is concerned. Why? Because there are only a couple of people in Australia who consider that the GST is a state tax—the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Anyone who has any sense knows that the GST is a Commonwealth tax. But the budget papers officially count the GST as a state tax, not as a Commonwealth tax. When you add back in the GST, you find that this government is the highest taxing government in around a decade. That is what has happened to living standards. That is what has happened to the promise that everyone would be better off. We have the erosion of the income tax cuts and price rises which are much greater than the government had forecast. As a result of that, only 10 per cent of Australians consider that they are better off under the GST. Let us look at some of the particular groups who are affected by the GST. I turn to older Australians, who were promised that they were going to get a $1,000 savings bonus. On 25 August 1998 the Prime Minister said:You get a $1,000 savings bonus for all people over the age of 60.On 18 August 1998 he said:... for every person 60 and over there will be [a] savings bonus—a one-off tax free payment of $1,000 in relation to any investment income that you might have.It is patently obvious that many Australians missed out on that $1,000 savings bonus. The promise was broken—yet another broken promise on the yellow brick road of the great tax adventure. The government belatedly, in this budget, said, `We will give you a $300 bonus,' confirming that it had in fact broken its promise. The government also promised age pensioners that they would get a four per cent increase in the pension. That has not transpired. In March, when the indexation adjustment occurred, two per cent of that four per cent was clawed back. So pensioners effectively had the pension discounted by two per cent—from a government and a Prime Minister who said before the election, `You'll get the four per cent.' After the election, after they were safely ensconced in government, they took two per cent of the four per cent back. It is pretty easy to understand why pensioners are very upset with the government, because on two important counts the government has broken a promise in relation to them—that is, the savings bonus and the four per cent pension rise.A promise that affects all Australians was that health would be GST free. Advertisements in major newspapers on 23 August 1998 stated:Health, education, child care services and nursing homes will be GST-free.I will list some of the items to which the GST applies: basic health items like skin creams, denture repairs, tampons and sanitary pads, feeding pads and breast pumps, baby bottles and cleansing equipment, vitamins and minerals, pregnancy kits, spectacle frames, contact lens solutions, first-aid kits and bandaids. I could go on and on, but I will turn now to education—something that is dear to the hearts of most Australians. It affects the living standards of any parent with children going to school and also of students at university. There was the promise, again, in the newspaper advertisements:Health, education, child care services and nursing homes will be GST-free.Let us have a look at some of the education items that are subject to the GST: school uniforms and shoes—all clothing in fact—public transport, stationery, computer software and Internet access, school bags and cases, and private tuition and student association fees. Just in the last month, with university students being promised that education would be GST free, the government fully indexed the value of HECS debts by the GST laden inflation rate. The government discounted the pension by two per cent but, when it came to HECS debts, it said, `No, you get full tote odds.' The GST caused inflation to go up and then the HECS debts were increased by that full amount of inflation. What was the impact of that? A cool $120 million extra out of university students and graduates in increases in their HECS debts. The promise that education would be GST free, like all the other promises in relation to this tax, has been broken.The next promise, and perhaps the most notorious, was that the GST would not increase the price of petrol. In his address to the nation before the last election, the Prime Minister said:The GST will not increase the price of petrol for the ordinary motorist.He said that on 13 August 1998. The Treasurer repeated that promise before the election but, of course, after the election the Prime Minister denied that he ever promised the GST would not increase the price of petrol. He said:The commitment made before the election was that the price of petrol need not rise as a result of the GST.He said that on 15 August last year. He came into the parliament and said, `I never, ever promised that the GST would not increase the price of petrol.' Of course he did. He did it in an address to the nation. On 1 July last year the government increased the price of petrol by 1.5c a litre as a result of the reduction in excise but a larger increase in taxation associated with the GST. Similarly, on petrol, the government promised that the GST would not increase the city-country price differential, but the Australian Automobile Association found that that too was a broken promise. The Australian Automobile Association said, on 19 February this year: We also have concerns about the Country Fuel Grant Scheme. When it was introduced in July it seemed to work well. The gap between average city and country prices fell across Australia but since then it has widened considerably in all States.Yet another broken promise. Under pressure from election losses in Western Australia and Queensland and the threat of an election loss in the by-election of Ryan, which turned out to be a reality, the government backed down finally and abandoned the fuel excise increase in February, but it remains the fact that today petrol prices are higher than they would have been had there been no GST. Those are just some of the broken promises relating to the core promise that everyone would be better off under the GST. The second core promise was that the GST would be good for the economy, notwithstanding the fact that, in a moment of candour on 16 November 1996, the Treasurer described the GST as having `snake oil qualities'. He said:I honestly think now it's receded from consciousness it's being invested with some snake-oil qualities.He rubbed that snake oil liberally into the bodies of the Australian electorate when he introduced a GST that he never believed in. It was, after all, the Prime Minister's great tax adventure, and not the Treasurer's idea. The Prime Minister promised that the GST would be good for the economy. He said:The tax plan is good for Australia ... It will boost the growth and strength of the Australian economy. It will generate more jobs. Then the Treasurer got in on the act. On 14 August 1998, he said:Now, I think all of the evidence says that this will boost Australian GDP, and it's one of the reasons why we did it. He went on to say, on 25 September 1998, that the GST package would create `bigger exports, more trade, more jobs, more growth'. Let us have a look at some of those. What has happened to growth? Under the GST, the economy actually shrank, for the first time in a decade. I prepared an opinion piece for the Australian Financial Review more than a year beforehand which I titled `Honey, I shrank the economy'. More than a year later, that turned out to be correct. But there was plenty of warning, because Professor Peter Dixon had modelled the impact of the GST and the entire tax package on the economy. He came to the conclusion, as a result of that modelling, that the tax package would in fact shrink the economy. That prediction has come true—a contraction in the economy. The Prime Minister boasts of a pick-up, and it is good to see that there has been a pick-up in economic growth in the most recent quarter. But overall the growth rate has been halved, to two per cent, as a result of the GST. So much for the GST being good for economic growth. I was amazed in the parliament the other day when, in speaking on the national accounts, the Prime Minister spoke of the `smooth acceptance' of the GST. We will find out a little more about the smooth acceptance of the GST when again I refer to some of the published opinion polls. I would say that the reaction of the Australian people to the GST has been anything but smooth acceptance.Let us look at what has happened to jobs. Despite warnings from Professor Peter Dixon of the Centre for Policy Studies at Monash University that the GST would be `job destroying', the government went ahead with it anyway. Since the introduction of the GST, the rate of job growth has more than halved and the unemployment rate has risen. How can a $24 billion tax create jobs? A very important part of the community that is asking that question is the small business community, and a very good question it is. The government has massively increased the compliance burden on small business in this country. The government says, `We're the friends of small business' and then imposes this monster of a tax on it. It then says, again under pressure from Labor, that it will try to simplify the business activity statement, but it managed to botch that as well. Let us look at the Treasurer at his arrogant best. On 18 May last year, he said: I don't think anybody will go to the wall as a consequence of the GST.Let us test that proposition. In the three months to the end of March of this year, bankruptcies, including business related bankruptcies, are up 25 per cent. We have had the dead hand of the GST completely depressing the small business community in this country. The small business community, as we know, is the driver of economic growth. The government said that the GST was supposed to attack the black economy, but plenty of financial experts and accountants are suggesting now that, if anything, the black economy is bigger under the GST. That is because the incentive to avoid tax is even greater, because you avoid both income tax and now the GST. It is again a matter of commonsense, but it is a commonsense that evaded the government. The GST was supposed to increase the value of the Australian dollar. Since the GST came in, the Australian dollar has fallen against 150 out of 161 currencies, including the currencies of Botswana and Swaziland, two countries that were ridiculed because the government said they had a terrible, 1930s, outmoded, ramshackle wholesale sales tax like Australia did and that we were going to have a thoroughly modern, streamlined new tax system for a new century that would boost the value of the Australian dollar. It has not boosted the value of the Australian dollar at all; the dollar has depreciated against 150 out of 161 possible currencies. The GST was supposed to boost savings. The household savings ratio has absolutely plummeted. What is the verdict of the Australian people on this critical question, the second core promise? Has the GST been good for the economy? Again the public opinion polling shows that only 18 per cent of Australians now believe the GST has been good for the economy. The government is trying to turn that around with multimillion dollar taxpayer funded advertising that is part of its $20 million per month advertising program to try to convince Australians, against their own good judgment, that the GST is good for the economy, when only 18 per cent of Australians consider it is. This is a GST that was supposed to replace 10 taxes. In fact, it is replacing only four. It is a GST that was supposed to be a simple tax. It is not a simple tax. The legislation and explanatory material weigh 7.1 kilograms and the legislation has already been amended 1,865 times. The whole GST has been a debacle. On the eve of the anniversary of the GST, it is time for Australians to have a good think about this litany of broken promises, down the yellow brick road with the great tax adventurer, this Prime Minister. He never keeps his word. He cannot be trusted. The people will deliver their verdict at the next election. (Time expired)20:20:0028502Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10— The House and the listeners may be surprised to learn that the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 has nothing to do with the goods and services tax. I have spoken before to the previous speaker, the member for Rankin, about his one-track mind on the goods and services tax. One day, in 10 years time, if he is still fortunate enough to be here, he will realise that it has worked, it is a success and the world has left him behind. Australians are more concerned about what the Labor Party means about roll-back that will never happen and that the Labor Party does not know how to explain. They are more concerned to understand what Kim Beazley intends to do to modify and change the business activity statements, to modify and write new definitions for books and the needs of families from pharmacists. All of those things create huge uncertainties which the Australian community are rejecting in droves. They will continue to reject them in droves, because, whether they like it or not, they do not want to be interfered with again. They have the goods and services tax; they are going to make it work and they need a bit of time to make it work effectively for them. Another thing that concerns me is the concept of the knowledge nation. What is a knowledge nation? Nobody understands the waffle that the Leader of the Opposition goes on with. It is a concept that nobody quite comprehends. The Leader of the Opposition rejects literacy and numeracy programs for the students and kids of Australia, yet he talks about a knowledge nation. To my way of thinking, and I guess to that of the government, no nation can found a knowledge future without a basic commitment to literacy and numeracy. That is something that from day one Dr David Kemp and the Prime Minister together advanced. They have advanced the theme that we must build the knowledge of our nation on the understanding that everybody—every child and every adult—needs to be able to read and write and be able to figure effectively. If one looks at the juvenile delinquency levels, one finds 80 per cent of juvenile delinquents have limited ability and limited literacy and numeracy. So the concept of a knowledge nation, even at its foundation, is flawed.I was fascinated by the previous speaker claiming that there were no benefits in the changes to pension rates for Australian pensioners. On 1 July 2000, the government increased pensions by four per cent, two per cent of which was in advance of any price increases resulting from the goods and services tax. Just to make sure that nobody was adversely affected, just to make sure that the elderly people of Australia were not put down, not seen to suffer and not disadvantaged, the government doubled the prediction of what the increase in prices would be. Instead of paying the exact amount of two per cent for the increase in prices—which is, roughly, what it was—the government said, `We will increase the payments by four per cent.' That was an additional two per cent—double the amount that prices actually increased. On 20 May 2001, pensions increased by another two per cent—the CPI adjustment. This means that pensioners will have received a six per cent increase, keeping them well ahead of the four per cent increase in prices for the same period from July through till March—way ahead of price increases. Those are the thoughts of a government that understands the needs of people. Of course everybody wants more than that. Of course everybody wants their salary to rise by 100 per cent. Of course every pensioner wants a gift, whether it be $10,000, $5,000 or even $1,000. People want whatever they can get. The fact is that the government has been fair and it has increased benefits by more than the rise in the cost of living.Recently a dear friend came to me, and he was complaining about price increases. He picked out those items on which prices had increased because of the goods and services tax, whether it was insurance or car repairs. So we went through his yearly bills and we calculated how much extra he was paying because of the goods and services tax. Well, we calculated that he and his wife probably received an additional $7 each per week through pension increases, but his actual cost increase due to the goods and services tax was 80c a week. On all of those items that he had targeted as being really significant for him and his family, only 83c each week was attributable to the goods and services tax. There were no other price increases that he could identify that related to the GST. The cost of food did not increase because of the goods and services tax. Food prices increased because of shortages due to drought, to floods, to oversupply and to undersupply. All of these things affect the price of fresh food and, of course, prices fluctuate. Food price increases have nothing to do with the goods and services tax.If people carefully assess the situation they will see that the six per cent increase up until 20 March was an increase above the best measurements the government can apply to the increase in the cost of living by measuring the CPI in the way in which the Australian Bureau of Statistics has done. It is a traditional way of measuring the increase in prices. The government has done that and fairly paid the appropriate amount plus an additional two per cent right across the period of the year to date. And the government continues to honour its commitment to adjust pensions in line with prices. In addition, it has linked pensions to 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings, which has meant an increase for a huge number of pensioners. The government has also provided more than two million older Australians with an average of $732 each under the aged persons savings bonus. Added to that is the recent $300 payment, a payment which is a way of saying that we appreciate what older Australians have done for this nation. There are things about the legislation before the House tonight that we need to acknowledge and need to be aware of. First of all, there are the concessions that are offered for public transport provided free to police officers and which will now be exempt from fringe benefits tax. It sounds a little weird for the Commonwealth government to be paying attention to those sorts of matters, but the fact is that police officers and people in the Public Service working in remote areas of Australia do have free public transport. In recognition of the advantages to public safety of the presence of our police officers on public transport, the government has removed the fringe benefits tax from that process. It is part of their job, it is part of what they need to do and it is part of the support that the community needs to have. There are other measures. They include that all resident companies, not only those falling within the scope of schedule 5 of the Company Law Review Act, will be allowed to transfer genuine share premiums and capital redemption reserves to their share capital account without tainting that account, provided the relevant criteria are satisfied. I will deal with that shortly.There is a loophole to be closed in the dividend imputation provisions applying to life assurance companies, and there will also be changes to charitable institutions whose principal activity is promoting the prevention or control of disease in humans. That will be done to allow them to be assured of access to income tax, sales tax and fringe benefits tax concessions. The Assistant Treasurer introduced many of these matters and made an erudite speech, as have others in this House.I want to deal firstly with the tax benefits for organisations promoting the prevention or control of disease or illness in people. The government is legislating to ensure that organisations whose main activity is promoting the prevention or control of disease or illness in people can continue to access important tax benefits. It has always been my consideration that, rather than trying to resolve problems and cure diseases, many of our insurance companies would do better to promote a program where a person making less use of insurance benefits, medical benefits and visits to the doctor would be rewarded for their maintenance of good health. Rather than rewarding or paying the bills of those who suffer disease or illness, it seems to me that Australia would benefit if there were in fact an encouragement, some sort of benefit, for those who maintain good health.The organisations that promote good health are, I believe, very much an integral part of the Australian community in promoting regular exercise, minimal drug taking, and a healthy lifestyle with rest and a good diet. The government has moved in this direction in the current budget. It is saying to doctors and to medical providers that they need to be careful about prescribing certain drugs and certain benefits to people who may have a threatening heart condition. Instead, alternative therapies are being offered by these organisations. The government wants to encourage that. The government says: why not take the easy way, the less expensive way—but in fact a little more demanding way for the individual—of encouraging them to take regular exercise, to change their diet by eating good food, to get regular hours of rest and also to minimise both alcohol and nicotine intake. These are very sensible initiatives of the government in the current budget, and ones that will in fact bear fruit over a long period of time. As people change their lifestyles and adopt a healthier lifestyle, the benefits to Australia will be enormous.What the government has said in this tax legislation is that those organisations which encourage and promote good health in Australia and make a significant contribution to educating Australians about such matters as diet, lifestyle and disease should continue to have a tax benefit that, under the current legislation, they would be likely to lose. To date, these organisations have been considered public benefit, benevolent institutions and were therefore exempt from the fringe benefits tax and able to accept tax deductible gifts—and rightly so, because the purpose of tax deductible gifts has been to sponsor and to encourage those organisations where the community gains a benefit, where there is a not-for-profit element in the organisations and where the community at large feels comfortable with investing taxpayer funds by offering a tax deductible gift because that organisation helps meet some of the goals, objectives and aspirations of our community. Surely nothing could be more worthy of aspiring to than good health, good diet, good lifestyle and freedom from disease—and that is what these organisations did do. Over time, however, the activities of these organisations have changed so that they may no longer be considered to be public benevolent institutions. This is because their principal activity may now be indirectly rather than directly relieving sickness, distress or suffering. These organisations have grown and flourished and have taken on a very diverse role in our community. Whether they be insurance companies or friendly societies, some of these organisations, depending on their style, have changed in character; and their main interest and activity is not necessarily the promotion of good health but a very important part of their activity is still the promotion of good health. So the government has chosen to allow the continuation of benefits for tax purposes. Without these legislative amendments, the organisations I have described would lose access to tax benefits. In view of this, the government is legislating to ensure that these organisations will retain their fringe benefits tax exemption and will continue to be able to accept tax deductible donations. The amendments will have retrospective effect to ensure that there is no break in the eligibility of these organisations to those benefits. In addition to these benefits, these organisations will continue to be income tax exempt, as they retain their status as charitable institutions. While not relevant after 1 July 2000, the government will also legislate a sales tax exemption for those bodies, just to make sure that everything is covered. That is a very sensible encouragement to a most worthy sector of our community.Another measure within the legislation before us tonight is the dividend imputation for life assurance companies. The Assistant Treasurer announced on 4 May amendments which will prevent life assurance companies from inappropriately generating franking credits and also ensure that franking additional tax in the dividend imputation provisions applies appropriately to life assurance companies. The fact is that a scheme exploiting an anomaly in the provisions of the act has recently been exposed. The scheme inappropriately allows 100 per cent of the franking credits to be generated from the payment of tax attributable to the statutory funds of a life assurance company. Broadly speaking, the scheme relies on a life assurance company deliberately overfranking the payment of dividends and applying the resulting franking deficit tax liability to offset its company tax liability. The government has moved to close that down, and rightly so.In conclusion, I wish to indicate tonight that I think Australia needs careful decision making and good direction from the government, and it has that. The government has done that both in this legislation and in other matters that are being debated in the parliament tonight. There are real benefits for Australian pensioners. The government has introduced significant changes over the last few months. There is a simplified and streamlined tax system in place, which is constantly being changed and improved—not changed in a massive way but refined as time goes by. I am told by the Treasurer and by people in the tax system that the new business activity statement, which will be available for businesses from 30 June, will be simpler, will be easier to fill in and will rightly reflect the intentions of the government.There have been changes also to things like road funding. I want to mention how, as part of the totality of the budget and the tax system, the government was able to relieve taxation on petrol and, in so doing, was able to provide additional funds for Australian roads. It is interesting to note that the opposition spokesman for transport, Mr Martin Ferguson, said that, in the raising and changing of taxation, he did not think that the Australian government was anything but fair dinkum. Speaking at the Northern Rivers Community Economic Forum in February and then later to colleagues, he said: Look, there is no $2.9 billion that wasn't spent. It's an accounting issue ... You've got to tell these people the truth ... It might be easy to exploit the issue and score political points ... but to win the respect of the people you have to be honest.That is what this government has been. Whether it is for seniors or young Australians or small business, this government has been active in providing a streamlined system. It has brought us through the Asian crisis, and it continues to build on employment and to build opportunities for Australians. (Time expired)20:40:0028506Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—Initially, I would like to thank the honourable members for Wills, Rankin, Curtin and Mitchell for contributing to the debate on the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001. I want to place on record that the government does not accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for Wills, and we certainly hope that the House of Representatives supports our rejection of the pious amendment which has been moved, as has happened so often with legislation before the chamber.The Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 covers a wide range of tax matters. The changes it makes are largely for the benefit of taxpayers. The one change that could be described as not being for the benefit of taxpayers is, in effect, an anti-avoidance measure. Firstly, the bill contains a number of fringe benefits tax concessions. For instance, when police officers are given free public transport, this will be exempt from fringe benefits tax. This is in recognition of the advantages to public safety of a police presence on public transport. Also, states and territories will now be able to devolve their fringe benefits tax obligations to state and territory departments and agencies, just as the Commonwealth can do now. This should have definite advantages for states and territories in terms of compliance costs. In addition, in recognition of the significant contribution they make to promoting good health in Australia, the bill will allow charitable institutions whose principal activity is promoting the prevention or control of disease in humans, such as the Heart Foundation, to continue to access fringe benefits tax, income tax and sales tax concessions.There are a number of other income tax measures. Companies can transfer genuine share premiums and capital redemption reserves to their share capital accounts without tainting—that is, without being treated as a dividend—in certain circumstances. At the moment, this transitional provision applies only to companies covered by schedule 5 of the Company Law Review Act 1998. This bill will extend the provision to all resident companies, not just those covered by schedule 5, provided that the relevant criteria are met, so that all companies can have the benefit of the transitional provision.Another income tax measure will close a loophole in the dividend imputation provisions applying to life assurance companies. These amendments will prevent life assurance companies from inappropriately generating franking credits and also will ensure that franking additional tax in dividend imputation provisions applies appropriately to life assurance companies. There is also a transitional rule to overcome concerns that the move to close the loophole will have a retrospective impact. The transitional rule should mean that taxpayers will be put in the position they would have been in if they had not entered into such an arrangement. The transitional rule will apply where an arrangement has been entered into but is not completed by 4 May 1999.Finally, there are a number of technical corrections and consequential amendments flowing from the reduction in income tax rates on 1 July last year and the increase in the tax-free threshold. Firstly, the threshold for the 17 per cent rate on a resident deceased estate where the deceased has been dead for three or more years will be lowered in line with the new personal tax rates, thus reducing tax payable. Secondly, partial tax-free thresholds will be increased to take account of the increase in tax-free threshold. Thirdly, there will be a minor technical correction to the definition of separate net income to ensure that carer allowance is excluded when calculating eligibility for dependant rebates. I mentioned initially that the government does not accept the second reading amendment. We do not accept the premise behind the second reading amendment. This government has not massively increased the complexity of the tax system for any business. Indeed, there have been a number of changes aimed at reducing compliance costs. The changes to the business activity statement have been widely welcomed. The simplified tax system is specifically designed to simplify the tax system for small business, and has also been widely welcomed. The small business system gets substantial benefits from the new tax system, such as reduced company tax rates, reduced income tax rates and so on. It is all very well for the Labor Party to portray themselves as being responsible, but any claim to responsibility evaporates when we find that second reading amendments such as the shallow one moved to this bill by the honourable member for Wills are debated in the chamber. I am very pleased to commend the Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001 to the House.Amendment negatived.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.28507Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Committees28507285072850728507Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—I present a report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade entitled Second Australian government loan to Papua New Guinea—Variation to loan agreement.Ordered that the report be printed.Bills28507R133228507Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Dr Wooldridge:That the bill be now read a second time.20:48:0028507Macklin, Jenny, MPMs MACKLINPG6JagajagaALP00—The Health Legislation Amendment (Medical Practitioners' Qualifications and Other Measures) Bill 2001—a big mouthful—is an attempt by the government to put back before the parliament a provision to make the current doctor training arrangements permanent, unfortunately without dealing with what has been a significant mess created over the last two years. The bill contains three main measures: first, the repeal of the sunset clause on existing arrangements for graduate doctors to access Medicare provider numbers; secondly, the introduction of new arrangements for pathology specimen centres; and, thirdly, a number of minor changes that refine the definition of various matters in the Health Insurance Act 1973 to make enforcement more easily achievable and to bring into line the procedures for registering overseas doctors on permanent and temporary visas. The opposition has no objection to any of these minor changes in the last section.The opposition has said that it largely supports the pathology changes. When these measures were last debated, the government accepted the opposition's amendments to protect some small pathology providers. I will return to that issue at the end of my remarks.The main issue for debate in this bill is the sunset clause. Unfortunately, there is a stalemate over this because of the failure of the government to negotiate properly with young doctors about the training arrangements for postgraduates. The government has over the last couple of years been fixated with removing the sunset clause put in by the Senate to make sure that the present arrangements would be properly examined and refined. Until now—and I hope it is about to change—the government has stubbornly refused to negotiate with junior doctors and has repeatedly tried to get the sunset clause removed. The original Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999 still lies before the Senate, with the government refusing to list it for debate. Another bill, called the Health Legislation Amendment (Minimum Proficiency Requirements for Medical Practitioners) Bill 2000, was created by the Senate to enable debate of the sunset clause alone. But the government has ignored the Senate deadline, of 18 June this year, for debating this bill and has instead introduced this third bill into the House. As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, the situation is a complete mess—a product of this minister's approach to outside interests which we have seen so much about in the press over the last few weeks. He has managed to alienate all the key doctor groups, including young doctors, creating much confusion along the way. The situation is a total mess and the opposition does not believe that it will be sorted out by simply going back to the original draft bill that has been rejected by the doctors and by the parliament for the last two years.The origin of this complex situation goes back to 1996, when the government introduced new arrangements for the training of young doctors, which basically required medical graduates to undertake a further four years of vocational training before becoming fully registered as GPs with access to a Medicare provider number. Generally, the legislation is called the provider number legislation. This provision has become a symbol to medical students who feel that the continuation of the sunset clause is the only way they can force the Howard government to negotiate training arrangements with them. It reflects the poor process that has been used by the current minister and his bad relations with all the medical organisations.The second requirement imposed in the Senate was for a mid-term report on the effectiveness of the new arrangements to be made to the parliament before 31 December 1999. This report was commissioned from a former New South Wales Liberal health minister, Ron Phillips, in late 1999 and was tabled just before the deadline. Unfortunately, the review made very few clear-cut recommendations and referred most of the critical issues off for further study. However, it did recommend the repeal of the sunset clause `to give certainty to young doctors about the arrangements that will apply in the future'. The recommendations of the review were strongly rejected by the young doctors, who believed that their concerns had not been listened to.In the subsequent Senate debate, Labor, along with the Democrats, also opposed the removal of the sunset clause. The stand-off in the Senate was finally resolved in October 2000—or so we thought—when the government and the Democrats voted to split the bill and list it for debate in June this year. The intention was that the government would negotiate with the student doctors in the meantime. Following the splitting of the bill, the provisions about the sunset clause were put into this new bill. This new bill was listed for debate in June by the Senate. This debate has still not occurred and now we have a debate on this latest bill, which effectively turns the clock back to 1999. All this is happening because this minister has refused to deal with the junior doctors' problems.I want to make it very clear tonight that Labor does not support a return to the pre-1996 situation and, as I understand it, neither do any of the doctor organisations. The opposition does support the principle that graduate trainees should be in a different category to fully registered doctors who have completed their training. It is not appropriate for young doctors who are not fully registered to have unrestricted Medicare provider numbers, as they are still going through paid training to acquire the full range of skills that they need as a specialist or general practitioner. The doctors in training that the opposition has consulted with agree with this approach.What young doctors need is a fair and flexible system for their postgraduate training. After graduation, young doctors need the opportunity to expand their skills and experience, whether that be found in hospitals or in supervised placements outside of those hospitals. They need the opportunity to look around at the options that a medical career offers. Currently, they have a chance to look at each of the specialties, but only limited options are available for general practice. The schemes established by this minister offer only unsupervised placements in rural areas or late-night locum services. It effectively disregards the training objectives and uses students in inappropriate and unsupervised settings. The Phillips report recommended the repeal of regulations that allow students to work unsupervised during night locum work but, unfortunately, this has not been done. Recommendation 3 of the Phillips report said:The operations and intent of the Queensland Country Relieving Program are clearly inconsistent with the intent of this legislation.Recommendation 4 said:As it is inappropriate for doctors without the relevant training to provide home visits, serious consideration should be given to repealing the regulations that establish the Approved Medical Deputising Services program.While it is certainly true that some students are keen to get any GP type work, it is simply inappropriate that insufficiently trained graduates should be used in this way. The minister should have acted on the Phillips report recommendations and replaced the existing schemes with new arrangements which provide training opportunities in a supervised setting. Unfortunately, though, this minister has sat on his hands for 18 months, and the problem of inexperienced doctors working in unsupervised situations has not gone away. It is Labor's view that the minister should allow a short community term of up to 13 weeks for pre-vocational students to try a period in supervised general practice. It is exactly the situation that applies to all areas of specialty practice. In the two or three years between graduating and deciding which area to specialise in, most students do a succession of placements, working with particular areas of medicine or dealing with the broad range of medical problems that arise in hospitals. This is not only a good way for them to look at what type of medicine they might mostly be interested in but also a way to make sure that all doctors have some understanding of other areas of medicine and appreciate the particular demands that different specialists face. These placements are also usually fairly widely spread, including experience in large or small hospitals, rural areas and, sometimes, community health positions. It is a good system that does offer some diversity and interest to young doctors. The students' beef is that the one area that is denied them is supervised general practice. As around one-third of young doctors will enter into general practice, it certainly is a major hole. Offering them unsupervised rural placements or late-night locum work is no substitute for proper training opportunities and a chance to work with real GPs. Labor want to see this problem fixed and, if we do get the chance after the next election, we will negotiate with young doctors to provide them with a reasonable range of opportunities to have supervised training, including community terms. But I have to say that it will be in areas of work force need. The imbalance in the current medical work force means that there will have to be some limits. The supervised training will need to be focused on the areas of work force needs, which means rural and regional centres and the outer suburbs where doctors are too few and waiting times for patients are too long. The difference will be that, instead of being sent to operate unaided in many cases in remote locations, young doctors at the start of their careers will go to work alongside those doctors in our system who can properly supervise them. This would address the prime concern of students and provide a fair balance to allow community terms of up to 13 weeks without major change to other parts of the current arrangements. It certainly will not open the floodgates and allow any young doctor to practise with any GP, and it certainly will not allow young doctors in other placements to moonlight by working in a second job to earn more money. Limiting the area served has been discussed with doctor organisations, and they understand the need to proceed with incremental change from the current situation while dealing with the principal problem of restricted choice for young doctors and ensuring that training positions are properly supervised. Labor will be moving an amendment in the Senate to make sure that proper supervision and the provision for community terms in areas of work force need can proceed. This wider definition will give young doctors access to community terms in rural or outer suburban settings. At present the government is prepared to offer only unsupervised opportunities in remote rural locations. So if elected Labor will set up proper processes to deal with the detailed design of these programs so that young doctors are treated fairly and so that they have a say in the choices available to them in pursuing their careers. Under this approach there will not be any reduction in the number of people going to rural areas. There will be more places to enable some of those who, for personal reasons, cannot currently accept a place in a remote area to have available the option of a community term in an area of work force need. Labor believes that there is a need for fundamental reform to give young doctors greater flexibility under a fairer system for allocation of the available places. New arrangements should provide a better match with where doctors are required and the specialties in which they want to practise. The opposition will be moving amendments to this bill when it reaches the Senate to achieve this objective. Labor is also concerned that the current bill will retain the sunset clause on the Medicare Training Review Panel. This group has done good work, with four annual reports on the state of GP training. To abolish the panel without making provision for this work to continue is, to our mind, unacceptable. There is also a need to build on the work of the Australian Medical Work Force Advisory Committee and broaden its role. There are significant problems with the training of young doctors, but there is a need for an overall planned approach that looks at future work force needs, integrating the estimation of future demand for doctors with the demand for nurses and other allied health groups. I am pleased to see that the government has recently established a review of this committee. There certainly are important issues to address and a need for consolidation of effort and coordination between the numerous groups with an interest in this area. The new company that the minister has established, General Practice Enterprise Training Pty Ltd, has added to the confusion and uncertainty in this doctor training area. The idea of competitive tendering by regions for the provision of GP training by a range of groups has been announced, unfortunately to date, without any detail, with no definition of the regions and no clear explanation of who is competing with whom. It certainly is not encouraging, as it will not help to achieve the outcome that is the most important—getting more doctors working long term in areas of work force need. Looking at the detail of rural doctor numbers, the available evidence provides some sobering information about the relative lack of success of recent efforts in this direction. The minister has been using the figure of an increase of 14 per cent in the number of doctors in rural areas between 1995 and 2001. However, this is the increase in the total number of doctors who spent some time in a rural area and billed Medicare. The minister has publicly acknowledged that these are misleading figures because they include a large number of temporary placements occurring for short periods. The only meaningful data is the number of full-time equivalent doctors practising in rural Australia. The latest data comes from a response to a question placed on notice at the February 2001 Senate estimates hearings. This shows that the total number of GPs practising in all rural and regional areas increased from the equivalent of 3,553 full-time doctors in 1996-97 to 3,584 in 1999-2000. That is an increase of 31 doctors across the whole of rural Australia over four years—less than one per cent. Looking at the figures in more detail reveals that the number of Australian trained doctors in these areas has actually fallen and has been offset by a six per cent growth in the number of overseas temporary resident doctors who have taken up positions in areas of need. This is very sobering news indeed, because it shows how far we have got to go to increase the number of rural doctors. The only long-term solution rests with getting doctors working in rural areas on a long-term basis, not just for temporary periods. It means that we should not just be trying to force a few more students into the bush. We should have well thought out and thorough plans that have the support of doctor organisations and that make sense of undergraduate, postgraduate and vocational training. Rural Australia needs long-term solutions and unfortunately, to date, we have just seen a series of stopgaps that have alienated young doctors and certainly not solved the problem. I will turn briefly to the pathology collection centres arrangements measures in this bill. These are an important further step in previous measures to control costs in this sector. Generally, the opposition supports these measures, which have their beginnings in actions that started in the late 1980s. The objectives of the measures are to encourage a more judicious use of pathology and to improve quality and communication. The specific effect of these changes is to bring the system applying to public and private collection centres into alignment. This will have some advantages, but there are some issues concerning the impact of arrangements on public pathology laboratories, particularly in hospitals in regional centres. There are also concerns that the rules on competition will unfairly disadvantage small providers and entrench the virtual monopoly of the large providers that has been cemented under this minister. The opposition put forward reasonable amendments to the bill when it was originally presented and the government accepted those amendments at the time and voted for them. But, strangely enough, they have not been included in this bill as it has been re-presented, even though the government's amendments have been included. It will therefore be necessary for the opposition to again move amendments to protect small business in the pathology sector. The central point is that the guidelines that the minister must issue should make sure that the barriers to new entrants are not so high as to create a virtual monopoly amongst the large players. There is plenty of scope for efficient small providers to put pressure on price and service standards. We have to make sure that the rules do not favour the big companies and prevent anyone from working in competition with these large providers. You would have thought that this government would enthusiastically support these proposals from the opposition. Sadly, it does not seem to be so. The Labor amendments to date have been dropped by the government, and the small pathology labs, if this bill continues as it is, would be frozen out unless Labor's amendments were accepted.As I said at the beginning, the remaining matters in this bill are all minor technical changes and will be supported by the opposition, as they were when they were last put to the House in the Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 4) 1999. I certainly hope that the government has enough sense to see that it is not in its best interests to keep working against the views of the young doctors. It is time that we had a sensible discussion and that legislation was developed in the light of the interests of the long-term future of the medical profession, in the interests of those doctors and in the interests of Australian consumers, who need access to quality services under Medicare. So I certainly hope that as this bill makes its way to the Senate we get an outbreak of commonsense, after the last two years of nonsense.The opposition will not be opposing the passage of the bill at this stage, but I do flag our intention to move amendments in the Senate to extend the operation of the sunset clause, to introduce community terms in areas of work force need, to retain the Medical Training Review Panel and to provide protection for new entrants to pathology.21:09:0028511Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10— One of the key measures in the Health Legislation Amendment (Medical Practit-ioners' Qualifications and Other Measures) Bill 2001 is to repeal the sunset clause contained in the government's 1996 Medicare provider number legislation. For a generation, up until the government passed legislation in 1996, the number of general practitioners practising in rural areas had declined. I hear the comments from the member for Jagajaga that there has not been a huge growth, but there has indeed been growth of medical practitioners going to country areas—albeit that it is modest. It has also arrested the decline. We were actually going backwards, and we are now actually moving forward in this regard. The situation that we had before the 1996 legislation did produce a serious shortage of general practitioners in rural and remote areas all over Australia and a concentration of general practitioners in the cities. This maldistribution has since been eased, as I said, quite considerably through the measures implemented by the government in 1996, and this bill will repeal the sunset clause that could reverse the positive direction evident since 1996.Overall, the negative effects of the pre-1996 legislation included a maldistribution of doctors in rural, regional and remote areas; graduating doctors choosing not to work in public hospitals; graduating doctors choosing not to enter training in specialist areas; shortages in the specialist areas of intensive care, psychiatry, neurosurgery, geriatrics and rehabilitation medicine; the undermining of general practice as a distinct discipline; reduced public confidence in the system; and rising costs to the health system in general. The government recognised deficiencies in three key areas of medicine: in the specialist field, in the public hospitals and, certainly, in the rural doctors situation, and that is the one that really has a very big impact on my electorate of Pearce.In December 1996 the government passed the Health Insurance Amendment Act (No. 2) 1996. The act included an important amendment requiring all new medical practitioners wishing to access Medicare benefits to complete or undertake to complete approved training. Up until this time new medical graduates could apply for a Medicare provider number once they received their basic medical registration. This gave them automatic access to Medicare rebates for work in independent private practices unsupervised. Under the new provisions, to gain access to Medicare benefits young graduating doctors had to take part in training to become general practitioners or specialists, train and work in understaffed public hospitals or work under supervision in other areas where there are doctor shortages, such as rural and remote communities.Not everyone was satisfied that the new section 19AA would operate without adverse consequences to medical practice, and amendments were made in the Senate requiring a sunset clause with an expiry date of 1 January 2002. In order to satisfy concerns expressed by the Australian Medical Association and others, the Senate required a review of the operation of the legislation to be carried out before the end of 1999. The medical profession and the trainee doctors warned that there could be a lack of training positions for those graduating and raised the spectre of unemployment for highly trained medical graduates. Belinda Neal, a Labor senator at the time, said:We are concerned that it may aggravate the shortage of doctors in rural areas and severely restrict the options of medical students and interns ... That certainly has not happened. It has not exacerbated or aggravated the shortage of doctors in rural areas. While the government agreed to include the sunset clause in the Health Insurance Act in 1996 as a safeguard against expressed concerns, these concerns certainly have not materialised in any major way. In fact, an independent review of the provider number legislation undertaken by the Hon. Ron Phillips in 1999 in relation to section 19AA said:There is overwhelming agreement with the objective that General Practice be recognised as a vocational specialty .... this legislation is underpinning other quality and workforce packages that have been put in place.Then in the mid-term review recommendation 10 said:This review finds no reason why the sunset clause should remain in the legislation. In fact the review finds that it would be counterproductive to morale amongst junior doctors to maintain the illusion that the legislation will ever be repealed. It would also provide certainty for medical students.The Phillips review did not find a single graduate who was unable to secure a training position and recommended that the sunset clause be repealed to give certainty to medical students and doctors in training. In 4½ years since the introduction of the changes to Medicare provider numbers, the following benefits have emerged:· There are 1,518 advanced first-year training positions in 2001. This is more than adequate to accommodate the 1,250 doctors who graduate each year.· The number of doctors working in public hospitals has increased. Graduating doctors are being channelled into public hospitals, although there is still a shortage of doctors in some hospitals. This demonstrates that no doctor is involuntarily unemployed.· There are continuing vacancies in some training programs such as rehabilitation, geriatrics and intensive care.· There has been an increase in the number of doctors working in rural and remote areas. Numbers increased from 5,412 in 1995 to 6,210 in 1999-2000. Notwithstanding the fact that some of those may have been overseas trained doctors, there was still a significant and welcome increase in the number of doctors. In fact, the trend of the decline in the number of doctors in rural areas and critical shortages has to some extent been reversed by changes in the number of overseas doctors, as I will talk about in a few minutes. The greatest increases in rural doctor numbers were in Western Australia and Queensland where the greatest rural shortages did exist.· An increase in the number of doctors entering training to become specialists. According to the work of the Medical Training Review Panel, the number of postgraduate training places on offer exceeds the number of Australian graduates each year. Of the estimated 1,518 first year advanced training places on offer in 2001, around 1,068 are in specialist vocations.· Qualifying requirements are assisting to reduce oversupply of general practitioners in metropolitan areas, although I note from one of my constituents that some of the outer areas probably need to be looked at in a similar vein to rural areas, as they are finding it difficult to attract doctors.· General practice is being established as a distinct discipline requiring training and experience.· Increased confidence for patients that the doctors they consult are adequately trained in the areas in which they practise.· Savings to Medicare of $556 million as a result of doctors remaining in hospitals and/or undertaking postgraduate training, rather than adding to the oversupplied metropolitan areas.· In postgraduate training, about 200 of the 450 trainees who commence training with the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners training program each year participate in a rural training pathway and will complete much of their training in rural and remote areas. It needs to be said that we will begin to see the benefit of some of the programs that have been put in place by the Minister for Health and Aged Care to address the shortage in rural areas, such as the rural training pathway program and the John Flynn scholarships, very quickly now.· Specialist medical colleges are now offering rural terms as part of their training courses to familiarise trainees with rural work. In Western Australia those clinical training schools have been located in, I think, Kalgoorlie and Geraldton.· Medical courses are as popular as they ever were. Last year over 10,000 Australians expressed interest in the first year places available at medical schools.In Western Australia and in my electorate of Pearce, the effort of the minister to address the shortage of doctors is very welcome indeed. The shortage affects not only rural and remote areas but also some of the outer metropolitan areas where they are having difficulty attracting doctors. This has recently been raised with me by a constituent. Anything we can do to alleviate the difficulties faced by people disadvantaged by past policy in relation to doctor provider numbers is very welcome indeed.These measures build on the introduction by the coalition—by the minister—of the John Flynn scholarships, the world-first Rural Retention Program and last year's budget providing $562 million for rural health packages to increase GP numbers and improve access to health services in rural and remote areas. In this year's budget the coalition announced the practice nurse initiatives for rural medical practices. This is an important initiative in alleviating some of the pressures on rural doctors and in providing better medical services to rural people. I believe that many of these initiatives that the minister has introduced will produce results fairly rapidly and we will see better results in the next few years in relation to this.The bill also simplifies and clarifies the rules relating to temporary resident doctors and overseas trained doctors and the circumstances in which they can access Medicare. Again, this is helpful in ensuring continuity of services in rural and remote areas. The recruitment of overseas doctors has been an unwieldy and difficult process involving several layers of government—the states, territories and Commonwealth. In fact, this was an issue raised by me when one of the doctors in the country town of Beverley in my electorate was asked by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to return to his country of origin—in other words, he was given his marching orders. The town had taken a long time to find a suitable doctor. This doctor was very adequately trained. In fact, he was testing medical graduates from the University of Western Australia. He was the examining doctor, yet he was asked to leave the country.As a result of representation by that community, I took this matter to the ministers. I was pleased when the state and territory ministers got together and made an agreement to simplify and to look at this whole area of the recruitment of overseas doctors. Where overseas doctors had formal postgraduate qualifications, they could be assessed for registration by the medical board, rather than the way they used to be assessed—that is, completing an examination by the Australian Medical Council. Obviously in the case of the doctor recruited for the town of Beverley, to make him sit an examination when he was already examining the graduating students from the University of Western Australia was a pretty ridiculous situation. So I was very pleased to see these changes take place, and I congratulate the minister for working with the state and territory ministers to sort out the anomalies. These doctors could then be registered as general practitioners and required to work in rural areas for a minimum period of five years, that is, once they have been assessed for registration by the medical board. Existing permanent resident overseas trained doctors would be given priority before the recruitment of new temporary resident doctors under this agreement between the ministers. That is a sensible measure.Other measures in this bill relate to new arrangements for pathology specimen collection centres. These measures reflect the development of the new arrangements in consultation with stakeholders and the states and territories. As part of the 2000-01 budget, the Pathology Quality and Outlays Agreement was extended for a further two years until 30 June 2004. The agreement provides for a framework for managing growth in pathology expenditure under Medicare at an average of five per cent per year. It facilitates further structural reform in the pathology sector and improves the quality in pathology testing, use and practice. The agreement contains an outline of new arrangements for pathology specimen collection centres and an agreement to review the Commonwealth legislation that relates to pathology. I am pleased to see that there will be particular attention given to supporting services in regional areas. This is a point on which the government disagrees with opposition claims that the incentives have not done much for regional areas. According to the information given to me by the minister, the results speak for themselves. Under these arrangements, in January this year more than 150 centres were located in areas across Australia covered by the incentive. The new collection centre arrangements retain an incentive to encourage approved pathology authorities to provide a private specimen collection service in rural and remote areas. The three-for-one incentive allows an APA to convert one of its metropolitan collection centres into three collection centres in designated rural and remote areas of Australia. As the new arrangements provide for growth and for the entry of the public sector, it is likely that some approved pathology authorities will elect to use this incentive, thereby increasing rather than withdrawing services from regional areas. The government has acted responsibly here to ensure that it has considered services to rural and regional areas in the changes that are foreshadowed in this bill. Apart from those important changes, which are crucial to people living in many parts of my electorate, the bill also has some technical amendments to the definition of `quality assurance activity' to include reference to health care agreements and to the definition of `professional services' to include a dental practitioner who is able to render certain services, and to clean up cross-references to offences under the act. These are very sensible measures. I think the minister has done a remarkable job, given the difficulties in this day and age of dealing with some of the serious deficiencies in the system that we inherited. There is particular attention to services, whether they are pathology services or whether they are services by doctors in rural areas, who have a lot of pressure on them. These measures are sensible and continue to build on the many other measures that the minister has put in place to ensure that we do have good services provided to people living in rural and remote areas of Australia.21:28:0028515Short, Leonie, MPMs SHORT9V8RyanALP00—Before I was elected as the federal member for Ryan, I was a medical education officer at the Princess Alexandra Hospital in Brisbane. My job was to facilitate the education and training of junior doctors in the hospital. This included doctors in the intern and junior house officer years. Junior doctors undertake terms of clinical experience in specific departments of the hospital, as well as in other hospitals in Brisbane. The only medical practice opportunities available to pre-vocational junior doctors are in hospital based medical disciplines. As a house officer, they are also required to participate in the Queensland country relieving program of the Queensland Department of Health, where they work in country hospitals as part of their postgraduate training. I must stress that these doctors experience country practice only in the hospital setting, not in the community setting with general practitioners.Rural and remote areas are seen as areas of work force need. It is very difficult to recruit and retain doctors and other health professionals in the country. Rural and remote areas are areas of work force need, as many general practice clinics are unable to meet patient needs due to a lack of available doctors. There are a variety of reasons for this shortfall: lack of career opportunities, lack of professional support, schooling for children, careers for partners, lifestyle and lack of past experience. Extra stress on doctors, like any other members of the community, can lead to physical and mental health problems, social isolation, relationship problems and increased incidences of drug taking. We need to give junior doctors more flexibility under a fairer system for allocation of the available spaces. New arrangements should provide a better match with where these doctors are needed, particularly in rural and remote areas, and in specialties in which they are needed and demanded by consumers.I am very empathetic to the plight of country GPs, as my father was a rural GP in Gresford in the Hunter Valley of New South Wales. He ran a surgery attached to our home, responded to house calls and consulted with patients in the local Gresford hospital. He was on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. He had little or no professional support and had had no experience of general practice before he made his move to Gresford. Our whole family's life revolved around my father's patients and the events in the local community. My mother worked in the surgery as an unofficial and unpaid receptionist and nurse, while we three children played on our dinkies on the wide veranda and tried to keep cool during the heatwaves in summer. As a family we were very happy there, but my father yearned for something more. After a few years we moved back to the city so that my father could work within a group practice in Parramatta that was close to the Parramatta Hospital. My father did not have to work such long hours and my mother could resume her duties as a full-time mother. As children, we now had access to both public and private schools. We went back to Gresford for holidays, and I still harbour very fond memories of my early years there. It is not surprising that I chose a career in the medical field and took an interest in rural health issues. My father did not undertake further study to be a specialist. He remained a GP until the day he died at the age of 49 years. After one or two years as a house officer, doctors of today decide on pursuing a career as a registrar in, for example, surgery, psychiatry, ophthalmology, obstetrics, administration or general practice. For patients, it is important to ensure that general practice continues to be regarded as a specialty that requires further training. In this way, positive outcomes will flow on to consumers, as the quality of services should improve. The junior doctors that I worked with were expected to make lifelong vocational training and career choices without ever experiencing supervised family general practice in their junior years of postgraduate medical training. Furthermore, new specialists are being trained without ever experiencing family general practice. This is not best practice, as we need specialists to have a good rapport with GPs, and vice versa. Junior doctor training should include at least one community term, either in general practice or in a community health service. We need to permit graduate doctors to undertake a community term of up to 13 weeks under the supervision of vocationally registered GPs.The present system of training our junior doctors is inadequate and there is a general lack of work force planning in the health sector. When I worked at the Princess Alexandra Hospital in early 2001, we were five to 10 junior doctors short every week. I realise all too well that community terms in general practice could also lead to further strain on the staffing of our hospitals. However, we need to separate the training issues from the staffing issues. Both are important and need to be addressed, but arguments for both issues should not be used to negate each other. We need to have highly skilled GPs working in areas of work force shortage, as well as trained junior doctors working in the hospital sector. We should not be robbing Peter to pay Paul.Funding for prevocational general practice training has traditionally been the responsibility of the Commonwealth government. I would like to discuss two Commonwealth programs that encourage doctors to choose to work in rural and remote areas of Australia. Both the John Flynn Scholarship Scheme and the Rural Australian Medical Undergraduate Scholarship Scheme, RAMUS, are funded through the General Practice Branch of the Department of Health and Aged Care. They are designed to increase the supply of doctors to rural and regional areas. The premise for the John Flynn Scholarship Scheme is that exposure to rural general practice and to the reality of life in a country town will increase the probability of a medical graduate practising in the country. The premise for RAMUS is evidence that people from country areas are more likely than others to return to country areas to work.The John Flynn Scholarship Scheme provides medical undergraduates with a placement in rural, regional or remote areas for two weeks a year for four consecutive years. In almost all cases they have a GP mentor with whom they have close contact while on placement. However, their experience is not expected to be only at the side of the doctor; they are also expected to get to know the town and its community groups. The John Flynn Scholarship Scheme is therefore vacational as well as vocational. Some of the reports from students returning from a John Flynn Scholarship Scheme placement show the extent to which they have been informed and excited by their rural experience and rural medical experience. The scheme has been going since 1997, so the first cohort of John Flynn Scholarship Scheme scholars has now completed their placements. However, it is still too early to know how effective it will be in encouraging them to practise in a rural area. There are 600 John Flynn scholars in all, 150 in each of the four years.RAMUS provides selected medical undergraduates with scholarships of $10,000 a year for each year of undergraduate study. Those eligible must show that they have lived for the majority of their life in a rural or remote area and that they are in relative financial need. About 430 were awarded in the first year of the scheme—that is, 2000—and another 100 will be awarded this year. Both RAMUS and the John Flynn Scholarship Scheme provide models that should be adopted for other health professionals. One hundred and ten rural nursing scholarships were announced in this year's budget, but far more should be done to recruit, support and retain nurses in rural and remote areas of Australia. Other health professionals also need this encouragement and assistance. In particular, there are no national schemes to recruit, support and retain dentists, dental therapists, oral health therapists, prosthetists and dental technicians in rural and remote areas of Australia. As a former dental therapist, I know that children, adolescents, adults and older persons should be having their teeth checked, maintained and repaired on a regular basis. If there are no oral health professionals in their country town, this regular preventive care is impossible to achieve. What then happens is that people wait until they have a toothache, travel to the nearest dentist in pain and then have the tooth extracted. Future work force needs, integrating the estimation of future demand for doctors with demand for nurses, dentists and other allied health groups, should be completed.There is an anomaly here because the John Flynn Scholarship Scheme and the Rural Australia Medical Undergraduate Scholarship Scheme are working to increase the supply of doctors to rural, regional and remote areas at the medical undergraduate level, but we also need similar schemes at the medical postgraduate level. As the member for Ryan, my constituents want to be assured that their GPs are highly skilled and chose general practice as their specialty in an informed manner. Experience in general family practice in the undergraduate and postgraduate years will make all GPs and other specialists better doctors.I am concerned, from my experience working in doctor training, that what the government has put forward will not achieve the result that we all want: better health services and more doctors in the areas that need them. The organisations representing junior doctors are very unhappy with the way they have been treated by the government and with the refusal of the minister to negotiate on their issues. Young doctors deserve a better go and the rules should be clear from the start. I support the amendments that will be moved when this bill reaches the Senate.21:41:0028517Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—This legislation is testimony to the government's arrogance and its inability to consult with key interest groups and people that are involved in the health industry. I do not think you could see any more blatant evidence of a government that is out of touch with all groups within the community. The Health Legislation Amendment (Medical Practitioners' Qualifications and Other Measures) Bill 2001 does absolutely nothing to resolve the complex situation that emanates from the government's 1996 legislation. That legislation introduced new training arrangements for young doctors—training arrangements that required them to undertake a further four years training before becoming fully registered GPs with access to Medicare provider numbers. The legislation was known as the provider number legislation and it was very controversial. The Australian Democrats supported an amendment to apply a five-year sunset clause which will expire on 1 January 2002.The legislation before us has been opposed by all medical groups—by the Australian Medical Association, the doctors reform association and the young doctors—all of whom have contacted members of this parliament. I am sure they have contacted members on both sides of the House. I have read the correspondence and I have been quite concerned about the issues raised. Obviously members opposite do not share my concerns. Certainly, the minister has done absolutely nothing to address the concerns that have been raised. The young doctors in particular are concerned about this legislation. We are talking about their future and the future of medicine in Australia. If we do not have a proper system in place, we are not going to have properly trained doctors, we are not going to have doctors that have the skills that are needed to work within the community— to work with people when they are sick—and we are not going to have enough doctors. I will touch on that a little later. The government's ability to listen, negotiate and consult is obviously non-existent. You only have to read the newspapers to learn of the dispute between Kerryn Phelps and the Minister for Health and Aged Care. What has the government done to resolve this problem? Nothing. The problem continues to roll on. Meanwhile, the minister has taken his eye off the ball. This means he is not concentrating on those important issues that are affecting the health of Australians. He is more involved in a personal dispute, which merely demonstrates his arrogance, the government's arrogance and their contempt for the Australian people.The government has attempted to ram this legislation through previously. In mid-1999, a health legislation amendment bill tried to bring in changes to registration arrangements for pathology providers. There is the issue of removal of the sunset clause applying to training arrangements: once again the government has been really preoccupied with the removal of the sunset clause. At all costs, the government wants to see that sunset clause go. That is only a symptom of the problem; it is not the only problem. There were a number of minor changes concerning temporary and overseas trained doctors and health insurance. There are some issues that should be able to be cleared up pretty quickly. If the government was prepared to talk, negotiate and work it out, some things could be solved pretty easily. The government needs to give ground on others and make some changes. The government have split the legislation, with the assistance of the Democrats in the Senate, but they are still unhappy with it. That is why they have now introduced the legislation we are debating here tonight. Once again, it is an attempt, as always, to get the legislation passed without going through the proper processes. The government are all the time changing the rules to suit themselves. We have a government that will stop at absolutely nothing to force their legislation through parliament. Their arrogance and contempt for the Australian people—and, in this particular case, doctors—are phenomenal. The real bone of contention, as I mentioned, is the sunset clause. The young doctors accept that the situation will not return to the pre-1996 situation, and we on this side of the parliament do not want that to happen. What we want is a workable situation where all the parties have been listened to and where an agreement is reached that will benefit those doctors and, more importantly, the people in our community—benefit those Australians who rely on the services of doctors, as we all do at some time or another. There is a high level of dissatisfaction within the community about the way the government has handled this and there is a high level of dissatisfaction among GPs about the way the situation has been handled during their intern years. Let me turn to the sunset clause for a moment. In 1996, the Howard government restricted access to Medicare provider numbers for graduate doctors until they had completed one of a number of programs to become specialists or general practitioners. The problem is that all the training is skewed towards specialist training. In a way, it downgrades general practice and the requirements that are needed for a person to move into general practice. Ron Phillips, a former New South Wales health minister, was commissioned to do a report into this legislation. He made recommendations. Unfortunately, the government chose to ignore most of them. One related to the sunset clause. The government then said that, unless the recommendations were accepted, their goal of increasing rural doctor numbers would be placed in jeopardy. A range of views have been expressed by peak doctor organisations. There are strategic issues to consider about the future direction of postgraduate training. I would like to briefly refer to a letter I have from the AMA. It is one of the many pieces of correspondence that I have received on this matter. They say one issue is the `inability for newly graduated doctors to obtain experience in general practice prior to making career decisions regarding specialist training'. They continue: Junior doctors do undertake specialist surgical and medical work within the public hospital system and their inability to gain similar experience in general practice is likely to act as a real deterrent ...This relates to the issue I raised just a moment ago. Another point they raise is the `inability of many general practice clinics to meet patient needs due to a lack of available doctors'. Let me touch on that for a moment. In the area I represent—the electorate of Shortland—parts fall within the Central Coast region. The area is classified as RAMA 1 and the electorate is the 16th oldest in Australia. People in need of routine medical treatment are having to wait between seven and 14 days for a doctor's appointment. There is a chronic shortage of doctors in that area. One of the local pharmacists has put in a submission to sponsor some overseas doctors to practise in the area, but that has been totally disregarded, simply because of the RAMA 1 classification. The Central Coast area of New South Wales is not alone. The situation is reflected throughout the whole of Australia many times over. What it says is that the government's policy in relation to provider numbers and doctors—and not only in rural and remote areas—is not working. When an elderly person, a pensioner or a veteran has to wait seven to 14 days to see a doctor, they are going to be in very poor health by the time they see that doctor, they are going to have recovered, or they are going to be dead. In a country like Australia, this is not good enough.Within the medical fraternity there is a growing realisation among students that there will be a continuing limitation of access of these provider numbers. Their main demands are about greater flexibility in training opportunities and access to supervised training opportunities within the cities. I believe that that can be provided not only in the cities but also in regional areas such as those I represent in this place. I believe that we really need to have in place a system that will provide that training and, at the same time, expand the number of doctors who are available to provide services to people within areas such as my own and throughout the whole of Australia. At the moment, we have an inadequate system for training of young doctors, and there is a general lack of work force planning by the Department of Health and Aged Care and by this government in relation to doctor training. This government has failed the people of Australia in its approach and, unless it decides that it is going to do something that is really going to resolve the problem, the situation will deteriorate and will continue to impact on electorates such as mine. The government is bloody-minded and will do nothing to back off on any issue whatsoever. The government's failure to resolve this issue is affecting the provision of medical services at a grassroots level. Ordinary Australians and their families are going without medical services they need or are having to wait, simply because there are not enough GPs in some areas, including mine. Young doctors are feeling disillusioned with the system and all are left wondering about their future. `Why?' you might ask. It is because we have an arrogant government, a government that will not listen, a government that is more concerned with forcing doctors into submission and winning at all costs than with planning to ensure that we have enough suitably qualified general practitioners, that we have enough allied health professionals and that the needs of all Australians are met—in this case, the medical needs of all Australians. It is a government that fails to negotiate. This government will not negotiate with all parties to resolve a problem; rather, it seeks, just by using its numbers in this parliament, to force its solution on a problem without negotiation. What we need is a system that is best for all, not a system that provides a win for the government.How many regional and country areas are crying out for suitably qualified doctors both in private practices and in public hospitals? The level of doctors within public hospitals is way below what it should be. I know that my community needs more doctors, and I know that the communities of the members of this House, particularly on this side, need more doctors. But still this arrogant government focuses on ways to force its legislation through rather than on resolving the problems associated with it. We need a government that cares about Australia and all Australians, not a government that cares only about winning at all costs. Be it ramming through legislation or winning at the next election, this is a government that will stop at nothing to win; winning is all that counts. 21:56:0028520Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The introduction of the Health Legislation Amendment (Medical Practitioners' Qualifications and Other Measures) Bill 2001 indicates that the government is trying to put back before parliament a provision to make the current doctor training arrangements permanent, without sorting out the problems it created. The bill contains three main measures: the repeal of the sunset clause on existing arrangements for graduate doctors to access Medicare provider numbers; the introduction of new arrangements for pathology specimen centres; and several minor changes that refine the definition of various matters in the Health Insurance Act to make enforcement more easily achievable and to bring the procedures for registering overseas doctors on permanent and temporary visas into line. The origin of this complex situation goes back to 1996 when the government introduced new arrangements for the training of young doctors which required medical graduates to undertake a further four years of vocational training before becoming fully registered as GPs with access to Medicare provider numbers.The opposition and the Democrats got together in the Senate to apply a five-year sunset clause for these arrangements, due to expire on 1 January 2002, and there was to be a mid-term review in 1999. Thus the government introduced the health legislation amendment bill which proposed changes to the registration arrangements for pathology providers, the removal of the sunset clause applying to the training arrangements and a number of other minor matters concerning temporary overseas trained doctors and health insurance. The opposition succeeded in getting amendments made to the pathology provisions and agreed to other minor amendments but, along with the Democrats, opposed the removal of the sunset clauses. So the government split the bill. This is part of the bill that was split, but it still has problems within it. The problem is that we need some more time so that any changes that need to be made can happen before the sunset clause is removed.We believe that graduate trainees should be in a different category from that of fully registered doctors who have completed their training, and that it is not appropriate for young doctors to have unrestricted access to Medicare provider numbers while they are still going through paid training to acquire the necessary skills to become GPs. But we need to look at the needs of these young doctors so that, when the sunset clause is removed, there is something else in place to make sure they are not going to be ripped off by their supervisors and that they will have proper training without being dumped out into isolated areas without support—which has happened in the past.Young doctors need a fair system and one that is flexible enough to enable them to get a good range of skills in the different aspects of rural practice. Accepting the sunset clause without other changes would remove from government the pressure to fix the massive problems out in the regional areas. I believe that we should extend the sunset clause and really get on with a proper review to put in place some better system to encourage young doctors to make a career of rural practice.We have enormous problems in Tasmania. Doctors are still terribly scarce. So are other medical staff—all health professionals. We have one situation in Tasmania where we cannot open a service because there are insufficient trained nurses available in the particular area. I spoke the last time a similar bill came into the House on the difficulties we were having in my state. I have written since then to the minister for health, in November 2000 and March 2001, seeking to have changes to the status of New Norfolk and Sorell medical practices. They have been reclassified as status 1 metropolitan practice instead of a rural one. New Norfolk doctors cover not only New Norfolk but also an area within about a 40-kilometre radius of New Norfolk and right up into the Derwent Valley, to Strathgordon, Ouse, Tarraleah and Wayatinah—right up in the highlands of Tasmania. It is a rural area and has a population of less than 10,000. I understand that a number of people have already made representations to the minister on this matter, but the reply—not to me; as yet I have had no reply since those two letters were written in November 2000 and March 2001—was that there are enough doctors to meet population needs and that local doctors should enter medical practice in areas where population needs for medical care are not met. However, unless there are some incentives and a good back-up system for these doctors, they are not going to move to the country. One doctor on the east coast has literally to close his practice to have some time off. Others close their books to new patients, leaving them to travel hundreds of kilometres to gain assistance.Doctors who have been hired by the Rivers medical system have on the whole been reasonable, and that process has put some doctors into the gaps in my electorate. But we have one that is not undertaking the terms of his contract and there is little the area can do—because, as an overseas doctor, if there is a complaint he will just leave, leaving both problems unresolved. I would suggest that in most other categorisations of Tasmania the whole state could be deemed as rural, as we have small, isolated populations that cannot be called metropolitan by any stretch of the imagination. I would contend that anything outside the immediate boundaries of the Hobart and Launceston regions would be rural.Sorell has difficulty attracting doctors, as does New Norfolk, because they are not attached to some major medical facility or hospital and cannot get relief staff easily; and any temporary help through the OTD system is only being allowed for a temporary period. We cannot expect doctors to come here for a year and then be replaced, and it often takes six to 12 months to find one. I know of many rural Tasmanian doctors who have written to the minister for help. Their arguments are cogent and they do not want anything more at this stage than to officially allow these areas to continue to be recognised as rural areas, or RRMA 5 areas. It is not a question of funds—I do not believe that this costs the government additional money—but it is a question of equity of access to medical help for rural people.I do not understand why the Minister for Health and Aged Care has not responded. I believe that people in these country areas are desperate to have medical assistance less than two hours drive from Hobart—which is what is currently available if these practices go belly up. The doctors who are in New Norfolk and Sorell cannot continue in the conditions in which they work. As many of the rural doctors say, they do not get the same holidays that those in the city do and they cannot get to conferences and training sessions to learn new techniques and new ways when there is no-one to replace them. It is important that we make sure that we can use overseas doctors to fill the holes in our system until such time as we can get a whole career structure working properly so that young doctors can choose a long-term lifestyle as a rural doctor and be properly compensated for the more difficult conditions under which they work.Training needs to be properly supervised, working alongside someone who has the full experience to do so. A start would be to allow about 13 weeks with such a doctor to see if they liked the life before committing to that ongoing training. There are other groups besides the AMA that need to agree to any changes, too. Rural practitioners have a big stake in what goes on as far as training and acceptance of new doctors is concerned and they are represented by a number of bodies, including the Royal College of Rural Practitioners, which have some sensible suggestions. We need to know that they have the support of other organisations that have similar problems. There is an amendment being mooted that might deal with some of this but, if it fails, I would be very concerned about the outcomes for my electorate. We cannot afford to have the sunset clause removed without a whole plan being developed. A 12-month extension of the clause may help, if there is some negotiation to be done.Labor believes there need to be fundamental reforms to give young doctors more flexibility under a fairer system in their allocation to the available places. We want them to be where they are needed, but we want them to stay if they like the lifestyle. As I said in my last speech on this issue, rural training alone is not the answer; rural practice needs to be sustainable. This government is still not talking to those doctors who make rural practice successful. It is about time it did. I believe what our shadow minister is suggesting is very sensible and will give some more time to work out the details of this complex issue, but I do not want to see the whole thing go into the too-hard basket. The rural doctors issue has to be fixed fast. I would like a proper answer from the minister for health on the changes of status for doctors in my electorate. It is idiotic to have doctors in Devonport being classified as rural when doctors in Sorell and New Norfolk are classified as metropolitan. It just does not make sense. Rural doctors should be treated as valued citizens who are prepared to work under more difficult conditions than their city counterparts. It is about time they were. I hope that the opposition's amendments can be supported.22:07:0028522Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—In speaking on the Health Legislation Amendment (Medical Practitioners' Qualifications and Other Measures) Bill 2001, the issue I want to concentrate on is the repeal of the sunset clause on existing arrangements for graduate doctors to access Medicare provider numbers. The AMA has argued for an extension. The repeal of the sunset clause is for many in the electorate, especially through rural and regional Australia, the most significant issue in this piece of legislation. This measure essentially restricts eligibility of Medicare benefits for doctors who lack postgraduate qualifications. It accepts the evidence that undergraduate medical education does not prepare graduates for unsupervised general practice. It broadly supports the principle of restricting provider numbers to those doctors with appropriate qualifications.By repealing the sunset clause, I suggest that we are presented with two opportunities. First is the issue of increasing training and experience of Australian GPs and monitoring this through the highly selective allocation of Medicare provider numbers. Secondly, we have an opportunity to distribute health services and GPs more evenly across metropolitan and regional Australia by awarding Medicare provider numbers to locations and communities, not to individuals, as incentive to doctors who will practise in specific areas of need. I will address the constitutional issues on this in a moment.I support this measure, as it provides a situation for the adequate training of all new medical practitioners who wish to access Medicare benefits. Before any new doctor is granted a Medicare provider number, they must have completed or be undertaking an approved training program. Previously, new medical graduates had been able to apply for an unrestricted Medicare provider number upon receiving their basic medical registration—a situation which had medical graduates beating the drum before they knew how. However, the legislation to this point has addressed this by enabling them to enter private practice and to provide services which attract Medicare rebates while still going through training to acquire the full range of skills required either as a specialist or as a GP.If we cease to allow for the considered allocation of Medicare provider numbers and hand them out freely to city doctors, we have a situation which makes the doctors happy, but it comes at a huge cost to residents in regional areas. An overwhelming majority of doctors prefer to practise in capital cities, leaving people in regional centres with a dramatically contrasting and reduced choice of health services to their city counterparts. Indeed, most city residents take for granted the fact that they can see a GP and probably a specialist almost immediately, or certainly within a satisfactory time frame. Residents in regional Australia face a vastly different reality, many having to travel hours to see a GP, let alone a specialist.In commenting on the allocation of Medicare provider numbers, there appears to be something of a battle going on between Dubbo and Orange for the provision of an MRI facility. The sort of tender that will be going in for this machine will clearly show that the central west, long before and long after my tenure of the seat of Calare, will be the medical epicentre of central western New South Wales. Any awarding of that facility that requires patients to travel long distances to get an MRI in Dubbo and then to return to Orange for the specialist interpretation is a gross misallocation of the taxpayer subsidy of that facility. I feel that, by removing the sunset clause in this bill, we are taking some measures to lessen the disparity between city and country health services, although such steps are only the beginning. This bill should be viewed in a light which encourages education and necessary training among our young doctors. Instead of seeing it as a bill which restricts the number of Medicare provider numbers, as the AMA would have it, we should use this legislation to truly address areas of need by allocating provider numbers to communities, not to individuals. If a young doctor with the appropriate qualification is willing to practise in Condobolin, he or she should be allowed a provider number to practise there. Indeed, I suggest that the limitation on civil conscription under the Commonwealth's constitutional powers is, as the Bills Digest suggests:... taken to mean that while the Commonwealth Government can require medical practitioners who wish to participate in the Medicare arrangements to apply for a Medicare provider number, it (the Commonwealth) is unable to direct practitioners as to where each may practice.I put it to the House that the allocation of provider numbers is not civil conscription. There are ways and means of getting around it through a bonded scholarship. Indeed, we have situations in teaching and in the police force where people are required for a tenured period to travel to more remote areas as a condition of their employment. Why not have a similar system to that which applies to young teacher trainees where, if they accept a rural position for three years, they are essentially guaranteed a position in a location of their choice but only after contributing their services to a so-called area of need? If conventions and systems like this exist in other industries, why not in the medical profession where the recipients of that training are by and large funded at public expense?Another constant criticism of the Medicare provider number restrictions, as stated by the AMA, is a lack of options for doctors to gain pre-vocational experience with a GP practice. But there are many incentives that offer medical students an opportunity to try out general practice through placements with rural GPs. Despite these arguments from the AMA claiming experience and even job opportunities for highly trained medical graduates are greatly reduced by this legislation, the mid-term review notes that these claims are essentially unfounded and indicates the number of training positions are in fact increasing. As well as this, the review clearly states that:... it is not accurate to argue that (junior doctors) are denied access to Medicare benefits and experience in rural general practice.The review finds there are increased training opportunities, with programs like the Rural Locum Relief Program providing the chance for graduates to work in an appropriately supervised practice. The review also makes the observation in regard to the issues of training and experience that, despite programs like the Rural Locum Relief Program, feedback indicates that few Australian trained graduates have taken advantage of this program. The Clinical Assistantship Program, which is designed to provide positions for doctors unsuccessful in gaining training positions, has received no enrolments whatsoever. Where are all these unemployed doctors that the AMA speaks of? Despite this, the AMA has vehemently responded to the recommendation to remove the sunset clause, even after the Ron Phillips review found:... it would be counterproductive to morale among junior doctors to maintain the illusion that the legislation will ever be repealed ...And:... it would also provide certainty for medical students.Those are Mr Phillips's words. Removal of the sunset clause will have the effect of continuing the current requirements for all new medical practitioners who wish to access Medicare benefits to have completed or be undertaking an approved program. This is fundamental in maintaining a reasonable standard of medical practitioner broadly across the health system. It is also a window of opportunity to improve services in regional Australia by reducing the concentration of GPs in capital cities. Despite claims by the AMA that this legislation has greatly disadvantaged new medical practitioners, there is no evidence of underemployment or, indeed, unemployment among doctors as a result of the legislation. There has been a steady increase in vocational training opportunities for doctors reported by the Medical Training Review Panel. In fact, there is still a critical shortage, and no surplus, of trainees in a number of disciplines. And in the face of continued anecdotal assurances that junior doctors had missed out on a training placement, the review was unable to identify any such individual. No doctor, not one, has sought a place on the Clinical Assistantship Program, which was established as a safety net for any doctor who was unsuccessful in gaining a training position. The review maintains the sunset clause should be removed because so long as it remains so will a faint hope of returning to the good old days when junior doctors could practise medicine and attract Medicare benefits without further training or supervision.That said, there needs to be a long-term strategy dealing with the health care system, and that involves regular reviews of how things are working. The Medical Training Review Panel has been well recognised and positively regarded by the medical industry. Representing 26 medical industry bodies, with four representatives from the AMA, it has produced much needed information on training issues and has brought together stakeholders to resolve those issues. While the panel has completed much of its initial work, the review says it should continue to address the growing challenges in the medical work force environment. I suggest such a panel of review should be continued and not suspended with the sunset clause.The MTRP made a recommendation that all medical practitioners undertake a community term in their second postgraduate year, recognising that such a term includes general practice. This would be a positive step to establishing more comprehensive regional health services. The states and territories are currently considering this proposal in the light of costs. The mid-term review recommends the original proposal be referred back to the MTRP for further analysis. While this legislation appears successful in ensuring adequately trained doctors, particularly in general practice, which is now treated as a specialist area, the Medical Training Review Panel is due to cease on 1 January 2002. There needs to be a mechanism that ensures long-term and continuing review of the medical system and the various programs and initiatives trying to address some of the problems.The issue of graduate doctors not taking up positions in rural and remote areas is still a major problem, despite the opportunity offered to `try out' in general practice. The figures collected by the MTRP for its third report show the original guess of 600 to 800 training places per year for about 1,200 graduates was wrong. In 2000, there were 1,483 training places available; in 1999, 1,369; and in 1998, 1,350. Figures for the same report indicate a critical shortage of trainees in particular disciplines, including rehabilitation medicine, geriatric medicine, intensive care and psychiatry. In this regard, the University of Newcastle's planned rural mental health program at Bloomfield Hospital in Orange will hopefully begin to address this critical skills shortage and, at the same time, offer a very approachable and accessible skilling access point for rural GPs. There is a critical shortage of skills and recognition among GPs of all the signs of depression, which has caused such chaos among many in the rural community and, indeed, right across our Australian community, with a record that should shock us all—and I am sure it does. Hopefully, with the support of both the federal and state governments, that initiative will ensure that GPs, in their lonely and overburdened task of rural health, will be able to have support close at hand.Finally, while there are obvious differences in emphasis, all sides of politics support the principle that newly graduated medical practitioners should not have access to an unrestricted Medicare provider number prior to completion of training. No amount of interpretation of statistics can alter that fact, but one statistic that is irrefutable is the ageing profile of country doctors and the hard grind and unsustainability of the current processes. The supply of doctors to meet shortages in key areas and rural towns can be addressed only by tackling that constitutional issue—which I do not believe is really there, if it is put to the test—and by allocating necessary provider numbers to vacancies, wherever they are, and locations, not to individuals. 22:23:0028525O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—The Health Legislation Amendment (Medical Practitioners' Qualifications and Other Measures) Bill 2001 before us seeks to deal with the current doctor training arrangements in an effort to establish permanency whilst carefully not addressing the current difficulties. It does not adequately provide a real long-term solution—only short-term stopgaps. That is not the way to solve our rural and regional GP crisis. This can be achieved only through committed and meaningful negotiations with stakeholders.The bill repeals the sunset clause for Medicare provider numbers, introduces new pathology specimen centre arrangements and makes minor changes to the Health Insurance Act relating to procedures for registering overseas doctors. The main problem with the bill is highlighted by the government's inability to sit down and negotiate reasonable outcomes with young doctors to have supervised training—in particular, in areas of work force shortage, which are areas characterised by too few doctors and excessive waiting lists.I am pleased to be able to speak on this bill, as the provision of doctors in my electorate of Bass is vitally important. Like so many other regional cities and rural areas, the electorate of Bass and, in particular, Launceston, is suffering from a shortage of GPs. There is, I believe, a recognition from all members of the House that there is a real problem in relation to accessing medical services in regional and rural localities. The difference comes in the manner of addressing these problems.The needs of people who live in regional areas are not dissimilar to those who live in large mainland capital cities—access to a doctor when you need it. However, the reality is quite different and the levels of access vary greatly. There are specific issues faced by GPs in regional cities such as Launceston: the ability to attract locums, let alone high-calibre locums, is almost non-existent—we simply cannot offer the remuneration of larger city practices. This has led to a situation where all bar one of our local doctors have been forced to join practices because they cannot operate on their own without access to locums.The needs of our community have changed over the last three years. There must be recognition that age and socioeconomic status make consultations longer and increasingly more complex. There must also be recognition that, when looking at GP availability, it is essential we look beyond basic numerical reporting and pay attention to full-time equivalent hours. A prime example of this need is in the electorate of my colleague the member for Braddon where, of the 12 GPs who are listed as practising on King Island, only two actually practise at any given time.The amendments to the bill foreshadowed by the member for Jagajaga seek to increase access for rural and regional areas through the provision of short-term training placements in areas of work force need for postgraduate doctors—a solution that will provide relief to the difficulties that the regions are facing. Make no mistake: a solution is desperately needed.The access that people in my electorate have to the essential services provided by GPs is appalling. Indeed, at a recent function I attended organised by the northern division of general practice, the scale of the problem was very clear indeed. GPs at this function represented 25 per cent of local practices—the others, apparently, could not get the time off. A number of simple statistics gleaned from this function made an impression on me and clarified the reasons for the regularity that concerns are raised with my office regarding access to GPs. Of the practices present, 11 were looking or would be looking for new staff in the next 18 months. There are currently 16 to 18 vacancies in Launceston and, with an ageing GP population, this is set to increase in the near future as many GPs prepare for retirement. Since just January this year there has been a loss of five GPs from Launceston. This kind of loss has a real and, dare I say it, painful impact, for while it may not seem likely that a reduction of five doctors would have a large impact it has to be placed in context—the context of Launceston facing a GP crisis where over one-third of the doctors in the region have closed their books. That is the scale of the problem in Launceston. At least one in three practising GPs are not taking new patients. Most GPs are working excessive hours simply to keep up with demand. While Launceston and the whole of north-east Tasmania is facing a shortage that is impacting on the health of the community, Launceston is precluded from gaining the benefits that are available to some communities to attract or even employ overseas doctors. The reason for that is that Launceston is RRMA 3. The impact of this rating was felt recently when, in an attempt to fill a vacancy, a surgery advertised for a GP. There were only two suitable applicants, neither of whom were able to fill the vacancy—not because of a lack of skills but because each was an overseas trained doctor. The solution to this critical problem is through reassessing Launceston to ensure that it is classified as an area of work force shortage. The situation in which Launceston finds itself is, I believe, indicative of the need for the government to work closely with the AMA and representatives of young doctors in formulating a solution. Unfortunately, that need appears to be one that cannot be filled by the current Minister for Health and Aged Care.22:27:0028526Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—In the remaining time I would simply like to thank members for their contribution to this debate. As has already been outlined, the Health Legislation Amendment (Medical Practitioners' Qualifications and Other Measures) Bill 2001 contains two main areas: firstly, the amendments to the pathology collection centres and, secondly, repealing the sunset clause of the provider number bill. I note the support of the opposition for the pathology collection centre component of the bill and the fact that the opposition does not believe that the provider number restrictions should return to the pre-1996 situation. I commend the bill to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.28526Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Ms Worth) read a third time.Adjournment2852610000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Order! It being approximately 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.2852622:29:0028526Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—In May 1999 the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs published its SES Simulation Project: Validation Report. It was intended to show that the SES rating of schools was a reflection of relative need. The document stated: Schools with low SES scores have the highest number of School Card recipients and the number of recipients declines as the SES score of the school increases. For example, 33 schools (17% of schools) had SES scores less than or equal to 90. At these schools 40% of students were School Card holders. At the other end of the SES score range, 13 schools (7%) had SES scores greater than 115 and only 4% of students in receipt of assistance under school card. While on average the formula appears to work, it is not an accurate reflection of need. The reason for that is that it uses to approximate need not the resources of the school or the income of the parent but the income of the parent's neighbours. It does this by reference to the average socioeconomic circumstances of the census collection district from where each student comes. A good example of how the formula can fail is the Sunrise Christian School. It is an R to 7 coeducational primary school with about 600 students located on three campuses of about 200 students each. The school was established by the Adelaide Christian Centre to serve the community and make Christian education available to all. It has a means-tested fee structure—ranging from $130 to $510 per term—which allows it to take a large proportion of students whose parents are eligible for a health care card or school card. The school has 61 per cent of families earning $30,000 a year or less, while only eight per cent earn $50,000 a year or more. The school's three campuses are located quite some distance apart. The first is in my electorate of Kingston at Morphett Vale. As an indicator of the relatively low incomes of many of its families, 47 per cent are eligible for a school card or a health care card. It has an SES rating of 97. The second is on the other side of town in the electorate of the member for Sturt. Forty per cent of its families have a school or health care card and it has an SES rating of 98. The third is at Fullarton in the electorate of Adelaide. That is a relatively affluent area, but not all people in an affluent area are affluent. Thirty-seven per cent of the parents of children at the Fullarton campus are eligible for a school or health care card. However, because of the relative affluence of the people in that area, this school in Fullarton—with 37 per cent of the parents eligible for a health care card—has an SES rating of 114. By way of comparison, St Peter's College, which is without doubt the wealthiest category 1 private school in South Australia, has an SES rating of 116— only two points higher. Under the government's funding formula, St Peter's gets a funding increase but the Sunrise Christian School gets nothing. When the three Sunrise campuses are combined, they have an average school or health card rate of 41 per cent and an SES rating of 103. The consequence is that the Sunrise School will struggle to provide the facilities and programs that will make it attractive to parents who will know that those facilities and programs are available in another low fee Christian school not too far away. The school will have two choices. The first is that they may gradually lose those students in the higher fee paying bracket, bearing in mind that the fees are means-tested, because the parents will realise that there are better facilities and programs available at other schools for the same level of fees they are paying at Sunrise. Those other schools are receiving increases over the quadrennium of between $232 and $1,478 per student. The second choice would be to put up the fees at Sunrise, effectively excluding the children of the parents on low incomes—those whom the school was established to cater for. If the funding formula were truly needs based, the school would be able to continue providing a Christian education to children from low income families. If choice and access are important objectives of the SES funding formula, as the minister says when he is defending it in parliament, then the formula has failed the Sunrise School. The SES ratings for the Morphett Vale and Paradise campuses more accurately reflect the needs of the families from those areas using the school, but the rating for the Fullarton campus does not, and that will affect the whole school. I am seeking a meeting with the minister to discuss the SES formula with him.2852722:34:0028527Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10— Last week the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade handed down its report on visits to immigration detention centres in Australia. Having had an interest and a responsibility in this area for a number of years, I decided to read the report and follow through on some of the details. I inform the House that I was extremely disappointed with the quality of the report. There were many untested and subjective assertions in the report, assertions that were completely untested anywhere against departmental or other evidence. My first impression was one of disappointment at the failure of the committee to pursue the task that it was given by the Senate and the House of Representatives. I have known the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, for many years, even before entering this parliament, and I have found him to have been an extremely honourable and compassionate man. He is one of the founders of the parliamentary branch of Amnesty International. It is an organisation which I have not belonged to because I have not always agreed with some of the attitudes of Amnesty. Philip Ruddock has been assiduous in his stand for human rights around the world and he has been an example to many of us in his commitment. In the administration of his portfolio, I have found him to have been consistent with those ideals, compassionate, thoughtful and always caring for the needs of those that are within his responsibility. I have no trouble in coming into this House and supporting my colleague and expressing my disappointment at this report. I only have to look at some of the remarks made in the Senate by Senator McKiernan, who was also a member of that committee. Senator McKiernan has been committed to the wellbeing of migrants and has taken, at his own expense, the initiative of travelling around the world to visit detention centres and to look at the problems of refugees. Senator McKiernan commented about members of the committee that, in his observation:... although they are speaking as if they are experts on detention centres, many of them did not actually visit the detention centres. They produced a report without that valuable experience. He goes on to say that his great problem with this is that what the detainees said has not been tested. He mentions examples of drug abuse, claims that there were drugs available in the detention centres and also untested comments that are obvious through the report, such as those that appear at in paragraph 4.20 on page 34:It was alleged that 60 points per week were given at Woomera for cleaning toilets and 90 points for working in the kitchen, while Curtin only gave 28 and 24 respectively.I do not know what that is supposed to mean. I do not know why you would put that in a report unless it was of some real merit or value. I also refer the House to the report to the parliament of Australia by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration Not the Hilton. There is also a report from the Ombudsman available to the parliament. The Ombudsman said that he believed that security ought to be tightened. So when my colleagues visit detention centres and they see barbed wire they are surprised! That was a report to this parliament by the Ombudsman, saying that security was not good and needed to be changed. All in all, I believe that the attitudes of the Labor Party in particular are absolutely hypocritical in this area. The shadow minister, Mr Con Sciacca, says:A future Labor Government would under no circumstances grant a general amnesty to illegal immigrants.And:Labor—he says—will be as tough, if not tougher than the present Government on illegal immigrants.However, in practice one sees in the House on a day-to-day basis an unwillingness by the shadow minister to lead his party to a point where they will enter into pure and proper bipartisanship on these difficult issues. Nobody wants to see people coming ad hoc, willy-nilly, into Australia and no action taken against them. However, it is a responsibility of the shadow minister to do more than obstruct here and in the Senate those measures that a compassionate, thoughtful minister wants to introduce to both make life better for the refugees and also process their cases more quickly. It is my personal view that anyone coming here without papers ought to be deported. (Time expired)2852822:39:0028528Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I rise in this adjournment debate to inform the House of a tragic series of events that took place over a year and a half ago. On 1 October 1999 an incident occurred at a private residence resulting in an occupant of the house, Mr John Wason, shooting four police officers and shooting at several other police as they carried out a rescue. At 7.35 p.m. ambulance services received a call from Mr Wason requesting an ambulance for his father, whom he said had suffered a heart attack. Two ambulance officers responded to the call. Mr Wason's father was taken to hospital. The ambulance officers then notified the police, as it was obvious he had been seriously assaulted, rather than suffered a heart attack as originally reported. Mr Wason Sr died from these injuries a few days later. At 8 p.m. Sergeant Commadeur and three other police officers attended and unsuccessfully attempted to establish communications with Mr Wason, who had locked himself inside the house. At 9.35 p.m. Mr Wason appeared on the front veranda. Senior Constable Eames, a fully trained negotiator, moved to the fence line to question him and was then shot in the chest. He was shot again as he crawled to a safer position. Police officers were fired upon from close range as they tried to rescue the wounded officer. Detective Miller, attempting to stop traffic and pedestrians, was shot in the stomach and then rolled into a ditch beside the highway. Officer Commaduer and Superintendent Mansell, despite being under fire, dragged Senior Constable Eames to a safer position. Superintendent Mansell sustained injuries to his back during this rescue operation.Streets were cordoned off, and ambulances began to arrive but could not get to the seriously wounded officers due to constant rifle fire. Superintendent Mansell arranged for an armoured vehicle to retrieve Detective Miller, who was seriously wounded and still under fire. An off-duty nurse, Mary-Anne Beckmans, and two officers had reached Detective Miller and were comforting him, despite being vulnerable targets themselves. Inspector Kaminski, who was east of the house, was also shot and seriously wounded, as was as Sergeant Lakaitis, who was with him. In fact, Sergeant Lakaitis, who was wearing a bulletproof vest, had placed his body over his seriously wounded colleague to protect him and was shot in the lower leg as a result.Police officers kept Mr Wason inside his house while Superintendent Mansell removed Senior Constable Eames, who by then was in a critical condition, and transported him to hospital. The police officers had been pinned down by gunfire for an hour, and some of the wounded officers were close to death. At around midnight Special Operations Group officers arrived and, along with a relieving operations commander, set up a command post in a nearby street. The Special Operations Group eventually entered the house the next day where Mr Wason was found, having reportedly died of a self-inflicted gunshot wound.Honourable members could be forgiven for thinking that this series of events took place in Northern Ireland, in the Middle East or even in an Australian capital city. This happened in the normally peaceful community of Kangaroo Flat, approximately four kilometres from central Bendigo. Two senseless fatalities and four seriously wounded or injured police officers were the horrible consequences of this tragedy. I am pleased to inform the House that the injured officers are making good progress in recovering from their physical injuries.I raise this matter tonight because a coroner's inquiry into aspects of this incident was scheduled to conclude in Bendigo today. Hopefully, this will explain the circumstances surrounding these tragic events. This incident again demonstrates the considerable danger that police and other emergency service personnel all too often confront in the course of their duties. The officers were called to what might have been expected to be a routine domestic situation, something that is a regular occurrence in the normal daily duties of policemen and policewomen throughout our cities and towns.I know that all honourable members from both sides of this House will join with me and the central Victorian community in expressing our sincere appreciation for the way these officers and those civilians who assisted carried out their duties, at considerable personal risk to themselves. The people of Bendigo can take great comfort in knowing that we have police officers and civilians who are prepared to put their own lives at risk to protect not only their colleagues but the general public they serve so competently.2852922:43:0028529Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—Last week in parliament I raised the report of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Task Force on Violence, otherwise known as the Robertson report, after its chair, Queensland academic Boni Robertson. I publicly thank Mark Metherell of the Sydney Morning Herald for his willingness to write the story which helped bring the dark horror of this report to the full attention of Australia so that we can together fully address the issues that it raises. Also, I was recently given a copy of an article from the Herald Sun of 2 March 2000 by Andrew Bolt which is highly relevant to the current debate on this national tragedy. As a matter of fact, last week in my speech I asked Mr Clark what he had done to respond to the Robertson report. I thought at the time that I was the first to put the question to him, but it seems that Andrew Bolt had beaten me to it. His article was entitled `Forget Geneva grandstanding, Mr Clark. There's a crisis at home'. I will quote it verbatim for the Hansard. It said:I saw this girl who came in, cuffed in police custody. She was only 14 years old. She was charged with shop-lifting in town. Her mother was called and through the discussion disclosed that she was concerned her daughter had the pox.She was brought inside the Sexual Health Service for checkup ... I have never seen a girl so red raw inside. She screamed all the way through the consultation.Turns out she had been sexually assaulted since the age of three. (She) was the first person I have ever seen where I thought, “There is no hope for you.”This was from a witness to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Women's Task Force on Violence. The article continues:Geoff Clark, I beg you. Be the Aboriginal leader your people are crying out for.Call off your trip next week to Geneva, where you plan to try to embarrass Australia over mandatory sentencing.Sure, many radicals want you, as head of ATSIC, our top Aboriginal body, to make fine speeches to the United Nations.And ATSIC won't begrudge you the thousands of dollars for your trip. Hell, no—it's got $12 million a year to splash on travel and Swiss hotels.But, Geoff, there is a far more urgent battle for you to fight.Cancel Geneva. Mark your chairmanship of ATSIC by instead publicly going out bush to force everyone—“serious” journalists and black leaders in particular—finally to confront what they have ruthlessly ignored: the terrifying self-destruction of Aboriginal communities.Force them to accept that apologies, blame throwing, Olympic boycotts and teary speeches— whether in Canberra or Geneva—won't come close to ending this misery.That misery has now been exposed with brutal honesty by a task force of 15 Aboriginal women, led by Associate Professor Boni Robertson of Griffith University.Those 50 women travelled Queensland, the state with the most Aborigines, listening to their people talk of the mayhem engulfing them. Page after page of their report to the Queensland Government describes scenes of a nightmare. Scenes like the one at the top of this article.Or like this one: A three-year-old child in (one) community was sexually assaulted by three males and about 10 days later another male returned, and after sexually assaulting her, assaulted her again using a mangrove root.Or: A 10-year-old had been caring for his siblings, a one- and two-year-old, for three weeks after being abandoned by their mother. They were reported to have no money or food, and the 10-year-old was apprehended stealing food in a supermarket.The report tells of children being punched, kicked, neglected, abandoned, raped or left so hungry by drinking parents that they sniff petrol to dull the pangs.It tells of elders bashed by their grandsons for cash for booze or drugs. Of drunken men and horrific attacks on women, and of local nurses being often frightened to help.It sums up: “Appalling acts of physical brutality and sexual violence are being perpetrated within some families and across communities to a degree before unknown in indigenous life. Murders, bashings and rapes, including sexual violence against children, have reached epidemic proportions.”Recently a sad Aboriginal boy hanged himself in a Darwin jail. The media and rights activists have been in uproar since over our “racism”.Well, the Robertson task force found one Aboriginal town in which 17 youngsters killed themselves in a single year, three children died of neglect, and at least two males were murdered.Where was the anger then? The speeches in Geneva? The protests?“Something has gone desperately wrong,” the Robertson report says in anguish. Many great social “reforms”—from equal pay for stockmen and the right to alcohol, to land rights—have done too little good or much harm. Blame racism all you like, but the report says many Aborigines in fact blame the “Aboriginal industry” for now wasting much of the $2.1 billion we spend each year on Aboriginal programs. Spot on. ATSIC spends $12 million a year just on conferences, and a staggering $15 million on public affairs, communications and publications.But until last year, it spent barely a cent in three years to curb the family violence so starkly described by Boni Robertson's team. Even now it can find just $1 million for it. What a disgrace.The women behind this report won't admit outright the Aboriginal future must lie in integration. But they insist: “If a program, activity or policy has no impact on the ground, do not bother with it.”That describes Geoff Clark's trip to Geneva perfectly.Stay home, Geoff. You have real work to do right here.(Time expired)2853122:48:0028531Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I would like to turn my comments this evening to infrastructure. The Treasurer's budget speech mentioned the Scoresby Freeway in outer Melbourne, no doubt a much needed piece of infrastructure for that part of Australia, for which $220 million has already been announced and which is to be toll free. The budget papers also contain the $41 million first instalment on the Western Sydney Orbital, which will have two or three tolls. This 39-kilometre stretch of the orbital will form a vital section of the 18,500 kilometre national highway system, yet it will be the only section that will attract a toll.Presently the motorists of Western Sydney who use the M2 to travel to work are charged $3.30 each way or a total of $33.30 for the full week. If you add to this the new Western Sydney Orbital toll of a further $5 or whatever the going rate is at the time, people will be paying a weekly toll well in excess of $80. That is, of course, without coming off the M2 and using the bridge or the tunnel or the Eastern Distributor, which all attract a toll.There has been strong community and local opposition to the decision of the federal government to impose a toll on the Western Sydney Orbital. The orbital is a major piece of transport infrastructure for Western Sydney that will join the South Western Sydney Freeway at Liverpool to the Pacific Highway in Sydney's north. The orbital will run through the Labor held electorates of Greenway, Chifley, Prospect, Fowler and Werriwa. The member for Fowler has suggested a cash-back scheme for locals, saying in a press release:... otherwise they would be forced to avoid it and add to congestion on the local road systems.And, further:Someone travelling each day from Hinchinbrook to Blacktown could face a $50 a week toll collection just to get to work.The point is that many local people who will use the orbital are battling parents who have a large mortgage and who are having to cope with the higher cost of living caused by the GST. It is outrageous that this federal government will force these people to pay an extra $50-plus per week for using the orbital to get to work.A recent report from the National Audit Office indicates that approximately $2.9 billion raised through the imposition of a road user levy built into petrol prices has been diverted from the Australian Land Transport Development account into consolidated revenue. The money could be used to construct the orbital without the need for a toll. The CEO of the NRMA said in response to the orbital announcement:Motorists have been burdened with a fuel excise which has seen the federal government achieve a windfall of $470 million in revenue annually. In total the extra 3 cents per litre collected post GST is yielding an extra $960 million in fuel excise annually.The federal government collects $13 billion annually in fuel excise, but currently returns only $1.5 billion or 11.5% to road funding.In these circumstances, the federal government's argument that it cannot afford to fund such a significant national highway infrastructure project is unjustifiable. Sydney already has four toll roads, three of them feeding the west. We do not need any more.Large sections of the Pacific Highway, including the Bulahdelah bypass, are being funded by the federal government, and the Prime Minister has recently announced that the federal government will build the $1 billion Scoresby Freeway with joint funding by the federal and state governments—both without the need for a toll. These are examples of the federal government's unfair, politically motivated funding policies. The Scoresby Freeway is the Victorian equivalent of the Western Sydney Orbital but has the fortune to run through marginal Liberal seats. The Greater Western Sydney Economic Development Board is also opposed to the orbital toll. The chair of the planning infrastructure transport committee of the board, Mr Roy Medich, said:The board fully supports construction of the Western Sydney Orbital as the number one infrastructure priority for NSW.He also stated:Evidence continues to mount that a $5 orbital toll is just another example of Western Sydney motorists being financially disadvantaged while other regions are receiving similar essential services for free. The people of Western Sydney are entitled to feel they are not getting a fair go from either the federal or NSW government on this issue.The completion of economic development of Western Sydney is affected by the capacity and efficiency of the existing transport network to service commercial vehicles and freight movements. Greater Western Sydney has a population of 1.6 million people. It has a gross national product of $35 million and produces 10 per cent of the New South Wales agricultural output, yet it has no standard freeway cross-regional road. This orbital is vital for the economic development of Western Sydney, but it should be toll free.2853222:53:0028532Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise this evening to bring the attention of the House to a number of people, always hardworking, in the goldfields community. On this occasion, it is members of the Goldfields Esperance Development Commission Colin Purcell and Alison Roberts, and members of the Goldfields Esperance Area Consultative Committee Ron Yurevich and Felicity Gilbert. Ghost towns and long-abandoned historic mining settlements are among the legacies of the rich and colourful history of the goldfields area. This area includes the vibrant city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder and the mining towns of Laverton, Leonora, Leinster, Menzies and Coolgardie. However, it was once an area crammed with bustling and prosperous mining settlements nestled within a harsh and hostile environment. Life was tough, the people were tough, and their determination and efforts in such conditions can only be admired.An attempt to paint a picture of these intriguing times and to encourage people to explore this bygone era of Australian and goldfields history has recently been supported by a $126,500 federal government grant. Goldfields visitors and locals alike will benefit from the 975-kilometre Goldfields North Heritage Trail, which was given a major boost with Regional Assistance Program funding announced earlier this month. The project is an innovation of the Goldfields Esperance Development Commission and Australia Unlimited Taskforce and is endorsed by the Goldfields Esperance Area Consultative Committee.The trail will connect the communities of Kalgoorlie--Boulder, Menzies, Kookynie, Leonora, Laverton, Broad Arrow, Ora Banda and Coolgardie. Along the way it will pass through numerous historic mining settlements and ghost towns, including Davyhurst, Mt Morgans, Gwalia, Siberia, Kanowna, Mulwarrie, Yarri, Malcolm and Murrin Murrin. The area impacted by the trail will be some 45,000 square kilometres, about 66 per cent of the size of Tasmania. The idea of this heritage trail is to encourage both exploration of the ghost towns and graveyards from the bygone gold rush days and appreciation of the colourful history of the goldfields area. The trail is designed to be a two- to three-day drive using the existing road network but with several four-wheel drive options to explore off the beaten track. The main trail will be suitable for both self-drive and guided tour visitors. As well as ghost towns and graveyards, the focus will be on examples of spectacular and unique federation architecture and the remarkable and often emotional human history of the area. This concept will make a tremendous contribution both to tourism in the area and to ensuring this history is kept alive in the minds of today's generations. Too often the stories of the people who were instrumental in shaping this country are forgotten. Another aspect of the heritage trail will be the use of oral histories and audio interpretation to add a unique character to the overall heritage experience. The trail will also have a positive effect on the economies of the small towns along the trail and will help attract new visitors to the region and prolong the stay of existing visitors. Locals with a strong interest in local history also are expected to be heavy users of the trail. The developers of the trail say its creation will provide employment during its development and implementation and an ongoing and sustainable source of revenue through its potential to draw visitors to areas previously untouched by tourism. Concern for the community and regional development by members of development commissions and area consultative committees is to be commended. Without their commitment, many great federal government funding programs would go unnoticed.2853322:57:0028533Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyNP10— The announcement last week or the week before that Flight West would discontinue their services into Western Queensland and the gulf country was a very serious blow to the quality of life and essential services throughout those areas. Flight West nominated three causes for their demise. One of those causes was competition. There is absolutely no doubt that the free skies policy and the national competition policy have combined to help in the demise of Flight West. A country so sparsely populated as Australia clearly cannot sustain policies such as national competition policy. National competition policy has proved to be a disastrous failure for all of Australia, I would submit, and most certainly for rural Australia, and it needs to be abolished and replaced by some other form of legislation to avoid the monopoly position held by government utilities, which was the original reason. That brings me to the second topic I wish to raise briefly this evening, which is that the original Hilmer report on transport, which was the forerunner, the harbinger, of the national competition policy document, in fact delineated as the major reason for reform the necessity to overcome the $4,000 million of subsidies pouring into the commuter transportation system of the metropolitan areas of Australia. Not only has that subsidisation not been removed, but now it is estimated to have risen to $6,000 million—a very hard figure to delineate. I would not doubt, if in the mid-1980s it was $4,000 million, that it would now be $6,000 million.In sharp contrast, when the people of the electorate of Kennedy go to work in the morning, they have to pay 120 per cent tax on their petrol and the equivalent of about a 30 per cent tax on their motor car in a tariff to protect jobs in the big cities. We are not denying the big cities that benefit. In fact, these days I would be an enthusiastic supporter of the tariff on motor vehicles, but it makes us extremely angry when the sugar industry gets different treatment.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)— Order! It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:0028533House adjourned at 11.00 p.m. until Tuesday, 26 June 2001 at 2.30 p.m., in accordance with the resolution agreed to this day.Notices28533The following notices were given:6K6Elson, Kay, MPMrs Elson—to move:That this House:(1) acknowledges that the safety of our children should be a paramount concern for all Governments;(2) recognises current safety standards imposed on coaches and long-distance buses include the mandatory requirement that these vehicles be fitted with seat belts;(3) points out the growing evidence, from studies conducted both in Australia and overseas, that the use of seat belts on these vehicles undoubtedly saves lives in the case of accidents;(4) acknowledges that currently hundreds of thousands of Australian school children travel daily to school on buses that are not fitted with seat belts; and (5) calls on all State and Territory Governments across the nation to put safety first and move urgently to at least require all new and replacement school buses be fitted with seat belts so this safety issue is eventually and finally addressed.83OHull, Kay, MPMrs Hull—to move:That this House:(1) acknowledges the financial difficulties being experienced by certain sectors of the citrus industry;(2) recognises in particular those difficulties being experienced by the arid zone regions of southern Australia in the Riverina, Murray Valley and Riverland in particular reference to oranges;(3) commends orange growers for their willingness to engage in structural reform moving away from valencias for the juice concentrate markets towards markets for fresh fruit;(4) commends the industry for its huge effort in the export of navel oranges; and(6) calls for financial and export enhancement assistance to this significant industry in the arid zones of rural Australia.Answers to Questions in Writing28535The following answers to questions were circulated:28535(Question No. 1600)160028535Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6CanberraALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 5 June 2000:(1) How many (a) church managed and (b) privately owned nursing homes and aged persons' hostels are there in each State and Territory.(2) How many clients are there in (a) church managed and (b) privately owned nursing homes and aged persons' hostels in each State and Territory.(3) How many (a) church managed and (b) privately owned nursing homes and aged persons' hostels were listed as (i) urgent action required and (ii) action required at the commencement of the Aged Care Act 1997.(4) How many (a) church managed and (b) privately owned nursing homes and aged persons' hostels listed as (i) urgent action required and (ii) action required have been removed from those lists since 1997.(5) How many (a) church managed and (b) privately owned nursing homes and aged persons' hostels are listed as (i) urgent action required and (ii) action required as at 5 June 2000.(6) What qualifications does the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency set for quality assessors or inspectors.(7) Are quality assessors or inspectors of the Agency categorised by professions such as nursing care, hygiene, fire, building safety, staff training.(8) How many quality assessors or inspectors of the Agency are employed in each State and Territory.(9) Do approved providers have any input into the selection of quality assessors or inspectors employed by the Agency; if not, why.(10) How many inspections of (a) church managed and (b) privately owned nursing homes and aged persons' hostels have taken place since the commencement of the Aged Care Act in each State and Territory.(11) How many (a) church managed and (b) privately owned nursing homes and aged persons' hostels (i) failed an inspection and (ii) have been placed under the control of an administrator.(12) How many licences have been revoked since the commencement of the Aged Care Act in each State and Territory.(13) Since the commencement of Aged Care Act, how many (a) church managed and (b) privately owned nursing homes and aged persons' hostels have been closed and how many clients were affected in each State and Territory.(14) What were the main reasons for the closure of (a) church managed and (b) privately owned nursing homes and aged persons' hostels in each State and Territory.(15) How many (a) church managed and (b) privately owned nursing homes and aged persons' hostels have resident committees with consumer representatives.(16) Does the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency have the power to check nursing homes and aged persons' hostels at any time.(17) What is the ratio of required bathrooms and toilets per client in (a) church managed and (b) privately owned nursing homes and aged persons' hostels in each State and Territory.(18) Does this ratio vary for different levels of facilities.(19) What is the required ratio of registered nursing staff to clients in each care plan in each State and Territory.(20) What is the required ratio of trained nursing aid to clients in each care plan in each State and Territory.(21) What is the required ratio of Level 1, 2, 3 and 4 carers to clients in each care plan.(22) Are carers required to take a literacy or language test prior to employment in a nursing homes and aged persons' hostels; if not, why.(23) What is the minimum number of (a) registered nurses, (b) trained carers and (c) untrained carers required in nursing homes and aged persons' hostels at any time. (24) What are the award wage and salary levels for all staff employed in nursing homes and aged persons' hostels for each State and Territory.28536Bishop, 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) On 31 December 2000 there were 2958 services.(2) As at 1 July 2000 there were 140,811 beds allocated to services.(3) 123. (4) As at 1 July 2000, 119 of the 123 services had been removed since 1997.(5) Under the Aged Care Act the Secretary may impose sanctions on an approved provider for non-compliance with its statutory responsibilities. As at 11 August 2000, 34 services had received notices of non-compliance or sanctions.(6) This information is available under the Accreditation Grant Principles 1999.(7) See (6).(8) Sufficient assessors were engaged in addition to employed staff to enable the accreditation process to be undertaken by 31 December 2000.(9) The aged care industry has input under the provisions of the Accreditation Grant Principles 1999.(10) The Agency does not distinguish visits according to the sector. From July 1998 to the end of July 2000, the Agency conducted 3,429 visits.(11) As at 31 July 2000, five care services failed accreditation. Data about compliance action taken by the Department is not recorded by sector.(12) From the commencement of the Aged Care Act 1997 to June 2000, the Commonwealth revoked the approved provider status and the allocation of all residential care places of one privately owned service. As at 31 December 2000, a further home failed to reach accreditation or achieve exceptional circumstances, lost funding and has since closed. During the course of accreditation process 190 homes were either closed or relocated as they either could not or would not meet the new standards.(13) See (12).(14) See (12).(15) The Department does not collect such information.(16) Spot checks may be undertaken at any time.(17) This information is available on the Web.(18) See above.(19) There are no ratios under the Aged Care Act, rather the legislation requires that providers of aged care must maintain an adequate number of appropriately skilled staff to ensure that residents receive satisfactory care. The Standards for Residential Aged Care Services under the Act cover the full range of outcomes for residents.(20) See (19).(21) See (19).(22) Under the Aged Care Act 1997 approved providers are required to ensure that staff have appropriate knowledge and skills.(23) See (19).(24) The aged care industry is covered by the Workplace Relations Act 1996.28536(Question No. 1750)175028536McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 14 August 2000:(1) How many registrars worked in the (a) Federal and (b) Family Courts as at 30 June 2000.(2) How many registrars work in the (a) Federal and (b) Family Courts after 3 July 2000. (3) How many Federal Magistrates were appointed and ready to hear matters in the Federal Magistrates' Court on 3 July 2000.(4) What are the filing fees for the Magistrates' Court.(5) If the filing fees have not been settled, when will they be settled.(6) What are the rules and procedures for the Magistrates' Court.(7) If the rules and procedures for the Court have not been settled, when will they be settled.(8) When and how will practitioners and litigants of the Court know what the filing fees, rules and procedures of the Court are.(9) Are all Magistrates' Court registries to be physically separate from Family and Federal Court registries.(10) Will each Magistrates' Court have its own (a) library, (b) staff and (c) facilities.(11) Has the Government budgeted to appoint further magistrates if required.(12) Does the Magistrates' Court budget make specific provision for alternative dispute resolution; if so; what sum is provided.(13) Will the Family Court still have an alternative dispute resolution role.(14) What sum of the Family Court budget is directed to alternative dispute resolution in (a) 1999-2000 and (b) 2000-2001.28537Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) 31 (including deputy registrars). (b) 62 (including deputy registrars but not including the Principal Registrar).(2) (a) 31 (including deputy registrars). (b) 56 (including deputy registrars but not including the Principal Registrar).(3) Seven - Chief Federal Magistrate Diana Bryant, Federal Magistrate Christine Mead, Federal Magistrate Michael Baumann, Federal Magistrate Jim Brewster, Federal Magistrate Stephen Scarlett, Federal Magistrate John Coker and Federal Magistrate Warren Donald.Five Federal Magistrates commenced hearings later in July (Federal Magistrate Judy Ryan, Federal Magistrate Murray McInnis, Federal Magistrate Norah Hartnett, Federal Magistrate Kenneth Raphael and Federal Magistrate Rolf Driver).(4) The filing fees payable in respect of proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Service are prescribed in the Federal Magistrates Regulations 2000. They are set out in the attachment to this response.(5) Refer to the answer to question 4 above.(6) Subsection 43(1) of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 provides that the practice and procedure of the Federal Magistrates Service is in accordance with rules of court made under that Act. Rules have been made pursuant to section 81 of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999 to delegate powers to registrars - the Federal Magistrates (Delegation to Registrar) Rules 2000. Other Rules are currently being developed.By operation of subsection 43(2) of the Federal Magistrates Act 1999, the Family Law Rules and the Federal Court Rules apply, to the extent that the Federal Magistrates Rules are insufficient, so far as they are relevant and subject to the direction of the Federal Magistrates Service or a federal magistrate. Those are the rules which currently apply to proceedings in the Federal Magistrates Service.(7) The Federal Magistrates released draft rules for consultation in April 2001. The draft was also available on the Federal Magistrates Service web site.Information regarding the filing fees, rules and procedures of the Federal Magistrates Service can be obtained from the Service and the registries of the Family and Federal Courts. I am advised that, when the rules finalised, the Federal Magistrates Service will be publicising them, including through Law Council seminars, and posting them on the web site.(9) No.(10) The Federal Magistrates Service has been established on the basis that it shares the resources of the Federal and Family Court of Australia, where that is practical. For example, it shares accommodation, registry services and services such as libraries and videoconferencing. There are a small number of staff directly employed by the Federal Magistrates Service to undertake some central office functions and to provide personal support to federal magistrates. Therefore the answer to the question is: (a) No. (b) Yes but most services are provided by staff of the Family or Federal Courts. (c) No.The Government has decided to appoint an additional federal magistrate based in either Darwin or Adelaide, who will hear cases regularly in both locations as well as on circuit to regional areas. The position was advertised in the press on 13 January 2001, with applications closing on 16 February 2001.The Government will consider the question of further appointments as the need arises. Further funding is a matter for the Budget process.(12) Yes. $600,000 per annum for 2001-01 and 2001-02. Additionally, alternative dispute resolution services will be provided to the Federal Magistrates Service by the Family Court, to be subject to a budgetary transfer once the amount of services used by the Federal Magistrates Service can be identified with sufficient certainty.(13) Yes.(14) (a) $50.134 million. (b) $48.805 million.AttachmentFees for the Federal Magistrates ServiceDo not delete : Schedule Part placeholderItemDocument or action Fee1Filing a document by which a proceeding in the Federal Magistrates Court (other than a proceeding mentioned in item 2 or 3) seeking final orders is commenced: (a) if a corporation is liable to pay the fee$500.00 (b) in any other case $250.00 2Filing an application under section 46PO or 46PP of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986$50.003 Filing a document by which a proceeding in the Federal Magistrates Court under the Family Law Act 1975 about a financial matter or a matter under Part VII seeking final orders is commenced $100.004 Filing a document seeking interlocutory, interim or procedural orders (other than a proceeding under the Family Law Act 1975 or a proceeding mentioned in item 2): (a) if a corporation is liable to pay the fee$300.00(b) in any other case $150.005Setting down for hearing for final orders of a proceeding or an issue in question in a proceeding (other than an undefended proceeding under the Family Law Act 1975, a proceeding under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 or a proceeding mentioned in item 2):(a) if a corporation is liable to pay the fee$600.00 (b) in any other case $300.00 6 Filing, by a person other than the applicant, a document seeking the making of final orders different from those sought by the applicant (otherwise than in a proceeding under the Family Law Act 1975 or a proceeding mentioned in item 2): (a) if a corporation is liable to pay the fee$500.00(b) in any other case $250.007Filing, by a person other than the applicant, a document seeking the making of final orders different from those sought by the applicant in a proceeding under the Family Law Act 1975 about a financial matter or a matter under Part VII:(a) if a corporation is liable to pay the fee$200.00(b) in any other case $100.008Mediation by a court officer of the Federal Magistrates Court (otherwise than in a proceeding under the Family Law Act 1975 or a proceeding mentioned in item 2) —for the first attendance at the mediation $200.00 9Each service or execution, or attempted service or execution, of the process of the Federal Magistrates Court by an officer of the Court (in a proceeding other than a proceeding under the Family Law Act 1975 or a proceeding mentioned in item 2)An amount equal to the amount of any expenses reasonably incurred in the service or execution, or attempted service or execution, of the process of the Court, together with a charge calculated at the hourly rate of salary payable to the officer of the Court 10Seizure and sale of goods by an officer of the Federal Magistrates Court in the execution of the process of the Court (in a proceeding other than a proceeding under the Family Law Act 1975 or a proceeding mentioned in item 2)$2.00 for each $100.00 of value of goods Note: Fees are subject to the exemption and waiver provisions set out in Regulations 8 and 9 of the Federal Magistrates Regulations 2000.Under Regulation 7 of the Federal Magistrates Regulations 2000, no fees are payable in the following types of proceedings: (a) an application for a decree of dissolution of marriage for a marriage that was previously dissolved or annulled under the Family Law Act 1975 or the Matrimonial Causes Act 1959; (b) an application for an extension of the time within which a proceeding may be commenced; (c) a proceeding for which a Convention to which Australia is a party provides that a fee is not payable; (d) a proceeding under the Family Law Act 1975 about any of the following: (i) rescission of a decree nisi; (ii) a parenting plan; (iii) child maintenance; (iv) a recovery order within the meaning of section 67Q of that Act; (v) a custody order made by an overseas court; (vi) a custody order made by a court in Australia that is enforceable overseas; (vii) a maintenance order made by an overseas court; (viii) a maintenance order made by a court in Australia that is enforceable overseas; (ix) spousal maintenance; (x) leave, under section 102A of that Act, for a child to be examined; (xi) an application for enforcement of an order; (xii) contravention of an order; (xiii) contempt of court; (xiv) an application for an injunction under section 114 of that Act; (xv) costs; (xvi) an interlocutory, interim or procedural matter; (e) a proceeding under the Child Support (Assessment) Act 1989 or the Child Support (Registration and Collection) Act 1988; (f) a proceeding under the Family Law (Child Abduction Convention) Regulations 1986.28540(Question No. 2284)228428540Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Further to her decision to grant additional money to the Australian Greek Welfare Society and Co.As.It Victoria under the Government's Ethnic Aged Care Framework, was such a proposal canvassed with her, her office or her Department prior to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs withdrawing funding to these organisations under the Community Settlement Services Scheme; if so, who was involved in these discussions.(2) What sum of additional funding was given to the organisations under the Aged Care Framework, and what sum did they have withdrawn under the Community Settlement Services Scheme.(3) When were applications lodged by these organisations for additional funding under the Aged Care Framework and of the applications lodged, how many other organisations applied for funds at this time and what additional funding did they receive.(4) What agreement was entered into by the organisations and her Department as to how the additional funds were to be used, and how long will the additional funds apply.(5) In considering the requests for additional funding for these organisations, did she or her office receive requests for such funding from the Prime Minister, his office or any other member of the Government; if so, who made such requests and on what dates were these requests made.(6) As the Turkish Association of Victoria also lost funding under the Government's Community Settlement Services Scheme at the same time as the Australian Greek Welfare Society and Co.As.It Victoria, were any requests made at the same time for funding assistance under the Ethnic Aged Care Framework.28540Bishop, 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) to (5) The Government decided that, given that the demographic profiles of the first generation of the Greek and Italian communities are ageing, there are service needs in both communities that still need to be supported. There is no change to the amount of annual funding. The grants were transferred from the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs to the Department of Health and Aged Care. Transitional arrangements have been put in place for both organisation to complete work plans to meet the objectives of grant funding from the Department of Health and Aged Care.28540(Question No. 2360)236028540Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 8 February 2001:(1) What is the total provision of aged care nursing home and hostel places in the electoral division of Calwell.(2) How many of these are (a) private institutions and (b) Government-funded.(3) What is the breakdown of these figures in terms of the number of places in each individual facility in the electoral division of Calwell.(4) Which of these facilities are characterised as ethnic-specific in that they attempt to service people in languages other than English.28540Bishop, 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) 774 residential aged care places.(2) The Department only keeps figures on Commonwealth funded aged care homes.(3) to (4) Seventeen homes of which eight provide services that are targeted to either one specific ethnic group, or clusters of ethnic groups.28541(Question No. 2371)237128541Gillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard83LLalorALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 26 February 2001:(1) In respect of the aged care approval rounds in 1998, 1999 and 2000, (a) how many aged care places were allocated to ethno-specific services in each State, (b) how many new aged care places were allocated to ethno-specific services in each State, (c) what percentage of the aged care places allocated to each State were for ethno-specific services and (d) what percentage of the new aged care places allocated to each State were for ethno-specific services.(2) In respect of Victoria and the aged care approval rounds in 1998, 1999 and 2000, how many (a) aged care places and (b) new aged care places were allocated to ethno-specific services for the Spanish speaking community.(3) In respect of Victoria and the aged care approval rounds in 1998, 1999 and 2000, were any applications received in relation to ethno-specific services for the Spanish speaking community; if so, (a) from whom were applications received, (b) and what was the result of these applications and (c) were any applications rejected; if so, why.28541Bishop, 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) Number of new aged care places allocated to ethno-specific places in the 1998, 1999 and 2000 Aged Care Approvals Rounds by State. 199819992000TotalTotal56557511622302(2) and (3) No applications were received in the 1998, 1999 and 2000 Aged Care Approvals in relation to ethno-specific services for the Spanish speaking community in Victoria.28541(Question No. 2442)244228541Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 March 2001:(1) During the second reading speech on the Sydney Airport Demand Management Bill 1997, did the former Minister state that the Government promised a more equitable distribution of the aircraft noise problem and that they had done that, and that the Government promised a review of the flight paths for Mascot Airport and that they had done that.(2) Has the Government performed a review of the flight paths for Mascot Airport; if so, (a) what is the name of that review, (b) when did this review take place, (c) will he furnish a copy of this review, (d) does the review include a review of Sydney West Airport, (e) does the review include a review of comparative flight movements between Sydney and Sydney West Airports; if so, what is the location of Sydney West Airport, (f) in light of the Sydney West Airport Enviromnental Impact Statement (EIS) of 1996, supplementary EIS of 1997 and the proposal itself, what is the conclusion reached on the feasibility of Sydney West Airport being located at Badgerys Creek in relation to its proximity to Sydney Airport.(3) Did the former Minister state that under the Coalition, 17% of aircraft movements would be to the north; if so, have aircraft movements to the north ever reached 17% of all aircraft movements; if so, when; if not, (a) why not and (b) when will total aircraft movements to the north reach 17% of total aircraft movements.(4) Did the former Minister state that his Government would deliver on alleviating the problems as far as the second airport in the Sydney basin was concerned and that it would not be vacillating on it; if so, (a) does the Governments current policy on the Sydney West Airport differ from the Coalitions policy on Sydney West Airport as described in its aviation policy of 13 February 1996 titled Soaring Into Tomorrow.(5) Did the former Minister also state that we will not wait for 13 years to pander to different interests in some of our electorates; if so, is he able to say (a) whether the former Minister was referring to the Coalition Government and (b) which different interests the former Minister was referring to on behalf of the Coalition Government.28542Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows: (1) No such statements were made in the second reading speech on the Sydney Airport Demand Management Bill. In the debate on the Bill the Member for Lyne did make statements consistent with those referred to in the question. The Honourable Member was not a Minister at that time.(2) (a) Yes. The Long Term Operating Plan for Sydney Airport (LTOP). (b) Between March 1996 and July 1997. (c) My Office will be happy to provide a copy of LTOP documentation to the Honourable Member. (d) No. (e) See (d). (f) The EIS concluded that it would be feasible to establish an airport at Badgerys Creek.(3) In his contribution to the debate on the Sydney Airport Demand Management Bill 1997 the Member for Lyne referred to the Government's announced noise sharing targets, including a target of 17 per cent of aircraft movements being over the north. The goal of 17 per cent of movements to the north has proved difficult to achieve, but all worthwhile goals are difficult. That is why they are worthwhile.(4) and (5) The Government has announced its decision on Sydney's future airport needs. It has concluded after lengthy and careful consideration that Sydney Airport can continue to meet the growing level of air travel demand and that it would be premature to build a second major airport for the city.28542(Question No. 2446)244628542O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'ConnorWU5CorioALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 8 March 2001:What funds have been provided by the Federal Government to Geelong's Multicultural Hostel in: (a) 1995-1996; (b) 1996-1997; (c) 1997-1998; (d) 1998-1999; and (e)1999-2000.28542Bishop, 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:The Federal Government has provided funding to the Multicultural Aged Care Service Geelong as follows:Recurrent funding based on the level of care required by residents:(a) 1995/1996 $309,069(b) 1996/1997 $330,864(c) 1997/1998 $504,864(d) 1998/1999 $587,250(e) 1999/2000 $719,09828542(Question No. 2447)244728542O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'ConnorWU5CorioALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 8 March 2001:(1) How many inspections were carried out on nursing homes in the electoral division of Corio in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000.(2) How many spot checks were carried out on nursing homes in the electoral division of Corio in (a) 1996, (b) 1997, (c) 1998, (d) 1999 and (e) 2000.28542Bishop, 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:Nursing homes and hostels were unified under the Aged Care Reforms of 1997 into a single system of Aged Care Homes. The visits conducted to all aged care homes in Corio were as follows:(1) 42.(2) 3.28543(Question No. 2495)249528543Ellis, Annette, MPMs Ellis5K6CanberraALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 2 April 2001:(1) Which aged care facility in the electoral division of Canberra has the highest hostel/accommodation bond requirement.(2) What is the average hostel/accommodation bond requirement in the electoral division of Canberra.(3) What interest rate is applicable on outstanding hostel/accommodation bonds in the electoral division of Canberra.(4) How is the hostel/accommodation bond interest rate calculated.(5) At what stage can interest on hostel/accommodation bonds be charged.(6) What information are hostels required to provide to his Department in relation to their accommodation bonds.28543Bishop, 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 amount of any accommodation bond is an agreement between the resident and the provider.(2) See (1).(3) The rate of interest, if any, is agreed between the resident and the provider and must be no more than the legislated maximum permissible rate.(4) The maximum permissible interest rate is the annualised general interest charge, which is defined in the Taxation Administration Act 1953, minus four percentage points.(5) Interest, if it is specified in the accommodation bond agreement, may be levied from the date the resident enters the home. If the home was uncertified when the resident entered, the bond would not be payable and interest may not commence until the date of certification.(6) Sub-principle 1.15(4) of the Accountability Principles 1998 specifically precludes the Minister and the Department from obtaining information on an individual resident.The prudential compliance statements that providers submit annually to the Department must also include confirmation that accommodation bond balances have been refunded in accordance with the legislation and that the approved provider can repay accommodation bond balances that can be expected to fall due in the following financial year.28543(Question No. 2497)249728543Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 3 April 2001:Since the Commonwealth introduced the Roads of National Importance program, what (a) sum has been expended in (i) total and (ii) each State/Territory and what (b) projects have been undertaken in each State and Territory.28543Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a){i}{ii} Commonwealth funding for Roads of National Importance to each State and Territory is as follows:96-9797-9898-9999-0000-01(1)($m)($m)($m)($m)($m)NSW67.7574.6968.0285.28121.00VIC5.1414.6922.5627.088.70QLD15.0015.3315.3351.355.5WA-4.0715.9320.00-SA-----TAS0.30-0.700.08-NT2.50----ACT-----TOTAL(2)90.69108.78122.54183.79135.20 (1) - 2000-01 figures are estimates. (2) - totals may not add due to rounding. (b) projects undertaken under the Roads of National Importance program are as follows: Total CostC'wlth Share96/9797/9898/9999/00Expenditure to Date*Status$m$m$m$m$m$m$mNew South WalesPacific Highway2400600.0060.0066.3262.3773.85361.54OngoingKidman Way2120.007.758.253.450.8620.31CompleteSummerland Way7020.002.201.548.74OngoingMain Road 928034.000.120.22OngoingGreat Western Highway360100.008.2023.20OngoingPrinces Hwy - Nth Kiama Bypass34.000.00AnnouncedVisy Roads5.000.832.73OngoingVictoriaCalder Highway20097.275.1414.6922.5617.0868.17OngoingPakenham Bypass30.000.00AnnouncedGeelong Road240120.0010.0010.00OngoingAlbury Boulevard7035.000.00AnnouncedQueenslandPacific Highway1000150.0015.0015.3315.3331.3577.01OngoingGladstone Port Access Road156.000.00AnnouncedPort of Brisbane Access Road15148.6020.0025.50OngoingTownsville Ring Road4120.500.00AnnouncedWestern AustraliaMt Keith to Wiluna3525.002.227.5815.2025.00CompleteMitchell Freeway7515.001.858.354.8015.00CompleteRoe Highway9376.000.00AnnouncedSouth AustraliaGilman Highway9018.500.00AnnouncedTasmaniaDevonport Port Access Road21.100.300.700.081.08CompleteNorthern TerritoryTiger Brennan Drive2.502.502.50CompleteTotal4,9431,458.4790.69108.78122.54183.79641.00 * Includes estimate of 2000-01 expenditure.28544(Question No. 2499)249928544Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 3 April 2001:(1) What sum has been spent by the Commonwealth Government in association with the NSW Government in the Route Selection Study for the Murrumbateman Bypass, and how has this been expended.(2) With respect to the Connell Wagner Pty Ltd draft Preferred Route Selection Report (October 2000) recommending the East Outer route as the preferred option, did the Director, Road Network Infrastructure, NSW Roads and Traffic Authority claim in a letter of 21 January 2001 to his Department that a copy of the Draft Report had been made available to the Member for Hume; if so, did he, or his office or his Department make the draft report available to Mr Schultz.(3) If Mr Schultz has a copy of the Draft Report, why did his Department argue in its letter of 11 January 2001 to the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority that it appreciated that the current draft was a semi-public document but it did not believe that it was a suitable basis for public comment in its current form.(4) In his letter of January 2001, did the Director, Road Network Infrastructure, NSW Roads and Traffic Authority, request his Department to provide substantive information on its criticism of the Connell Wagner Pty Ltd draft Preferred Route Selection Report (October 2000), including (a) specific detail where the consultants ratings were in error, (b) advice on what relevant issues had not been explored thoroughly and (c) criteria of specific importance to his Department; if so what is his Department's response to the questions.28545Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Roads and Traffic Authority has advised that it has paid approximately $140,000 to Connell Wagner for work in relation to the Route Selection Study. These funds are sourced from the Federal Government's National Highway system funding.(2) My office made a copy of the Draft Report available to Mr Schultz.(3) My Department has advised me that this was, and continues to be, its view.(4) These issues were discussed between my Department, the Roads and Traffic Authority and Connell Wagner Pty Ltd, and taken into account in the Route Selection Report, which was released on 1 May 2001 for public comment up to 14 June 2001.28545(Question No. 2507)250728545McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 4 April 2001:(1) How many groups or organisations have been granted special needs status under the Special Needs Category of the Aged Care Act in each of the past three years.(2) What was the breakdown of these groups over the three year period on a State by State basis.(3) What criteria are used by her to determine whether an organisation is granted special needs status.(4) How many organisations in this funding year have been granted special needs status and how many applications were received.28545Bishop, 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) Groups and organisations are not granted special needs status. Section 11-3 of the Aged Care Act 1997 (the Act) provides that, for the purposes of the Act and its principles, the following people are “people with special needs”:· People from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities;· People from non-English speaking backgrounds;· People who live in rural or remote areas;· People who are financially or socially disadvantaged; · People of a kind (if any) specified in the Allocation Principles; and· Veterans(2), (3) and (4) See above.28546(Question No. 2555)255528546Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) Further to the Government's announcement to sell Bankstown Airport in the second half of 2002, does the Bankstown Airport Limited Environment Strategy of March 2001 provide that a Master Plan must be prepared within 12 months of privatisation of the airport or by 30 June 2001, whichever occurs first.(2) If so, what is the status of this requirement given the Governments delay in the proposed sale of Bankstown Airport.28546Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Environment Strategy prepared by Bankstown Airport that I approved in March 2000 does indicate that a Master Plan would be prepared within 12 months of privatisation of the airport or by 30 June 2001, whichever occurs first.(2) Given the impending sale of Bankstown Airport, I have extended the deadline for the submission of a draft Master Plan for Bankstown to 30 September 2003 or no later than 12 months after the transfer of the lease to a new private operator.28546(Question No. 2578)257828546McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 23 May 2001:(1) Is the Minister able to say what is the current scientific opinion regarding the danger of electromagnetic radiation emitted from mobile telephone towers.(2) What federal laws apply to the location of mobile telephone towers.28546McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The weight of scientific opinion is that there is no substantiated evidence of adverse public health effects from exposure to electromagnetic energy (EME) at the levels experienced by the general public. No evidence clearly linking EME emissions from radiocommunications devices, including mobile telephone towers, to adverse health effects was presented to the recent Inquiry by the Senate Environment, Communications, Information Technology and the Arts References Committee.As part of the EME research program, funded by a levy on apparatus licences issued under the Radiocommunications Act 1992, the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has taken detailed measurements of EME levels around a selected number of mobile telephone base stations throughout Australia. These measurements established that mobile telephone base stations produce EME exposures at levels far below relevant public exposure limits as mandated by the Australian Communications Authority in the Radiocommunications (Electromagnetic Radiation - Human Exposure) Standard 1999.(2) The Telecommunications Act 1997 removed many exemptions that telecommunications carriers previously enjoyed from the provisions of State and Territory planning and environment laws. Under this Act, responsibility for approving the siting of most telecommunications facilities rests with the relevant States and Territory authorities.However, there are a limited number of exceptions. Schedule 3 of the Act provides immunity from State and Territory laws for telecommunications carriers installing facilities and undertaking activities that fall within the ambit of the Telecommunications (Low Impact Facilities) Determination 1997.When installing low impact facilities, telecommunications carriers are still required to comply with rules of conduct that are set out in the Act, and in the Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997.28547(Question No. 2585)258528547Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 May 2001:(1) What are the reasons for Senator Helen Coonan being chosen as Chairperson of the Sydney Airport Community Forum.(2) Has he seen the comments of Senator Coonan, reported in the Sydney Morning Herald on 17 May 2001 where the Senator urged members to word some motions better, suggesting that poor use of language was one reason why inadequate responses from the Government may have been given.(3) Has the poor use of language impeded the satisfactory resolution of aircraft noise problems at Sydney Airport.28547Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Senator Coonan's background and experience will make her an excellent Chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum.(2) and (3) Clearly the better resolutions passed by the Sydney Airport Community Forum are worded the better they will convey the views of the Forum to the Government. The Government has been very responsive to the wishes of the Forum. I indicated in my response to question No 929 that approximately half of the SACF resolutions which have sought action outcomes have been implemented or accepted for implementation.28547(Question No. 2618)261828547Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) Will the main road known as QANTAS Drive into Sydney Airport become a tollway or a restricted road when the airport is sold.(2) Has he received a letter from the NSW Minister for Transport on this matter; if so, will he table a copy of this letter in the House.28547Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Government wants to ensure that current access arrangements for Qantas Drive continue when the Airport is privatised. The sale arrangements will make it clear that the new operator will not be permitted to impose a toll on the use of Qantas Drive or restrict access.(2) Mr Scully wrote to me in March 2001 about this matter and I replied as indicated above.28547(Question No. 2635)263528547Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 5 June 2001:In relation to the position of Chairperson of Symphony Australia, (a) who is the Chairperson, (b) when (i) did the Chairperson take his or her position and (ii) does his or her term end, (c) how is the position of Chairperson filled and (d) what are the terms, conditions and entitlements, including salary, travel and other allowances, attached to the position of Chairperson of Symphony Australia.28547McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Managing Director of Symphony Australia Holdings Pty Ltd has provided the following information: (a) Ms Wendy McCarthy AO. (b) (i) 4 September 2000. (ii) the term is undefined. (c) the Chairperson is appointed by the Board of Symphony Australia Holdings Pty Ltd, a company incorporated under the Corporations law. (d) The appointment of the Chairperson is governed by the Company's Constitution. There is no entitlement to salary. No travel or other allowances have been paid.