2001-08-0639110REPS2909902001-08-06—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m. and read prayers.Committees29099290992909912:31:0029099Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the committee's report entitled Extradition: A review of Australia's law and policy—Report 40, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.FB6Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSON—The report I have just tabled contains the results of an inquiry by the treaties committee into Australia's extradition law and policy. Over the past 20 years some high profile extradition cases, including those involving Robert Trimbole, the late Christopher Skase and certain alleged World War II criminals such as Konrad Kalejs, have attracted considerable public attention and debate in Australia. It is clearly in the interests of Australia, and other nations, to have in place an effective network that prevents criminals from escaping justice, especially those involved in transborder crimes such as money laundering, drug trafficking and people-smuggling. We believe it is in our interest to ensure that Australia does not become a haven for those who have committed serious offences elsewhere.At the same time, however, it is important to ensure that people are protected against false allegations, unlawful prosecution and possible punishment in countries outside Australia. It is balancing these competing concerns that is at the very heart of extradition policy. Australia's current approach to extradition derives from the Extradition Act 1988. This act introduced major changes to our extradition arrangements, the most significant of which was to introduce a `no evidence' model as the default option for new treaties that Australia entered into. Under this model, a country requesting extradition of an Australian citizen to face trial abroad need not produce any evidence to support the allegations of criminal conduct; instead, the requesting country need only supply a statement of the alleged conduct.This model represents a radical departure from the requirements that had previously applied, and that still apply, under Australia's extradition arrangements with other Commonwealth countries—that is, a prima facie standard of evidence must be shown before a person can be surrendered. During our examination last year of Australia's proposed extradition treaty with Latvia, we on the committee became concerned that the no evidence model may not provide sufficient protection for Australians who are accused of crimes in other countries. Accordingly, we decided to conduct this review.Having received and considered evidence on the issue, we do not favour the continuation of the no evidence approach to extradition. Other countries such as the United States, which is our main extradition partner, and Canada require a higher standard of proof before their courts will agree that one of their citizens should be surrendered. We consider that similar standards should be applied in relation to requests for extradition of our own citizens from Australia. We are not suggesting that a minitrial should be held in Australia before a person is surrendered to another country to face charges, but we are strongly of the view that justice demands that our courts should be able to scrutinise at least some evidence more closely than is currently the case before one of our own citizens is surrendered to face prosecution abroad.Because our inquiry has revealed a wide range of views on precisely what higher standard should apply before surrender takes place, we believe there should be further consultation with the legal profession and other interested parties before a final model is determined. We think the most appropriate vehicle for this further consultation and consideration is the Australian Law Reform Commission. The commission has the experience, resources, expertise and, more importantly, the independence necessary to conduct a comprehensive examination of the merits and consequences of raising the evidentiary standard. It must be said in this context that some officials within the executive in this country do not favour raising the evidentiary standard: they see anything in the way of a successful extradition as somehow being against public policy. We disagree with that. We consider that the terms of reference for the commission's review should be sufficiently broad to allow examination not just of the evidentiary standard but also of certain other matters that I do not have the time to go into now. I urge those listening to the debate today to pay attention to what other members of the committee have to say about this report. We considered it in great detail, and it was a matter of conscience for some members. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)12:36:0029100Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The purpose of the inquiry of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties was to deal with the problems of extradition, about which—with some high profile people attracting public attention—there has been considerable debate in Australia. It seems somewhat ironic that this report, entitled Extradition: A review of Australia's law and policy, has been tabled on the day Christopher Skase has purportedly died. According to his lawyers and others in Majorca, it seems that he has finally escaped the extradition proceedings altogether.Other important issues were raised in submissions and during our hearings. They were: the appropriate division of responsibility between the executive and the courts in determining extradition matters; the inability of the person whose extradition has been sought to present evidence, such as alibi evidence; the presumption against bail; and, the type of offence for which extradition is available. As noted previously, the Attorney-General—or the Minister for Justice and Customs, acting on the Attorney-General's behalf—has final responsibility for determining whether to surrender a person on request by a foreign country. Traditionally extradition has been an executive function. As the Attorney-General's Department explained:Extradition involves issues of international relations as well as justice. For reasons of diplomacy a government may wish to describe its grounds for refusing an extradition in less confrontational terms than a strict legal consideration of the position might suggest. Moreover, a government may have access to confidential sources of information on the internal affairs of a requesting country; significant problems could result from any need to substantiate such information in court.There may be occasions when consideration needs to be given to the possibility of refusing extradition of an otherwise eligible person because of concerns about whether an extradition partner is fulfilling its obligations under the relevant arrangement or treaty, or indeed whether there are conditions or developments in the country which make it an unsuitable treaty partner. These are all matters which a minister is better positioned to handle than are the courts ...There were strong arguments throughout the hearings to suggest that courts should have an expanded role in scrutinising the evidence presented by a requesting country. This should include consideration of objections to extradition and other evidence, such as strong exculpatory evidence led by persons who are subject to extradition, to help determine whether a person is an extraditable person. There were also arguments to suggest that the presumption against bail may be overly strict in some cases, with the current threshold being too low, and that a person who has been surrendered to another country to face trail should not have to pay for the cost of his or her return to Australia.Overall the committee recommended that, because the law relating to extradition is so complex and changes could have significant consequences, a further consultation and an ongoing review should give consideration to these matters in more detail. It is important that we work on the premise of Western democracy and law that a person is innocent until proven guilty. We must be sure that the rights of a person being sought for extradition are not in any way expunged by administrative expediency. I commend the report to the House. A good deal of work has gone into the report. This is a very complex issue, which the committee has given good consideration to in the report.12:41:0029100Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I am also pleased to lend my support to the 40th report of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties entitled Extradition: A review of Australia's law and policy. The member for Lyons remarked on the irony of the apparent passing of Christopher Skase on the same day that this report has been tabled. Perhaps it will be of far more relevance and interest to the fourth estate, which may find some interest in reading through this report. This report is not framed in a hugely holistic tome sort of way, although there are some learned legal types on the committee. Without wishing to be offensive, the committee is made up of far more practical people—ordinary members of parliament from various walks of life. I am sure that the QCs and others who are deliberately interested in this area will pull it apart and seek some views from other bodies such as the Law Reform Commission, which is one of the recommendations of the inquiry.The report proves that Australia has some very tough immigration laws. When you review the whole matter of extradition in Australia, there are not too many cases of people wanting to take those who come to this country out of this country to face some trial somewhere else. The recent case of Konrad Kalejs perhaps stands out against that broad statement. Our immigration laws put some very hard pressure on those aspiring to come and live here—or, indeed, to visit here—to prove the quality of their character. Australia has not become a safe haven for criminals around the world. I remember Ronald Biggs was here at one stage in the 1960s, but moved on to somewhere else. This perhaps proves the efficacy of inquiring into the character of those who try to come here. By the same token, there are many in our community who would like to see us apply lower standards to some who come here as refugees and to deal with them in a far more timely fashion.This country has standards that value individuals. As this report highlights, the proof of evidence—the demand for a case to be put for someone to be taken from our shores to somewhere else—is very demanding. We are not advocating a series of minitrials for any who may come this way, but we do not want to see countries lever out someone who was perhaps a political activist in their old country. Many in my electorate have come from the Horn of Africa with a political belief different from that of the ruling party. We do not want to see these people being levered out of a safe haven here in Australia just because someone wanted to put them on some sort of trial for some kind of political reason. The committee do not see extradition as simply an administrative process where a request is filled over a period of time; we believe it is quite fair and reasonable to demand some sort of proof of evidence—some sort of understanding—that the charge made is not spurious, and that it is something that will stick.We also express some concern about the penalty that may face someone should they face trial. There are arrangements in place to ensure that people taken out of this country are not going to face the death penalty and other penalties such as torture, because we in this country do not believe in those sorts of penalties. But, as I said, there are those who would like to see illegal migrants or aspiring refugees who land on this shore dealt with in a far more curt way—in other words, sent straight back. But we, as a generous nation, offer them the opportunity to put their case, to produce their evidence and to stake their claim for refugee status. If they do establish that—as some five per cent of the people who come to this country seem to manage to do—they are afforded the opportunity to stay. We even go so far as to extend the generosity of the right of appeal in these matters. Of course, those opposite are very sluggish in their support of us trying to streamline these matters and are, in fact, facing a deal of condemnation from the broad community. There are a lot of people who are more than a little dissatisfied with the way our generous systems are being abused by those who seek to make a lot of money out of the process of appeal and the process of representing people who may face forced extradition from this country. With CHOGM coming, and some of the notable hoons and hooligans who come from countries whose standards are not as good as ours who want to bring violent and heated protests into my city of Brisbane, I hope that we will look at a big stick approach to threaten those people with far faster extradition than is currently the case. But those matters are not directly associated with this report. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired)12:46:0029102Wilkie, Kim, MPMr WILKIE84GSwanALP00—In the course of this inquiry, the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties heard conflicting evidence from various witnesses about the suitability of a no evidence provision in the extradition process. On the one hand, there were those who supported the no evidence provision because it represents a practical means of facilitating the extradition process—a position that reflects the original reason that the no evidence rule was introduced in around 1985 by the government of the day. It is a practical approach because of the differences between countries in their legal systems and the rules of evidence which apply. It is still a requirement under the no evidence provision that a statement of the alleged conduct be supplied. We received evidence from the Attorney-General's Department, who stated that the adoption of the no evidence procedure had facilitated entry into extradition treaties with civil law countries and that, since the option had become available, 30 bilateral treaties had been negotiated or renegotiated, compared with only five in the previous 19 years. Australia has entered into extradition treaties only with countries where it believes that an individual would receive a fair trial if they were extradited. So some very good arguments and evidence have been presented as to why a no evidence provision should apply. On the other hand, the accused must be afforded fair treatment by the legal system, and there are those who are of the belief that `no evidence' does not allow for this. We received evidence regarding the prima facie case. Several witnesses to the inquiry criticised the abandonment of that test in favour of the no evidence model. They were particularly concerned that this move had effectively taken from the courts the responsibility of safeguarding the rights of individuals and left it in the hands of the executive. It is, therefore, appropriate that the Australian Law Reform Commission undertake a more detailed investigation into this matter and make recommendations to parliament. These recommendations could then be used to develop a framework for Australia on the level of evidence that would need to be presented before extradition could take place. Until that investigation has taken place, I believe that parliament could not be adequately informed to allow it to make recommendations on this aspect of extradition policy. It is logical to recommend, for example, that the no evidence model be discontinued while at the same time recommending that the Australian Law Reform Commission undertake an investigation into this matter. It is good to see that we are actually going to be investigating those issues.The treaties committee identified several different models in addition to the no evidence model that is available at the moment that the Australian Law Reform Commission could consider and provide recommendations on. It is far more appropriate to pursue this course of action, so that the parliament can ultimately make informed decisions on extradition policy. It is also appropriate that the Australian Law Reform Commission investigate some of the broader aspects of extradition policy. Again, the treaties committee should base its recommendations on extradition policy on the advice it receives from the Australian Law Reform Commission. These two recommendations are appropriate, and should be supported. I commend the report to the House.29102Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000SPEAKER, MrMr 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.Bills29102R134229102Bill presented by Mr Beazley, and read a first time.12:50:0029102Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, in presenting the Government Advertising (Objectivity, Fairness and Accountability) Bill 2000, we note that the Australian public have a right to be cynical about politicians spending their money on advertising campaigns. Since the government came to power in 1996, every Australian family has paid at least $108 in tax towards this government's advertising. That is $108 per family. In five years this government has spent at least $550 million in advertising expenditure. Compared to the last five years when Labor was in office, government advertising under this government has trebled. But it gets worse. In the lead-up to the next election, the government will spend around $20 million a month—all in an attempt to save its political hide. To anyone who has seen those ads, it is abundantly clear that this is not advertising simply to inform the community about government programs, but advertising to promote the political agenda of this government. That is why the Labor Party will do its best to try to stop this misuse of taxpayers' funds with this bill I present today. Last year this government was Australia's biggest spender on advertising—beating Coca-Cola, Telstra, Coles Myer, McDonald's, Toyota and other major corporations. Think of the number of times you have seen a McDonald's commercial or a Coca-Cola commercial in recent times; then ponder on the fact that the Howard government has actually spent more on advertising. This is money that should have been spent on better hospitals and better schools, not on a desperate bid to be re-elected. This government will not address the need for better hospitals and schools, but it will spend millions of dollars on advertising to help it win the next election. No wonder people are cynical about politics, when they see the huge amount this government is wasting on advertisements. Australians will not be tricked into believing this propaganda.In the last two months, we have been bombarded with political advertisements on issues ranging from social matters to tax issues. But this is just the beginning. In recent months you would have seen several campaigns, including the private health insurance gap ads, which will cost the Australian taxpayer $15 million over the next three months. As my colleague Jenny Macklin, Labor's health spokesperson, has said, this amount could fund 1,250 hip replacements or 1,000 operations. Should we be elected to office, we have already identified, in the area that Jenny Macklin will represent as minister for health, $90 million for a cancer program—something which affects the lives of just about every Australian family. How much better that we spend it on that, rather than looting the public purse for the purposes of this ignoble government and the wretched political party underpinning it. If the government wants to inform private health insurance subscribers of their rights, it should get the information to those people alone, not the entire electorate. Why does the government have to spend millions of dollars advertising something that should be paid not by the Australian taxpayer but by the private health insurance companies? They are not short of a quid, with absolutely bulging coffers at this moment.We have also seen a $4.1 million ad campaign to publicise budget measures for pensioners and retiree benefits. This figure could rise as high as $6 million once production and research costs are taken into account. But this information could have been sent through a mail-out to those affected. This would have been a much cheaper and more effective method. There is no reason why the government needed to spend millions to inform pensioners anyway; the $300 that they are getting from the budget would be automatically deposited into their accounts. It is an absolute scandal that the money is spent on this advertising rather than on the many other needs of the elderly.Then there was the $5 million campaign on the abolition of the financial institutions duty. This is a state tax—and the whole kit and caboodle of any benefit of that financial institutions duty change has been seized by the banks in massively increased bank charges. This government does not even have the guts to go to the banks and say, `You will pass this on to consumers. You will put in place a social contract to ensure that the elderly and families are given decent services.' It has not got the courage to do that. It put out that $5 million campaign on that state tax—the financial institutions duty—and the banks got it all; the public got nothing. But I did not notice that featuring in any of the ads. Let us not forget the $6 million for an advertising campaign to encourage farmers to apply for a grant on the Agriculture—Advancing Australia scheme. With this money, every Australian farmer could have received 60 letters encouraging him or her to apply for the grant. But wait, there's more! The Howard government will soon launch three, possibly four, more advertising campaigns. The government has already started producing its $6.7 million Telstra Networking the Nation advertising program, in an attempt to try to highlight the service delivery to the bush. But rural and regional Australia is not going to be fooled by the propaganda. Instead of actually spending the $6.7 million on programs that will help the bush, it has spent that amount on advertising, in the vain hope that it will convince the electorate to vote for the third round of Telstra privatisation. `Not on your nelly,' say the people in regional Australia—as I have occasion to know, having spent a couple of weeks with them in the course of the last six weeks, talking to them about Telstra. I know exactly what they think about the proposition on privatisation, and they are our views, not the views of this government. We also know that the government has started filming a $4.2 million advertising campaign to promote its Work for the Dole program. This program has failed to help the unemployed, and it has no real training component, particularly for the long-term unemployed. We are just starting to see the corrupt scandals emerging with the government's Job Network program—and I bet they will not be advertising any of the corruption on that front!There is also in the pipeline a $5 million campaign to highlight John Howard's innovation strategy—a totally inadequate strategy unveiled last January. Why have they waited this long to highlight it with an expensive advertising campaign? We all know that this government decimated research and development programs, industry research and university funding over the last five years. Now it is trying to play catch-up with Labor's Knowledge Nation. We are flattered, but it will spend $5 million on advertising, which could have been spent on those very programs, its catch-up with Labor's Knowledge Nation.We also hear that there is going to be another major advertising campaign, would you believe: $4.5 million going into advertisements for a Jobs Network campaign in the first half of the financial year, to maintain the momentum of information. It will be maintaining the momentum of corruption—and there will be no information associated with that. There will be $4.5 million of public funds going to that effort.These are not genuine information campaigns. Paul Gardner, chairman of one of the top advertising agencies in Australia, Grey Worldwide, recently told the Australian, when asked his opinion on the `no gap' ads and the new pension payment advertisements: And I think in some cases, the Government is selling rather than telling ... they certainly deliver information in a way that paints the Government in a better light.He is absolutely right. This government is in the business of selling rather than telling, and always has been. Who could forget the `Unchain my heart' campaign last year in the lead-up the GST? This campaign was not informative, it was certainly not objective, and it was definitely political. If the government had followed the Auditor-General's recommended rules, the `Unchain my heart' campaign would never have been aired. And yet this government spent $46 million on the `Unchain my heart' ads—the most expensive ad campaign ever undertaken in this country. The `Unchain my heart' ads claimed that Australia would move from a tax regime that was restrictive to a tax regime that was simpler. What a remarkable assertion that was. It never pointed out that there would be a surge in employment at the tax office, with excise inspectors and officials—at least 4,000 at the tax office and the ACCC and 500 in Customs—to monitor this simpler tax regime.Nor did the campaign point out that the number of pages in legislation would skyrocket under their new simple system. Nor did it explain the number of people who would now find themselves unpaid tax collectors. Even the tax office is admitting to customers how complex this tax system is, and yet the advertisements claimed it would `unchain our hearts'. It has unchained our anger; there is no doubt about that. This is one of the scandals for which the Australian people are unanimous in their condemnation of the Howard government. It is important to be reminded of the central tenets on advertising adopted by the Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit which the Howard government has refused to adopt. The committee stated last year that information campaigns should be justified by a cost benefit analysis. The nature of the campaign should be justified in terms of society's needs, efficiency and effectiveness. It stated that care should be taken to ensure that media placement of government advertising is determined on a needs basis and targeted accordingly. But do you think that John Howard has paid any attention to these recommendations? Of course he has not. If he had, he would not be spending $20 million a month in the lead-up to the next federal election. Not only has he ignored the Auditor-General's recommendations; he has also ignored his Liberal led Joint Committee on Public Accounts and Audit which signed off on these guidelines. That is why I present this bill today. It will do what this government will not: stop the blatant waste of money for political gain. If Labor is elected, we will get rid of the `sell' in political advertisements and make sure that all political advertising is informative. It was the Prime Minister who in September 1995 said: We will ask the Auditor-General to establish a set of guidelines and we will run our advertisements past the Auditor-General and they will need to satisfy those guidelines.That promise, like so many others, was a non-core promise.Let me outline what this bill does and where it comes from. This bill will amend the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997 to require government advertising to meet minimum standards with respect to objectivity, fairness and accountability. It will prohibit expenditure of taxpayers' money on advertising which promotes party political interests. The bill makes it improper to use, or permit to be used, any public money for a government information program unless that program is in accordance with the principles and guidelines for use of government advertising. This is in addition to the other ways in which public money may be improperly used or disposed of. The bill has been redrafted from its earlier version to streamline and improve some of its language and provisions. Importantly, it allows an advertising campaign to be immediately stopped by a court order if it breaches the guidelines. A failure to stop such an advertisement would then be punishable as a contempt of court. This means that a government minister who allows, or continues to allow, improper advertising would face a hefty fine or a period of imprisonment. The bill sets out principles and guidelines for the use of government advertising which are substantially the same as the draft guidelines recommended in October 1998 by the Auditor-General. This followed a report on the government's $15 million tax reform advertising campaign in the lead-up to the 1998 general election. You will remember that campaign. Nowhere in the two weeks of campaigning and the huge expenditure were the words `goods and services tax' mentioned. The Auditor-General found that to be an absurdity, given that at the heart of the government's proposals was a $30 billion gorilla of a new tax.The Labor Party understands that governments have to inform people. We are not saying that governments should be excluded from advertising, and this bill would not do that. We know that there are a number of campaigns such as health warnings, health problems and modest, well-targeted defence recruitment—governments are obliged to spend money in the community's interest. But there is the potential for abuse here, and therefore there need to be sensible safeguards. The principles and guidelines we propose, among other things, are: government advertising material should be relevant to government responsibilities; this material should be presented in an objective and fair manner; that the information in government advertising should be based on accurate, verifiable facts which are carefully and precisely expressed in conformity with those facts; no claim or statements should be made that cannot be substantiated; the recipient of the information should always be able to distinguish clearly and easily between facts on one hand and comment, opinion and analysis on the other; material should not be liable to misrepresentation as party political; information campaigns should not be intentionally promoting, or perceived to be promoting, party political interests; material should be presented in an unbiased and objective language and in a manner free from partisan promotion of government policy and political argument; material should not directly attack or scorn the views, policies or actions of others; no information campaigns should be undertaken without a justifiable cost benefit analysis; the cost of the chosen scale and methods of communicating information must be justifiable in terms of achieving the identified objectives at the least practicable expense. Nobody should be fooled by this government's campaign of advertising. Nobody is fooled. Everybody knows it to be the corruption that it is. And everybody knows and has their favourite program which would really serve the needs of the people of Australia if that program were to be funded out of this advertising money. In our case you can bet your bottom dollar it will be. (Time expired)Ordered that the second reading be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Private Members' Business291062910613:06:0029106Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER848BarkerLP10—I move:That this House:(1) expresses its support for the development of the Kokoda Track as a National Memorial Park; and(2) calls on the Government to: (a) support and fund the construction of an all weather road from Kokoda to Ower's Corner, and of educational memorials at each of the battle sites along the Track; (b) commemorate the 60th anniversary of our brave armed forces campaign with an Anzac Day Dawn Service in 2002 at Ower's Corner; and (c) establish a project team to oversee these matters, consisting of representatives of the Departments of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Foreign Affairs, Defence, Veterans' Affairs and Environment and Heritage.It gives me enormous pleasure to introduce into the House and to speak on this motion today, because I think what we are trying to achieve today is something that all Australians can identify with. In giving some background on what brought me to be so enthusiastic about this proposal to commemorate the diggers and the local fuzzy wuzzy angels and what they did in the Second World War on the Kokoda Track, it would be remiss of me not to mention the long and untiring efforts of the Hon. Charlie Lynn, a member of the New South Wales upper house, who first brought my attention to this proposal. I first heard about it earlier in the year when Charlie spoke at a function held in Meningie, in the electorate of Barker, which I was privileged to attend. Over 100 people were as spellbound as I was when Charlie spoke at length of his own personal experiences and the stories that he had learned over the years.I also have a personal connection in that my middle name of Damien was selected by my parents because of the famous and heroic efforts of that great wartime photographer Damien Parer, the first Australian to win an Oscar for his work and who in fact died in action. As I was born on the anniversary of D-day in the Second World War, it was quite appropriate. If it were not for Charlie Lynn, I would not be here today trying to repeat some of his enthusiasm for this memorial. I know he had planned to be here today, but unfortunately circumstances beyond his control have not allowed this to happen.I do not think it is too full of hyperbole to state that our diggers' efforts at Kokoda are the Second World War equivalent of Gallipoli, and it is a shame on this country that people know more about the story of the Alamo in Texas, United States, than they know about the Kokoda Track. The horrific odds faced by our diggers at Kokoda were far greater than those heroes at the Alamo, but we still have not seen a film about it, for instance, even though there has been a film script written. I have no doubt that if this were an American story there would have been several films made about our service men and women's efforts to stop the Japanese invasion in horrific conditions and against all odds. On 24 July 1942, a superior Japanese force launched an attack on a small band of Australian defenders, and the Papuan infantry dug in on the Kokoda plateau. Their objective was to cross the Owen Stanley range in Papua New Guinea and capture the strategic city of Port Moresby. The Australian diggers were young, outnumbered and outgunned. During the next three months the Australians forced the Japanese to contest every inch of the rugged and treacherous Kokoda Track as they advanced towards the Japanese objective of capturing Port Moresby. In fact, the first Victoria Cross won on Australian soil was posthumously awarded to Private Bruce Kingsbury of the 2/14th Battalion during the Battle of Isurava.The Australians rallied at the last ridgeline at Imita Ridge, a mere 40 kilometres from Port Moresby. The hugely more powerful and numbered Japanese force had stretched their resources to the limit in attempting toannihilate the Australians and on 17 September 1942 were ordered to conduct a fighting withdrawal to the beachheads of Buna and Gona on the northern coast of Papua New Guinea. Australian reinforcements and Japanese setbacks at Guadalcanal and the Battle of Milne Bay saved Port Moresby.The Australians pursued the Japanese with great courage and vigour and reoccupied the village of Kokoda on 2 November 1942. The fighting from July to November cost 607 lives, with more than 1,000 serious injuries. One would only have to trek across the Kokoda Track now to realise what an almost impossible task it would have been against the overwhelming odds faced by our diggers. It was Sir William Slim who said, `Some of us may forget that of all the allies it was the Australian soldiers who first broke the spell of invincibility of the Japanese army.' Not only that, they succeeded and won the battles.There is a proposal for a master plan to develop the Kokoda Track into a memorial park, and because of time constraints and my inability to speak at length on it, I seek leave to incorporate three tables from that plan into Hansard which relate to, firstly, the departments involved; secondly, some key dates for action; and, thirdly, a possible agenda for a joint project team operation.Leave granted.The tables read as follows—DEPARTMENTRESPONSIBILITYForeign AffairsRelations with PNG. Management of AUSAID budgetDefenceRestorations of defensive positions at Kokoda, Isurava, Eora Creek, Brigade Hill and Imita Ridge. Restoration of small arms weapons and the Ford Tri-Motor Aircraft at Myola.Veterans' AffairsDesign and construction of educational memorials at Ower's Corner, Imita Ridge, Iorabaiwa Ridge, Menari, Brigade Hill, Efogi, Myola, Templeton's Crossing, Eora Creek, Alola, Abuari, Isurava, Deniki and Kokoda.Environment and HeritageExpertise in establishment and operation of National Parks.TourismExpertise in the marketing of eco-adventure tourism activities.Education and Youth AffairsIncreasing awareness of our Australian Military History through our educational curriculum.ArtsEncouraging the production of films, documentaries and books on our military campaigns in the South West Pacific.It should also include service representatives from the RSL and Rotary International. The PNG component will be determined by the PNG Government.I recommend that key dates for the development of the proposal be:DATEDAYXHASEACTION15 Aug 2001VP DayOfficial Announcement of the Project1-13 Oct 2001PNG PhaseJoint Project Team walks the Kokoda Track, inspects the battlesites, meets with villagers and local landowners and prepares the first draft of the master plan.29 Oct-3 Nov 2001Australian PhasePNG component travels to Australia, visits the Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway in Sydney, the Australian War Memorial in Canberra and meets with returned service representatives and government officials. The final draft of the plan to be completed by the end of this phase.25 Apr 2002Anzac Day - 60thProject formally commenced with an officialProject Kokoda Trek1-13 October, 2001DAYDATETREK DETAILS1Mon, 1 OctFly Sydney to Port MoresbyAccommodation at Loloata Island Resort (Briefing on strategic situation in South West Pacific Area in early 1942).2Tue, 2 OctVisit PNG Parliament (Briefings by PNG Government and Australian High Commission representatives).3Wed, 3 OctCharter Flight: Port Moresby to KokodaInspect Museum and Memorials on Kokoda PlateauTrek to campsite at Hoi Village4Thu, 4 OctTrek to Alola Village via Isurava VillageInspect the Isurava battlesite which has been described by Professor David Homer as `the battle that saved Australia'.5 Fri, 5 OctTrek to Templeton's CrossingFollow the Australian withdrawal route after the defeat at Isurava.Inspect delaying defensive positions occupied by the Australian 2/14th and 2/16th Battalions south of Eora Creek.Inspect the area that took the Australian 25th Brigade 17 days to fight through as they forced the Japanese back across the Track.6Sat, 6 OctTrek to Lake Myola. Location of a major Australian base camp.7Sun, 7 OctTrek to Naduli Village.8 Mon, 8 OctTrek to Efogi Village via Kagi. Inspect the area where the Japanese 144th South Seas Island Regiment formed up for their attack against the Australian 21st Brigade located on Brigade Hill.Inspect the small village museum which contains weapons, ammunition and the remains of Australian soldiers.9 Tue, 9 OctTrek to Menari Village via Brigade Hill. Inspect the Brigade Hill battlesite and gravesite (site of the biggest battle of the Kokoda campaign). Camp in the area where Lt Col Honner held the first parade of the gallant 39th Militia Battalion after the battle of Isurava. 10Wed, 10 OctTrek to Naoro Village. Site of a major Australian staging depot.11Thu, 11 OctTrek to Ua Ule Creek via Iorabaiwa Ridge which is the furthest point reached by the Japanese in their quest to capture Port Moresby.12Fri, 12 OctTrek to Ower's Corner via Imita Ridge, the infamous `Golden Staircase' area and the Goldie River.Bus transport to Port Moresby.13Sat, 13 OctDebrief in Port Moresby.Fly Port Moresby to Sydney848Secker, Patrick, MPMr SECKER—Thank you. I sent this proposal around to colleagues on both sides of the House not expecting too much response because of the time constraints that we all have, but I was ecstatic at the response I received. I am pleased that the member for Cowan, as the first member to respond, has honoured me with his support in seconding this motion. I also thank in anticipation the members for Lowe and Canning from the opposition, my good friend here, the member for Hume, and very appropriately the member for Robertson, who is chairman of the Papua New Guinea-Australia Friendship Group. I must have had responses from at least 20 members within a couple of days of this proposal, and I thank you all for your continued interest and support. I also pass on what I am sure would be Charlie Lynn's thanks to all those members who have enthusiastically supported his ideas that I will now briefly outline. Whilst I have previously compared Kokoda with Gallipoli, I think the pilgrimage to Kokoda could be quite different. Some will want to walk the track, while others will want to drive from Port Moresby to the beginning of Ower's Corner where the track starts. Ower's Corner provides a majestic view over the Owen Stanley Ranges and is ideally suited as the future location of an annual Anzac Day service, and wouldn't it be great if we could have our first on the 60th anniversary of this campaign next year in 2002? To realise this vision, we need to ensure that an all-weather road is constructed through to Ower's Corner. Education memorials need to be constructed at each of the battle sites along the track, and local Kiora guides need to be trained in the military and cultural history of the Kokoda. A memorial site with suitable facilities for large groups of visitors needs to be constructed at Ower's Corner. Urgent action is needed if we are to meet a deadline of having the inaugural dawn service at Ower's Corner on 25 April 2002.Urgent liaison with the government of New Guinea is essential, and a project team from the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Department of Defence, the Department of Veterans' Affairs and the Department of the Environment and Heritage must be formed. Not only that, this project team should trek across the Kokoda Track themselves, preferably next month or in October. Urgent action is needed and warranted. I am indebted to the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Bruce Scott, for providing me with some information concerning the federal government's plans for a major series of commemorations in 2002 to mark the 60th anniversary of the defence of Australia campaign, which will include Kokoda amongst such events as the fall of Singapore, the Battle of the Coral Sea, the bombing of Darwin and the Milne Bay action. The minister has reacted quickly to establish an interdepartmental committee on the future of the Kokoda Track, which will be incorporated in the 2002 defence of Australia commemorations.I also thank the Prime Minister for his support in this matter; he has taken a personal interest in ensuring that this committee is formed and is operational as soon as possible. There has been a hold-up in negotiations with the Papua New Guinea government, but Charlie Lynn made a separate visit in late June and had considerable success in breaking the deadlock by reaching an agreement with the local governor of Oro Province to permit 300 fee paying people to walk the Kokoda Track during the rest of 2001. Charlie Lynn informs me that he met with PNG ministers, members, local government councillors and individual landholders along the Kokoda Track who have given their support to the proposal and welcome the opportunity to develop a master plan.I will conclude by saying that my enthusiasm for this project is enormous and, whenever I have spoken of this to the constituents in the electorate of Barker, I have been gratified to feel the same sort of enthusiasm being returned—because this is part of our noble history that captures the imagination of people of all ages and all backgrounds. I commend the proposed resolution and seek the support of the House for what is truly a bipartisan goal to commemorate our armed services during the Second World War.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded? 13:16:0029110Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I second the motion. I am very pleased, in a bipartisan spirit, to second this motion so ably moved by the member for Barker and to compliment him, indeed, for bringing this important issue before the House. This is an important issue. Like many in the chamber here, I am a baby-boomer whose father was a veteran of the Second World War; I and many others like me, I suppose, grew up learning the stories of Kokoda and learning about the heroes—the people like Damien Parer, of course—who were so well respected by the Australian service men and women of that time.But, in doing a bit of research for this motion, I came across a speech that was made on Sunday, 26 April 1992, by the former Prime Minister Paul Keating. He was at Kokoda for the 50th anniversary of this battle. I will quote from his speech, because I think it is indeed a very moving speech. Paul Keating, on that date, said:This is the place where the rock of friendship and the foundation stone of relations between our two countries rests and while we've had a long history together in places like Port Moresby and Lae and other places it is really here that the soul of the relationship sits, here in Kokoda. Because it was here that Australians decided to defend your liberty as well as their own and you decided to defend yourselves and help us defend ourselves. It was here young Australian men fought for the first time against the prospect of the invasion of their country, of Australia.Never before, even though we fought in many conflicts, mostly imperial conflicts, in conflicts where we felt pangs of loyalty to what was then known as the “Mother Country” to Britain and to the empire to fight in Gallipoli with heroism and in Belgium in Flanders and in France and in other places, this was the first and only time that we've fought against an enemy to prevent the invasion of Australia, to secure the way of life we had built for ourselves. And those young Australian men fought here, 2,000 of them died, 600 Americans died later and we should never forget their sacrifice, that the families who live so distantly in the United States lost 600 sons here should never be forgotten and they cost the lives of 13,000 Japanese who fought for their country and what they believed were their country's strategic interests which were, of course, interests which we could not accept and could only abhor.The lesson of this place is that these young men believed in Australia and we need to give Australians, all Australians, particularly young Australians, an Australia to believe in. We can't deny young Australians their birthright to a past with meaning for them and a future with meaning. It has to be a future with meaning and everything we see here—there can be no deeper spiritual basis to the meaning of the Australian nation than the blood that was spilled on this very knoll, this very plateau, in defence of the liberty of Australia.So Prime Minister—and that was, of course, the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea—can I thank you on behalf of your countrymen, some who I've met here today who actually fought in that campaign, for those who died in that campaign, to the relatives here today of loved ones who were lost in that campaign but who gave their lives selflessly in the defence of Papua New Guinea and the defence of Australia and the broader defence of liberty in the Pacific.This was the place where I believe the depth and soul of the Australian nation was confirmed. If it was founded in Gallipoli it was certainly confirmed in the defence of our homeland here. So I thank you Sir for inviting me and my wife to this fiftieth anniversary of the Papua New Guinea campaign and particularly on behalf of the Australian people I thank the people of Papua New Guinea, the people of Kokoda, the people of the surrounding areas and the people of the Papua New Guinea defence force and its forebears for their support of Australians at war.I will come back to that issue of support in a minute, but I think it is fitting that our past Prime Minister and our current Prime Minister have very strong thoughts and views about this place we are talking about today. Given their strong views and given the interest of this parliament, I have no doubt that if we are prepared to pursue this issue, then indeed we could have the Kokoda Track developed as a national memorial park, as is suggested in this motion.Prime Minister Keating spoke about the support that the Australian diggers received on the Kokoda Track. When researching this issue, I also came across a poem that I would like to relate to the House. It was written by a sapper, H. Beros, who was in the 7th Division AIF with the Royal Australian Engineers. Bert Beros served, according to this note, in both World War I and World War II. He wrote this poem at 4 a.m. one morning on the Kokoda Track after having been on stand-to. It may never have been printed but for the fact that an officer sent a copy home to his mother, and she was so impressed that she had it published in the Brisbane Courier-Mail. The poem reads: The Fuzzy Wuzzy AngelsMany a mother in Australia,When the busy day is done,Sends a prayer to the AlmightyFor the keeping of her son.Asking that an Angel guide himAnd bring him safely backNow we see those prayer are answeredOn the Owen Stanley Track,For they haven't any halos,Only holes slashed in their ears,And with faces worked by tattoos,With scratch pins in their hair,Bringing back the wounded,Just as steady as a hearse,Using leaves to keep the rain offAnd gentle as a nurse.Slow and careful in bad places,On the awful mountain track,And the look upon their faces'Makes us think that Christ was black.Not a move to hurt the carried,As they treat him like a Saint,It's a picture worth recording,That an Artist's yet to paint.Many a lad will see his Mother,And the Husbands, Weans and Wives,Just because the Fuzzy WuzzyCarried them to save their lives.From mortar or machine gun fire,Or a chance surprise attack,To safety and the care of Doctors,At the bottom of the track.May the Mothers in Australia,When they offer up a prayer,Mention those impromptu Angels,With the Fuzzy Wuzzy hair.That concludes the poem. I think the spirit of that poem, the spirit of what was said by the member for Barker here today and the spirit of what was said by Prime Minister Keating embrace the spirit of what most Australians feel about the Kokoda Track and those who lost their lives there. The Kokoda Track is to those who fought in New Guinea what Gallipoli is to those who fought in that campaign, what Kapyong is to those who fought in Korea and what Long Tan is to those who fought in Vietnam. Though these battles were in fields far flung from Australia, they had one thing in common: the courage of the Australian servicemen, their love of freedom and their uncompromising approach to mateship. If we feel anything about those issues and if we feel anything about mateship, we should feel strong enough in that mateship to want to do something to ensure that the sacrifices that those men made on the Kokoda Track and the spirit of support that they received from the fuzzy wuzzy angels is not forgotten. The way to remember those people and those sacrifices is contained in this motion before us. I am very pleased to, in a bipartisan way, give support to the member for Barker and to this motion. While there are limitations on the number of people who can speak on the motion, I am sure that most members of this House, and of this parliament, would speak in support of this motion were there time for them to do so. I commend the motion to the House.13:25:0029111Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—It is an honour for me to stand here as an Australian member of parliament to support this motion by my friend the member for Barker, ably backed up by the member for Cowan. I am also mindful of the magnificent contribution of my old mate Charlie Lynn, the honourable MLC for the New South Wales parliament. He has been fighting this battle on behalf of the memory of those fellows who died on the Kokoda Trail. I commend him for the diligence and the compassion with which he has driven himself to ensure that this issue is raised in the parliament here today.Let me go back to 1942. It was the year Australia lost its innocence. Pearl Harbour had been bombed. Hong Kong and Singapore had fallen. Darwin had been bombed and midget submarines had raided Sydney Harbour. Another nation was trying to steal our country, and we were not prepared. In August 1942 a small band of diggers was thrown against the might of the Japanese army in a last-ditch defence of Australia's northern doorstep. The diggers were out-gunned and outnumbered six to one. Many of them were recent conscripts, aged 18, who had never fired a shot in anger. These young men, together with units of the AIF rushed back from the Middle East, confronted the Japanese high in the Owen Stanley mountain range in Papua New Guinea. There they formed a ragged line of defence between the invaders and the Australian mainland. The Japanese 144th Regiment, crack troops of the Emperor's South Seas Force, had been invincible since they had been blooded in Manchuria in 1937. They had surged unchecked through Asia and the Pacific. Thirteen thousand of them landed in New Guinea, their last step before conquering Australia itself. At best, the Aussies could gather about 2,000 troops to oppose them. The battleground was a narrow, meandering and precipitous path through impenetrable jungle which led to Port Moresby and then Australia. On the Kokoda Track there was no escape: no helicopters or air support to medivac the wounded, no aerial bombardment, no artillery—although the Japanese lugged mountain guns through the jungle. This was the last major man-to-man battle in history. If you could not walk out, or the brave Papuan fuzzy wuzzy angels could not carry you out, you died. In this cauldron, many diggers joined the immortals. There were men like Bruce Kingsbury VC, who single-handedly charged into the heart of the enemy, killing 30 or 40 or them and saving his battalion headquarters, only to be struck down by a sniper at the moment of his glory. These are the words of Sergeant Allan Avery, 39th Battalion:I reckon he almost gave his life because there was nothing scared about it. No, he just went straight into them as if bullets didn't mean anything, you know. And we all got a bit of the action, you see, when we saw him. When you see something like that, you sort of follow the leader, don't you? And that is what we did.And there were men like Sergeant `Teddy' Bear, a hero of the battle for Isurava, who launched a ferocious solo charge at the invaders, so ferocious that some Japanese soldiers were seen to jump to their deaths over a precipice rather than face him, and men like Corporal John Metson, who with superhuman selflessness refused a stretcher and crawled for 10 days dragging his leg shattered by a machinegun, before being murdered by the Japanese. The battle for Kokoda, as my parliamentary colleague the member for Barker quite rightly said, is Australia's Alamo. If Gallipoli symbolised the Anzac spirit in World War I, then Kokoda is its Second World War equivalent. The Aussies fought with such vigour and valour that their Japanese opponents were convinced they were facing a massive force of defenders.That is what the Australian fighting man is renowned for and it is because of the legend of those heroes who unselfishly gave their lives in very difficult circumstances on the Kokoda Track. I join my parliamentary colleagues on both sides of parliament in supporting the push to have the Kokoda Track made a national memorial in memory of those men who died so unselfishly in very difficult circumstances.13:30:0029112Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I begin by congratulating my good friend the member for Barker on his worthy motion before the House today. I endorse fully his speech and the speeches of the member for Cowan and the member for Hume. In making my contribution to the debate, I wish to let members know that within my electorate of Lowe, which is on the shores of the Parramatta River, we have our own Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway. This rainforest walkway is some 800 metres in length and it runs around Bray's Bay between Concord Hospital, the famous repatriation hospital, and Rhodes railway station.The origin of this walkway is found in the Australia Remembers program, when the Keating government and the then Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Con Sciacca, announced plans for the walkway in 1994. The objective of building the walkway was to provide a permanent memorial to all veterans who served in World War II, with particular emphasis on the south-west Pacific area. When the plans for the walkway were announced, Concord Council, Concord Rotary, the Returned Services League of Australia, the New South Wales Department of Urban Affairs and Planning and Concord Hospital all got behind this great project. I also acknowledge the Howard government's ongoing support for the walkway and the contribution by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Bruce Scott. One of the great constants in Australian politics is the bipartisanship in this House for the veteran community, and rightly so. I cannot let this occasion pass without giving special recognition to the New South Wales State President of the RSL and Chairman of the Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway, Mr Rusty Priest AM, and the Director of the Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway, Ms Alice Kang, and her assistant, Ms Hilary Nourse. They have all done a magnificent job in promoting the walkway and in organising numerous memorial services associated with the walkway and Concord Hospital.There are 22 stations along the walkway that reflect particular battles and events of significance relating to the New Guinea campaign. Visitors can reflect on the service and sacrifice of our Australian soldiers at each of the 22 stations: Milne Bay; McDonald's Corner, the beginning of the Kokoda Track; Ower's Corner, the end of the jeep track; Uberi, the first staging camp on the Kokoda Track; Imita Ridge, the Australians' final defensive position; Ioribaiwa, the furthermost point of the Japanese advance; Menari; Efogi, the desperate battles of Mission Ridge and Brigade Hill; Myola, the forward supply depot and medical post; Myola Ridge; Templeton's Crossing, where a determined Japanese rearguard delayed the Australians; the Coast Watchers; Eora Creek, a bitter Japanese defensive battle in the mountains; Isurava, the vital delaying battle; Deniki; Kokoda; Oivi, the death of Captain `Uncle Sam' Templeton; Gorari; Wairopi; Buna; Gona; and Sanananda, a bloody stalemate and the climax of the Papuan campaign.Rusty Priest reminded me last Friday, when I advised him that this motion was coming before the House today, that most Australians will never see the Kokoda Track in New Guinea. However, as Rusty pointed out, many Australians can come to Concord and Rhodes and journey along our Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway. I know that I speak on behalf of Rusty Priest, Alice Kang and Hilary Nourse in issuing all members of this House, particularly the member for Barker, an invitation to visit the Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway in my electorate of Lowe. I know that they will be very welcome. For the benefit of the House, I seek leave to table an information leaflet and some supplementary information describing the 22 stations and the Memorial Rose Garden, which comprise the Kokoda Track Memorial Walkway in my electorate of Lowe.Leave granted.13:34:0029113Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—It is indeed a pleasure and an honour to rise in this House today to support the motion by my good friend and colleague the member for Barker to develop a master plan for the Kokoda Track and to establish it as a national memorial park in memory of the many young Australians who lost their lives on the Kokoda Track. That would be a great symbol of the depth of feeling that Australians have for those who fought on the Kokoda Track and for the many who died on the Kokoda Track.Australia and New Guinea are linked not only geographically but also historically. Almost every person that you speak to in Australia has some links with Papua New Guinea, whether it be through working there, particularly prior to independence, through having a father or grandfather who was a veteran of the Kokoda Track, or some other link with Papua New Guinea. It is important that we develop this master plan. There is a need for a master plan because geographically the Kokoda Track is in very difficult terrain. I have spoken to a number of people who have walked the track. Unfortunately, I have not had the opportunity to do so, although my friend the MLC Charlie Lynn has tried on many occasions to encourage me to undertake the arduous track, but I have spoken to other colleagues, including the member for Gosford in New South Wales, who is a good friend of mine, Jackie Kelly, the Minister for Sport and Tourism, and Senator Julian McGauran. They have all walked the track at some stage. One of the messages that they bring back is the mud. As Chris Hartcher said, `I cannot get out of my mind the mud in walking that track.' The entire time that they struggled up and down the terrain, which is incredibly steep, there was constant mud—mud in the bed, mud in the boots, mud in the clothes and mud in the eyes. That was in peacetime, when they had support. You can imagine the sacrifice and struggle that our young veterans went through when they were suddenly thrown into that area without support. That is the message that came back from the people who had walked the track. They mentioned the terrain of the track, how steep it is, and the gullies that they had to cross. There were gushing streams—one slip off the plank and you knew that you would be dead. It is a difficult thing but it is an essential thing that has to be done to develop a master plan so that this track can be dedicated as a national memorial park. As part of that plan, it is very important to have an all-weather road to Ower's Corner. Many young Australians backpack their way to Gallipoli every Anzac Day, and many young Australians would be very keen to participate in dawn services at Ower's Corner. Many people would not be physically capable, or have the time, to go along the whole of the track. So if there was an all-weather road to Ower's Corner, we could have those dawn services and hundreds of Australians would be able to participate in them. That would be a further recognition of what Australia owes to the young Australians and to the fuzzy wuzzy angels who supported them during the Second World War. There are other ways in which we can assist. The Australian parliament works very closely with the parliament of Papua New Guinea. As president of the friendship group, I am encouraged by our exchanges and the education process for the parliamentarians of Papua New Guinea. Theirs is a young democracy and they are still struggling to come to terms with it. It is important that we help them through the process of our democracy and our system of parliament. I know that they have appreciated the number of exchanges that we have been able to provide to help and encourage them in a stable democracy and a stable parliament which will hopefully bring them peace and stability. If we are going to encourage young Australians to go to Papua New Guinea, they have to know that they can go there in safety and in friendship so that they can go and recognise the sacrifices made by the young Australians and the young Papua New Guinea people who fought and died in the sacrifices of the Second World War. (Time expired)13:39:0029114Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—I am pleased today to add my support for the development of the Kokoda Track as a national memorial park. I congratulate the member for Barker on bringing this issue to the parliament, and I congratulate the previous speakers.As a Western Australian, it is important for me to note the contribution of the 2nd/14th and the 2nd/16th Battalions, as they were among the first of the AIF units sent up the Kokoda Track. My dad was one of those soldiers and from early childhood I heard the tales of his time on the Kokoda Track and how it rained every day; how difficult it was to get supplies through; how often they went without food because there was none; how difficult it was to get the wounded out; how kind the fuzzy wuzzy angels were and how many had died. Also, of course, you have to remember that those who came back had made a huge sacrifice as well—they had lost their youth. If you had been one of those soldiers going up the Kokoda Track and had to decide which of the wounded were likely to make it, and which were sent back and which were not, that is not something you easily live down and it is in your memory always.As it is nearly 60 years since the battle took place, I think it is time that the soldiers' courage was recognised and that there is a memorial on the Kokoda Track to those who lost their lives. While most Australians are familiar with the major battles of World War I, we need to do much more to increase the awareness of other conflicts which took place closer to our home. By supporting the building of an all-weather road from Kokoda to Ower's Corner with educational memorials at each battle site, another step is going to be taken to ensure that the bravery of our soldiers is never forgotten and that the generations that come after ours will have the opportunity to pay tribute to that courage shown by previous generations as they protected the Australian way of life. In the many battles that Australian soldiers have fought, Kokoda was the first that directly protected Australian shores. It was a battle where our soldiers were helped by the local people and, without their help, many more soldiers would have died. In the preparation of the memorial, it is important that the government and the people of PNG are involved and support the plans. The memorial should also pay tribute to the Papua New Guineans who lost their lives, and those who continue to live who did everything to ensure that our troops had as much safety and assistance as possible, for their contribution must never ever be forgotten.Like many Australians, I have always thought that one day I would like to go up the Kokoda Track and see where my father spent many of the war years. I think I would be defeated by lack of fitness, so I was most encouraged to hear that it is possible to drive. Improving the track will give many more people an opportunity to visit an important part of our history and it will ensure that our young people go to New Guinea for Anzac Day in as large numbers as they go to Gallipoli. I also support the holding of the Anzac Day service next year. I spoke to my local RSLs and they were very enthusiastic about that and already a great number are saying that they would love to attend.For the veterans of Kokoda, the 60th anniversary would be a special time to have the chance to return and attend a dawn service. It is important that the country give the honour that they deserve. In the building of this memorial, not only will we be paying tribute to those who lost their lives, we need also to remember the sacrifice of those who came home and continued to make a contribution for many years after the war. I do not think any of us knows any veteran who came back the same person as they went away, and that is something that must never be forgotten. Our country can never adequately thank the veterans and the people of PNG for their courage, but this building of a national memorial will make sure that their sacrifice is never forgotten.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The debate is adjourned and will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Statements by Members291152911513:44:0029115Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—It is more in sorrow than in anger that I want to bring to the House's attention the announcements in the press over the weekend in relation to the indication from Government House that our new Governor-General is going to be spending quite a bit more of his time in Sydney than in Canberra. I have never had to make a speech that was having a go at a Governor-General before and I am finding it a little bit difficult—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the member for Canberra that speeches that have a go at the Governor-General are not in fact tolerated in the chamber.5K6Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS—I understand that, Mr Speaker, and that is why I am saying that the announcement that has been made by the staff at Government House in Canberra is what has really got me upset. I do not know the reason for the announcement. It is true to say that Governors-General in the past have spent time in all places, including of course Admiralty House in Sydney. But I do not understand why there was the requirement in this particular instance for such an announcement to be made.Canberra is in fact the national capital. I am not standing here trying to defend it as such so much as to remind everybody that that is the case. An announcement like this being made yet again brings into question Canberra and the ACT and their role as the national capital. That is the point that I think we need to make. I will certainly be making inquiries through the secretary and the staff at Government House to ascertain the reason for such an announcement. (Time expired)2911513:45:0029115Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—Last Monday, I was privileged to have officially opened the new shredded cheese line in Bega Cheese's factory. Building this new line was only possible due to a grant of over $660,000 from the federal government's Dairy Regional Assistance Program. Overall, it was a $1.3 million investment in further value adding for this great producer of dairy products. About seven new jobs were immediately created and when the second shift starts in a few months time over 20 new direct jobs will be in place. The opening of this new manufacturing line also coincided with Bega Cheese's announcement that they had commissioned an employment agency to start the recruitment of between 120 and 150 additional people. These additional jobs will be required for the $16 million expansion of Bega Cheese's cutting and packaging plant following an agreement with Bonlac and the New Zealand Dairy Board. Bega Cooperative's farmers recently benefited from this agreement when $9 million in cash and $6 million in shares were distributed to them.The industry in the Bega Valley is in good shape for the future and this is due to the vision of Bega Cheese, who saw the writing on the wall a decade ago with regards to changes in their industry, and to their partnership with the coalition federal government, which has provided practical assistance resulting in huge investment and a large increase in the number of new jobs in the Bega Valley. This is in stark contrast with Labor's proposals of more committees and more meetings. Well done to the board of Bega Cheese and its dairy farmer owners.2911613:47:0029116Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—Last Thursday, I was able to attend a protest meeting outside the Morningside branch of the Commonwealth Bank in Brisbane. The Commonwealth Bank—`Which bank?'—announced unilaterally that it was going to withdraw its services from the residents of Morningside, bringing to a total some 18 branches of the major four banks on Brisbane's south side which have closed over the last five years.I sought a meeting with the state manager of the Commonwealth Bank in Brisbane and asked him what the reasons for this particular closure were. He said to me that it was simply because the bank had ceased to be `profitable'. I asked the state manager if he could define for me what profitability meant and to tell me how far below the line that branch had fallen. Of course, he refused to do so.It was not, I think, an unreasonable ask to put to the bank that they should let communities know one year in advance if they are planning to shut a branch and the extent to which profitability is under threat, so that the community has an opportunity to rise to the occasion and make more use of that branch so there is some chance for the branch to be retained. They point-blank refuse to accede to that request. I am extremely disappointed that is the case and I look forward to the opportunity of seeing further active competition in the banking sector from community banks in order to give people who use banks in local suburban areas a better go. The Commonwealth Bank—`Which bank?'—has plainly fallen short of its responsibilities and it is time for the parliament to contemplate legislation for the imposition of a charter of social responsibility on banks. They plainly do not intend to do so themselves. (Time expired)2911613:48:0029116Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—I would like to comment briefly on the announcement made last week by Mitsubishi about the decision to upgrade and redesign the existing Magna and Verada range of motor vehicles in South Australia. This is fantastic news for the workers at Mitsubishi, for South Australia and for Adelaide in particular. Mitsubishi have been the subject for a number of years of sometimes irresponsible media reportage about their commitment to Australia and to Adelaide but, happily, Mitsubishi have continued and have started to turn the corner in terms of profitability. This year, they have indicated that in the next 12 months they will in fact again make a profit. They have weathered the storm of the changes being made at their parent company level and the workers and employer at Mitsubishi should be congratulated for working so closely together to make themselves an attractive area for investment.The announcement that was made last week while the Prime Minister was visiting Japan was very welcome to the residents of Adelaide and to the workers at Mitsubishi. It comes on top of announcements about export deals to the United States, and it is noteworthy that Mitsubishi are the only vehicle manufacturer in Australia that exports to the United States. I have congratulated them on that before and I congratulate them again. They are making great progress for their workers and for their employers and they are a good example of how work forces can work together to bring about change, reform and progress—unlike what we are seeing at the moment in Sydney at Tristar. Let us hope that that resolves itself as well. 2911713:50:0029117Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—Not every piece of open space in Victoria has to be turned into medium density housing. I am calling on commonsense to prevail in my electorate of Chisholm in respect of the development of the old St Leo's site at Hay Street, Box Hill. The proposed development of this unique bit of open space is sheer lunacy. The prospect of 300 three-storey units crammed into suburbia is just not warranted. The loss of open space, the increase of traffic into a tiny side street and the pressure on existing services—particularly the storm water—is questionable and the planning process cannot ignore the impost on the many industrial sites that surround the proposed development.I wish to applaud the work of concerned local residents, who have so far amassed a petition of over 300 signatures and who are meeting this weekend to ensure that a united community voice is heard in respect of this development. The local community is sick of being the forgotten party in these decisions and I am fully supportive of all efforts to ensure no further inappropriate developments rob us of our status as the leafy green suburbs.2911713:51:0029117Bartlett, Kerry, MPMr BARTLETT0K6MacquarieLP10—Several months ago, the New South Wales Labor government decided to axe the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust. This appalling decision was a betrayal of the local environment and a betrayal of Sydney's main river system. The trust had played a critical role in its management. It had provided an independent voice on ideas affecting the catchment, it had led the way in creating community awareness and galvanising community action on issues affecting the river system, it had coordinated the work of the government and non-government agencies whose work impacted on the catchment and it had very effectively attracted funding from a range of sources for local environmental projects.After four months the Carr government has still done nothing to fill the void. Its functions were supposedly to be absorbed by the Department of Land and Water Conservation, but so far they seem to have disappeared without a trace. One of the many problems emerging is the removal of the mechanism for attracting local funding under the federal government's Natural Heritage Trust. The catchment trust had previously fulfilled the role of the regional assessment panel in facilitating and evaluating applications for federal funding. Under the NHT, funding of over $3 million has flowed from the federal government to local environmental groups carrying out valuable conservation and restoration projects. Unless the DLWC quickly moves to set up a replacement process, federal funds may be harder for local groups to access. This potentially is one of the many adverse effects of the state government's hasty and ill conceived decision. The DLWC is simply not able to adequately fulfil the roles of the trust. Not only has the state government removed direct funding, it has made it harder to attract other funding. (Time expired)2911713:53:0029117Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—On Saturday evening I had the pleasure of attending the Bride of the Year evening at the Civic Centre in Ulverstone. Ten magnificent brides presented themselves in aid of the Tasmanian Sudden Infant Death Society—a very worthy cause. I have the great privilege of announcing that Rebecca Chakouch from Devonport, Cassandra Gale from Ulverstone, Jasmin Lamprey from Turners Beach, Hannah Larkin from Latrobe, Sharee Maloney from Turners Beach, Peta McKenzie from Devonport, Stephanie Overton from Devonport, Diane Thomas from Ulverstone, Ruth van Rooyen from Burnie and Michelle Smith from Burnie presented themselves. Ruth van Rooyen won the audience vote, the judges voted Stephanie Overton as the Bride of the Year and Peta McKenzie from Devonport was the Charity Bride. Alderman Marie Gill, Mrs Marjorie Haines and Mr Paul Harris were the judging panel, and we thank them very much. Bev Twibell and her SIDS committee organised a magnificent evening. Entertainment was presented by Mr John Handy, the Burnie Highland Pipe Band, Lyn and Eric Emmerton from Circular Head and Peter Shirley, a violinist. Most importantly, the brides of the year all spoke about the possibility of being blessed with children in the future. They realise that there is the potential of unfortunate misadventure at childbirth and that the Sudden Infant Death Society plays a very important role in assuring parents of assistance and help at that time. (Time expired)2911813:54:0029118St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—During the five-week break I was able to visit, for the third year running, many small towns and villages in my electorate. I visited about 54 this year. I went to Armidale, Ashford, Attunga, Barraba, Bendemeer, Ben Lomond, Bingara, Bonshaw, Bundarra, Currabubula, Deepwater, Delungra, Drake, Duri, Ebor, Emmaville, Georges Junction, Gilgai, Glen Innes, Glencoe, Graman, Guyra, Hillgrove, Inverell, Invergowrie, Kentucky, Kingstown, Kootingal, Legume, Liston, Manilla, Mingoola, Moombi, Niangala, Nowendoc, Nundle, Somerton, Tamworth, Tenterfield, Tingha, Torrington, Upper Horton, Uralla, Urbenville, Walcha, Wallangra, Watsons Creek, Werris Creek, Wollomombi, Woolbrook, Woolomin, Yarrowitch and Yetman.I drove over 11,000 kilometres and, in holding meetings in not only those major towns but the smaller communities around the New England, it was certainly a rejuvenation for me to see practically what these people are doing in some of the more remote areas, away from some of the major centres. For those of us in regional Australia and for the 14 local governments that I have in my electorate, the Roads to Recovery program—and I drove over many of the roads—is very much delivering tangible results for the people who do live out of the way. The same may be said of the mobile phone towers—(Time expired)2911813:56:0029118Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—I want to pay tribute in the federal parliament to the Taiwanese community of Brisbane. Taiwanese people who have decided to make Brisbane their home are making an enormous contribution to the development of south-east Queensland and to strengthening the social fabric of our community. Taiwanese people have a well deserved reputation as successful business people. Through their industriousness and their investment activities, Taiwanese business people are lifting the living standards of the residents of south-east Queensland.These are well acknowledged facts. Less well acknowledged but no less important is the contribution of the local Taiwanese community to strengthening our society. The charitable works of such organisations as the Taiwan Women's League, the Taiwan Friendship Association and the Friends of Australasian Youth Association are greatly appreciated. These organisations are assisting the less fortunate in our community. The Taiwan Women's League is especially active in these charitable works. At the same time, the tireless work of these organisations is enhancing the reputation of the Taiwanese people in the community. Congratulations to Mimi Chang upon becoming President of the Taiwan Women's League, and thanks to Mary Lee, who did such a wonderful job as last year's president. My federal Labor colleague the member for Ryan, Leonie Short, joined me at a terrific changeover ceremony for the Taiwan Women's League. Leonie is a great supporter of the Taiwanese community, which is very well represented in her seat of Ryan, and she represents them very well.Congratulations too to Stephen Huang on becoming President of the Taiwan Friendship Association, and many thanks to Angela Chai for all her great work as the last president. Thanks also to Michelle Lee, who as president guided the Friends of Australasian Youth Association through last year, and best wishes to Jason Lin in his job as the new president. (Time expired)2911913:57:0029119Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I also rise to welcome the $70 million in new investment in the Mitsubishi car plant in my electorate of Boothby, which was announced during the Prime Minister's visit to Tokyo. The announcement was welcome news to Mitsubishi's 3,500 car workers and their families in Adelaide. Automotive vehicles and parts is a $17 billion industry, which now exports over $4 billion. The way to end uncertainty at Mitsubishi and also within the industry is to focus on companies being profitable and the work force being productive and an export culture.Contrast this with the behaviour of the AMWU. We can debate the issue of workers' entitlements another day, but let us look at the industrial action that they instigated and what they put at risk. Last week the factories of the two largest car companies in my electorate—Monroe and Mitsubishi—were silent due to the Tristar strike in Sydney. Today there are ads in the local paper telling the work force not to come to work, again due to the Tristar strike. It came at the worst possible time and no doubt reignited in Japan the stereotypes of a generation ago—Australia as a country of industrial confrontation, strikes and an inefficient waterfront. This dispute highlights one of the key questions to be answered at the next election: what will an ALP government do when faced with a conflict between the national interest and the interest of one trade union? The Leader of the Opposition should stare down the AMWU. All I heard last week on this issue was silence.2911913:59:0029119Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—In the very short time I have, I would like to put on the record the great work of an organisation called the Gleaners in my electorate. They have set up five establishments now, the latest one being in Inala, which I opened. They provide food at cost or below cost, or actually give away food parcels to families that are struggling to get by. This highlights the great community need not only in my area but in the region of Oxley. People are suffering a lot under the imposition of the GST and, particularly with inflation, the rising cost of living. It is ordinarily families like these that need these services the most. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A the time for members' statements has concluded.Miscellaneous2911914:00:0029119SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I have received a return to the writ which I issued on 1 June 2001 for the election of a member to serve for the electoral division of Aston, in the state of Victoria, in place of Mr Peter Nugent. By the endorsement on the writ, it is certified that Christopher John Pearce has been elected.Mr Christopher John Pearce made and subscribed the oath of allegiance.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! On behalf of the House, I welcome the new member for Aston.Ministerial Arrangements2911929119Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services will be absent from question time today due to illness. The Minister for Trade will be answering questions in his absence.Questions Without Notice291192911914:03:0029119Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, didn't you promise at the National Press Club to deliver a fistful of dollars in income tax cuts and to provide specific details before the next federal election? Prime Minister, haven't you already taken back those income tax cuts, according to an article in the Australian newspaper today? Prime Minister, will you or won't you be promising income tax cuts at the next election?29120Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer is that there is a very clear difference: if there is an available surplus, he will spend it; if there is an available surplus, we will give it back via income tax cuts. Nothing will alter that; nothing that appears anywhere will alter that unassailable difference. This is the first question in parliament after returning from a five-week recess, and I thank the Leader of the Opposition most warmly for enabling me to point out once more to the Australian people that if there is an available surplus we will return it via income tax cuts, but he will spend it. So let the Australian people understand that, when it comes to tax, that is the difference between us. I warmly thank the Leader of the Opposition for giving me such an early opportunity to define the difference between the government and the opposition. 2912014:05:0029120Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of any recent research into the adequacy of Australia's previous wholesale sales tax system? Does this research have any implications for the ability to fund public services over the coming decades? In particular, in the absence of the GST, what would be the implications for personal income tax rates in the future?29120Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I have come across some research, and that research underpins and very strongly supports the government's historic decision to introduce major reforms to Australia's taxation system. This research from Access Economics demonstrates that the introduction of the goods and services tax as part of tax reform has added to the capacity of Australia to fund the services that will be needed for an ageing population over the years ahead. It demonstrates very dramatically that if we had continued to rely on the favoured indirect tax system of the Labor Party—that is, the wholesale sales tax system; the system they voted to retain when tax reform was introduced—we would face increasing difficulty in funding the services needed for an ageing population in this country. We hear a lot from the Labor Party about the need to have adequate public services. You cannot have adequate public services unless you have an adequate tax base. That is one of the main reasons why we embraced the introduction of a broad based indirect tax; namely, a goods and services tax.What Access has done in this research is to examine what the ageing population means for Australia's indirect tax base and, in particular, how a continuation of the sales tax base may have fared compared with the new tax system. Access found that, over the last 25 years, the sales tax base declined relative to consumer spending. The sales tax base fell from 24.5 per cent of total consumer spending in 1975 to only 18.4 per cent at the time of its abolition. It was projected by Access that, if the decline had continued, the sales tax base would have fallen to only 14.4 per cent of total consumer spending by the year 2030. That is a decline of 10 per cent, from 24.5 per cent in 1975. Those figures demonstrate the critical need to broaden, strengthen and deepen Australia's indirect tax base.That is why the states like the GST. They may say otherwise, but the reason that Bob Carr and Peter Beattie literally ran to grab the fountain pen out of my hand to sign that interstate agreement was that they knew that, over the years, the growth in revenue from the GST would make it easier for them to provide the services that they are obligated to provide. If the government had not introduced a goods and services tax, we would have been failing in our responsibility to secure the revenue base to provide services for years into the future. Those who seek to undermine the GST are seeking to undermine Australia's capacity to look after an ageing population. Those who seek to roll back the GST, allegedly in the name of fairness, are in fact arguing to roll back our capacity to fund necessary welfare services into the years ahead.Worse than that, the Access Economics report illustrates that, if we had not introduced a GST, not only would we have had a failing and declining, deteriorating and withering wholesale sales tax base but also to compensate for the revenue decline we would have had to increase income tax at a fast rate. Access makes it very clear that the alternative to the present tax base is higher income tax. That is why the Leader of the Opposition said with some vigour on the eve of the Aston by-election, `I don't believe that income tax in Australia is too high.' When the Leader of the Opposition says that, he is really saying, `Give me an opportunity and I'll jack it up.' That is what the Leader of the Opposition is really saying. The research of Access Economics demonstrates and validates the courage of the government's decision to introduce a broad based indirect tax. Not only has it enabled us to reduce personal income tax, not only has it aided our exports and not only has it aided us to make the whole tax base more efficient; it has also provided Australia with the capacity to fund the services for an ageing population years into the future—something that the Labor Party has pledged to reverse through its commitment to a policy of roll-back.2912114:10:0029121Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to his first answer today in which he said that he did not know what he was going to do on income tax until he knows the state of the books. Prime Minister, will you respond to Labor's call and bring forward Treasury's report on the state of the books so that you can then tell us whether you are going to offer income tax cuts or not?29121Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I am just struggling to remember which Labor Party charter of budget honesty that question is based on. I am just trying to remember; perhaps the Treasurer can help me. What was the bill that the Labor Party introduced when it was in government, requiring retiring finance ministers and Treasurers—like the Leader of the Opposition—to come clean with the Australian public? This is a question from a deputy leader of an opposition that, when it was in government, did not have a charter of budget honesty. For 13 years, it had no charter of budget honesty. More than that, Mr Crean is deputy to a man who was finance minister in the Keating government and who, on that occasion, ran around during the election campaign saying that the budget was robustly in surplus. Mr Beazley said, `Let there be no doubt about it; we are in surplus.' When we got into government, we found that, far from being in surplus, Labor was running a deficit of $10½ billion in the financial year to June 1996 and we inherited a $96 billion government debt. By the end of this financial year, we will have repaid $58 billion of that $96 billion. We will have one of the lowest, if not the lowest, government debt to GDP ratios in the world at 6.4 per cent. To add insult to injury, the Labor Party tried every inch of the way to stop us doing our duty to the Australian people. And you have the nerve to ask me about a charter of budget honesty!2912114:14:0029121Wakelin, Barry, MPMr WAKELINHV5GreyLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the June trade figures released last week by the Australian Bureau of Statistics? Would he also provide the House with an update on the state of the economy?29121Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Grey for his question. I can report to the House that the trade figures for June this year showed a very healthy surplus of $537 million. Not only that, but four of the last five monthly balances were in surplus—not in deficit, but in surplus—and, in the year ending June 2001, Australia turned a trade surplus of $0.7 billion. We have become so accustomed to talking about trade deficits in Australia that I would like to re-emphasise that, in the year to 30 June 2001, Australia had a trade surplus of $0.7 billion. The value of goods and services exports were up 13.3 per cent over that year, and in important areas for rural Australia there was strong growth in export income. The value of meat and meat preparations exports grew 29 per cent over the year to 30 June 2001, wool and sheepskin exports grew 31 per cent over the year to 30 June 2001, and service exports grew to be 6½ per cent higher than in June 2000. This was undoubtedly helped by the exchange rate, particularly against the US dollar, which has meant that, notwithstanding a slowing world economy, Australia's exports have grown. In addition, I think we can now say that one of the greatest things that could have been done for Australia's export industry was to take taxes off Australian exports. That could not have been done without tax reform. It was the Australian Labor Party that believed we should tax Australian exporters. If the Australian Labor Party were still in office, Australia's farmers and other exporters would be paying taxes on their exports to compete against others internationally who export into the world tax free. This was a policy of Labor to export jobs. When we turned around and changed the taxation system, who opposed it? The Australian Labor Party. They never gave Australia's export industries a go. Undoubtedly, the rise in Australia's exports also had a lot to do with making our waterfront more efficient. Once you could get continuity of supply across Australia's waterfront and continuity of supply in relation to exports, Australian exporters were given a much better show on international markets.I was also asked about the state of the economy. I can report to the House that over the last week there have been not only good trade figures but also significant pick-ups in other areas of the economy. Building approvals rose strongly ahead of the GST and fell away sharply thereafter and in July showed another increase of three per cent over June, which was an increase of 24.7 per cent over May. Retail trade for the month of June showed a solid increase of 1.1 per cent in real terms, no doubt fed by lower income taxes paid by ordinary Australian families now having the opportunity to spend more. The ANZ job ads, which were released today, showed that the number of job ads increased two per cent in July. This is fed back into business and consumer sentiment, both recording strong rises in May, June and July—indicative of an economy which is strengthening over the second part of 2001. As reported by, I think, the NAB survey, the Australian economy, in the second part of 2001 and into 2002, is expected to be the fastest growing economy amongst the nations of the developed world. I think that will give pleasure to nearly all Australians who believe that there should be a stronger Australian economy and that we should help exporters. Unfortunately, there are some Australians who took great delight in hoping that the Australian economy would turn down. But the doomsayers were proved wrong: the March quarter was strong, the economy will strengthen in the latter part of 2001 and Australia will be one of the fastest growing developed nations in the world into 2002, which will be good news for Australians and good news for job creation next year.2912214:18:0029122Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Prime Minister, and it refers to another answer he gave earlier today in quoting the report by Access Economics. Prime Minister, is this the same report that says that `the GST tax base will gradually fall as the share of total consumer spending' because of the `exclusion of health services'? Prime Minister, why didn't you mention that in your answer? Isn't it because you want to put the GST on health services or to raise the GST rate—it is just that you will not tell anyone until after the next election?29122Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I did not mention that, but I also did not mention that the GST tax base will benefit from the exclusion of educational services—the growth in which will be held back by stagnant numbers of age groups in which most education occurs. The reality is that this report—and I am delighted that you have asked me a question about it; it allows me to table it—is not good news and not good reading for the Australian Labor Party. This report demonstrates that the Labor Party was tying itself to a steadily diminishing sales tax base. I hear the Leader of the Opposition and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition saying, `Let's have a debate about tax.' And I say amen to that! By all means, let us have a debate about tax. But, if you are going to have a comprehensive debate about tax, you have to be reminded what Labor stands for. Labor stands for a sales tax. Labor voted against the GST. Labor stood month after month in this chamber and in the Senate and voted to defend the wholesale sales tax system. Incidentally, according to this report—which the Deputy Leader of the Opposition thinks is good news—the sales tax base was some 24.5 per cent of total consumer spending in 1975, it has now declined to 18.4 per cent, and it is projected by Access Economics to have declined to 14.4 per cent of consumer spending by 2030. What the Labor Party were really saying was that, in government, they would continue to rely on a wholesale sales tax base that was falling in the face of an ageing population and a rise in demand for services. The only result of that, in the absence of a GST, was that you would have to increase income tax. Every road the Labor Party take leads back to higher income taxes under a Labor government. Every single path they point out, every single road they take, leads to the fact that the election of a Labor government means higher income taxes. They defend an indirect tax base that was declining and they attack one that is rising because it is based on a growing economy. They argue that income tax is not too high. They promise to spend more money, to maintain the surplus and to guarantee the state. In the face of all of that, there is only one thing in government you could possibly do, and that is to put up income tax. I table the Access Economics report.2912314:23:0029123Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Would the minister inform the House of the latest industrial dispute figures? Have this government's policies helped to create a harmonious and productive workplace environment and to safeguard workers' entitlements? Are there any alternative policies in this area?29123Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Makin for her question about disputation in the workplace and protection of employee entitlements. I am pleased to tell the House that, in the 12 months to April this year, only 49 working days were lost per 1,000 employees. I am pleased to say that this is the lowest number of days lost since this series was first kept in 1982. On other measures, the level of industrial disputation is the lowest since records were first kept, back in 1913. As members would be aware, there is a very significant industrial dispute going on right now in the motor industry, which has resulted in the stand-down of 12,000 workers. I am afraid that this is a foretaste of what would happen under a Beazley government. Last year the Leader of the Opposition said that Labor would permit industry wide strikes. Under any regime which permits industry wide strikes, the level of industrial disputation would return to the bad old days of the 1970s when Australia was an international bad joke for industrial disputation. I have also been asked about protection of entitlements. Let me make it very clear that this government believes that loss of entitlements is a disaster for the people concerned, and that is why this government has put in place a safety net scheme to protect workers' entitlements. Let me put this matter in context. In any one year, just one-half of one per cent of businesses will go bankrupt and just one-tenth of one per cent of employees will face a possible loss of entitlements. The government's position is that entitlements should be paid, preferably by the employer who owes that entitlement to the worker. But, in the event of a business ceasing to trade and being unable to pay workers' entitlements, this government has put a safety net scheme in place to help. Let me make it very clear that this is the first government in Australia's history to put such a scheme in place. No state Labor government has ever put a scheme in place. The former federal Labor government put no scheme in place, even though they presided over some monumental bankruptcies: the Tricontinental collapse, the Qintex collapse, the Bond Corporation collapse, and the Pyramid Building Society collapse. Throughout 13 years of Labor government, there was no government scheme to protect employee entitlements. I have to say of this government's scheme that it does not encourage people to ramp up their entitlements, but most of all it is a scheme which does not cost jobs—unlike the alternatives on offer. Labor's basic scheme, a 0.1 per cent levy on all payrolls in the country, could cost up to 5,000 jobs. Labor's deluxe scheme, the Manusafe scheme, could cost up to 10,000 jobs in the motor industry alone. So far this government has paid out $9 million under its entitlements scheme to 4,500 workers who have lost entitlements. These workers would have received double that amount if the states had paid their fair share under the government's scheme. If members opposite were really concerned about workers' entitlements, if they really wanted to do the right thing by workers rather than simply make political points and grandstand, they would get on the phone to the state premiers and say, `Don't wait. Do it now—join the federal government's scheme.' 2912414:28:0029124Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is also to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, can you explain why the workers at Tristar Steering and Suspension are not able to access the same government scheme that allowed the employees of National Textiles to recover 100 per cent of their legal entitlements? Isn't it the case that the dispute at Tristar is a direct result of your failure to guarantee 100 per cent of employees' legally accrued entitlements? Minister, why is it industrial treason for the workers at Tristar to exercise their lawful rights under your industrial relations system to get the same outcome, should their company go broke, as your government provided to Stan Howard's company at taxpayers' expense?29124Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—There is a fundamental difference between the workers at Tristar and the workers that the Leader of the Opposition has referred to.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The same courtesy as I expect to be extended to the Leader of the Opposition will be extended to the minister.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Tristar is a going concern; Tristar is a perfectly good company. Tristar is a company that wants to work and is being prevented from working because of the actions of the people supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Let me make it very clear: this industrial action at Tristar is not about workers' entitlements. The company has offered to protect workers' entitlements. This is not about workers' entitlements; it is about union power. It is about a union controlled fund designed to increase union power.Let it be very clear what the issue is here. This government supports workers' entitlements. Members opposite support union power. This government is opposed to this strike against the national interest. Members opposite do support the strike at Tristar. Members opposite support industrial action which has currently caused 12,000 workers to be stood down. That is what members opposite support. They support workers being forced to stand down. Let me make this clear: there is no legislation in the world that can prevent union bloody-mindedness. But this government will always oppose that kind of behaviour; it will never pander to it, and it will never make excuses for it like members opposite do.2912414:31:0029124Pearce, Christopher, MPMr PEARCEA8WAstonLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer please advise the House if Australians should pay more tax.29124Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—It is an honour to take a question from the new member for Aston. His predecessor was held in very high esteem in this House. We congratulate the new member on his election and we hope he has a very successful political career. This government believes that for ordinary hardworking decent Australians the income tax rate should be kept as low as possible. That is one of the reasons why this government cut income taxes on 1 July of last year. We cut $12 billion from Australia's income taxes. For people on average earnings—and there would be a lot of them, I think, in the Aston electorate—that means that, instead of having Labor's top marginal rate of 43c in the dollar, under the coalition they face a top marginal rate of only 30c in the dollar. That is 13c in the dollar off that top marginal rate for the average income earner.Indeed, after you take into account the abolition of wholesale sales tax and the abolition of bed tax and their replacement with GST, along with the reductions in personal income tax, the cuts in petrol excise, particularly for transport, the increase in family tax payment A and family tax payment B, the net reduction in the overall tax liability for Australians on 1 July last year was around $6 billion—$6 billion that was returned to the people of Australia. Unfortunately, I must tell the member for Aston that there are some people in this House who think that Australians should be paying higher taxes. As hard as it is to believe, there are people who do not believe in keeping income taxes low for struggling middle income families in Australia. The member for Aston will recall being out at the Knox shopping centre two days before the Aston by-election, when there was an interview with Mr Neil Mitchell of 3AW, who asked the Leader of the Opposition this question:... are they—and he meant Australians—paying too much income tax?Mr Beazley said:No I don't believe so and I will say that with some vigour.So he has finally got vigorous about something. He is vigorous about the fact that Australians do not pay too much income tax. We have heard him be expansive in the past, and we have heard him be prolix, but now he has got vigorous about the fact that people are not paying too much income tax. Of course, if he had his way, they would be paying a lot more income tax. That is what we know.The interesting thing about this vigorous statement on the eve of the Aston by-election was that it was in the wake of a policy which, halfway into question time, we have not heard mentioned yet. It was in the wake of the noodle nation. The Leader of the Opposition during the Aston by-election was going to take the high road of, `What we need is a noodle nation: more spending paid for by more income tax.' He lasted all of about an hour because, after this little debacle on 3AW, remember, he called the press back in and said, no, that was not going to be his policy at all. He is presumably going to fund noodle nation from some other proceeds which are yet to be discovered.Let me tell you why the Labor Party are now in so much trouble on tax: because for the last four years they have been conducting one of the lowest, most populist campaigns imaginable, trying to pretend to the Australian people that the Australian people could have decent social services, whilst opposing a GST and supporting a wholesale sales tax—a wholesale sales tax which all of the developed world has now given up. The Labor Party would have you believe that, along with Swaziland, Australia could be the only country that had a narrow indirect tax base. If we are to have a narrow indirect tax base, the corollary of that is that we must reweight tax out of the indirect tax base to where? There is only one place other than indirect taxes: direct taxes.That was also the statement that the Leader of the Opposition made on the eve of the by-election in Aston. He said, `I believe we should reweight out of indirect tax into direct tax.' Roll-back of GST means rolling up your income tax. That means reweighting out of indirect tax into direct tax. That is just to fund the roll backwards of GST. It is the only political party in the developed world that wants to roll back out of a broad based indirect tax to a narrow based indirect tax system. The consequence of that alone is to roll up income tax. But, when you add into it funding noodle nation and all sorts of other promises that the Labor Party has put out there, it comes back to one proposition, as the Leader of the Opposition said with some vigour: Australians do not pay too much income tax. He thinks they should pay more.This is the reason why `roll-backwards' can never be released. When roll-backwards was first announced, roll-backwards was going to cover everything. We were going to roll backwards right out of a GST and right over to the wholesale sales tax. Roll-backwards has now become the policy which dare not speak its name. We cannot be told where we are going to roll backwards. We cannot be told how much we are going to roll backwards. It disappears by the minute, because we know that the further you roll backwards the more you roll up those income taxes. This is a political party which has turned its face on modernity; it has turned its face on practice right throughout the developed world. It has one spectacle and one spectacle only for Australia: higher taxes on capital, higher taxes on business, fewer jobs and higher income taxes. We on this side of the House believe that ordinary, hardworking, average Australians ought to have lower income taxes, they should get to keep more of what they earn, they should decide where they want to spend it and they should not be funding all of these fantasies of a socialist ALP government. 2912614:39:0029126Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, do you recall saying on the Insiders program yesterday:If the States join our scheme, it would provide people with on average up to 70 per cent of their entitlements in the event of a company going under and not being able to pay them.If this is so, what has happened to the scheme which allowed workers at National Textiles to recover 100 per cent of their entitlements when it went broke? Doesn't it exist any more? Minister, haven't you now admitted, at last, that the Stan Howard-National Textiles payout was the one and only operation of this stand-alone scheme and, contrary to your answer to the last question, the scheme has not been made available to any workers in any other company that has become insolvent?29126Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The fundamental difference between the matter that the member for Brisbane raises and other matters is that the state Labor government was prepared to be involved. That is the fundamental difference. The only situation of loss of employee entitlements that any state government has been prepared to be involved in was the National Textiles matter. I repeat: workers would receive a much greater share of any entitlements owing to them if the state Labor governments would get involved. I urge the member for Brisbane, if he is really concerned about this, to get on the phone to Bob Carr and tell him to support other situations. That is what Labor members should do: get on the phone to their state colleagues and tell them to back the government's scheme.2912614:41:0029126Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Would the minister inform the House of the government's position on the current dispute in the car industry? What are the consequences of the dispute at Tristar for workers in the motor vehicle industry, and are there any alternative positions?29126Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Sturt for his question. I can understand his concerns because many of his constituents are currently stood down as a result of the strike action at Tristar. Let me make it very clear what the government's position is. We believe that this is a strike against the national interest and that it should end as soon as possible. Mr Speaker, 12,000 workers have already been stood down as a result of this strike, and thousands more will be stood down this week if this strike does not end. Today the government will seek leave to intervene in the Industrial Relations Commission in support of a return to work order if the commission suspends or terminates the bargaining period. We will intervene in this dispute because the 12,000 stood down workers have a right to work. They should not have their right to work taken away by a political strike engineered by an ultramilitant union at a strategic company.The positions of this government and the opposition are very clear. This government opposes the strike at Tristar; the opposition supports the strike at Tristar. But there are some understandable reasons why that would be the case. To start with, last year the AMWU, the union that has pulled on this strike, donated no less than $680,000 to the Australian Labor Party. Not only that; a few weeks ago Doug Cameron, the leader of this strike, promised a half a million dollar marginal seats campaign in support of the Leader of the Opposition. Not only that; the Metal Workers Union has the largest or second largest block vote inside the Australian Labor Party, and the Metal Workers Union's key Victorian activist, the man who controls the largest block vote inside the Labor Party in Victoria, is someone who believes that the best way to talk to small business is to open their front door with a crowbar. Just for once, members opposite should put the national interest ahead of the union interest. The Leader of the Opposition should run his own party rather than let the unions do it for him, because there is one thing that the Australian people are starting to realise: if you are not allowed to govern your own party, you should never be allowed to govern the country. 2912714:44:0029127Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, do you recall yesterday urging that no compromise in the Tristar dispute should be reached, saying `I think the only outcome worth having is a backdown by the Metal Workers Union.' Isn't it a fact that, in the last 48 hours, both the employers and the unions involved have made concessions in an attempt to reach a compromise that will resolve the current dispute? Minister, if both the employers and the unions are willing to compromise, how can you justify your provocative comments that have only inflamed the situation? Didn't your provocative stand cause two other companies to withdraw their offers that would have secured their workers' legal entitlements?29127Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Let us make it extremely clear: this strike has been started by the Metal Workers Union. The government did not start this strike. The company did not start this strike. This strike has been started by the Metal Workers Union. It is as simple as that. The only party to this dispute that has completely refused to compromise is the Metal Workers Union. The Metal Workers Union has completely refused to compromise on its absolute insistence on the so-called Manusafe scheme, even though the Manusafe scheme is not a scheme to protect worker entitlements; it is not about protecting existing entitlements; it is about creating new entitlements. What is more, the Manusafe scheme, if it were to come to fruition, would not just be about 1.5 per cent of payroll; it would be about 19 per cent of payroll. That is what it is about. The Manusafe scheme is not at all about protecting worker entitlements; it is about confiscating the working capital of the businesses of Australia. It certainly will not be supported by this government, and it should not be supported by members opposite.2912714:47:0029127Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Trade. Given Australia's outstanding trade performance for the month of June and for the past financial year, would the minister inform the House why Australian exporters have been so successful and what the government has done to help that performance?29127Vaile, Mark, MPMr VAILESU5LyneNPMinister for Trade10—I thank the honourable member for Cook for his question. Obviously, with his background of working in this field, he takes a great deal of interest in how Australia's trade performance and our export performance have improved dramatically over the years. Mr Speaker, did you know that the Australian waterfront is now more than 40 per cent more efficient than it was when Keating, Beazley and Crean were running this country? That is an undeniable fact. More and more exporters are telling me as I travel around that that is one of the structural changes that have taken place in this country that have certainly enhanced their businesses and made them more efficient and much more competitive in the international marketplace.Last week the figures for June and, indeed, for the 2000-01 financial year were released. The trade surplus in June stood at $537 million—the fourth in the first half of this year. The trade surplus in the year 2000-01 stands at $707 million, the first annual trade surplus since 1996-97. But more interesting than that is the fact that that is two annual trade surpluses that we have produced since coming into office in 1996. Labor managed just one trade surplus in 13 years in office; we have produced two in almost six years. The one that Labor produced in their 13 years in office was when Labor mugged the economy with interest rates up around 20 per cent, drove consumption down and, of course, `allowed' trade export to exist. At that time it was not about increasing exports, it was not about making the economy more efficient and it was not about making our exporters more competitive in the international marketplace; it was about mugging the economy with high interest rates. The question was: what has contributed to create this circumstance of a trade surplus? It has been increased exports. In the last financial year, $153 billion worth of goods and services were exported out of Australia. Of course, fundamental to that and to the competitive nature of our export industries has been workplace relations reform, particularly on the waterfront. I was in Dubbo last week in the electorate of the member for Parkes. A member of the processing industry there indicated to me that, yes, the economic reforms, the taxation reform, removing $3½ billion off the back of exporters, have been fantastic reforms for Australian exporters. But he said, `The thing that has made my business much, much more competitive is the fact that we changed the workplace relations, particularly on the waterfront and in the workplace.'All those reforms at every inch of the way have been opposed by the Australian Labor Party. The Australian Labor Party have been opposed to improving the structure of the Australian economy; they have been opposed to taxation reform where we have removed $3½ billion worth of cost burden off the back of Australian exporters; and they have been opposed to the reduction in the level of public sector indebtedness that has certainly helped improve the circumstance and has certainly improved the interest rate regime in Australia. So we have made a much more competitive environment, a much more efficient environment, within Australia so that we can compete better in the international marketplace—and Australia's exporters are taking great advantage of that environment, which has been created by the coalition government.2912814:51:0029128Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Again my question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, I refer to your comments that action taken by the workers at Tristar to secure their legally accrued entitlements was `treason'. Minister, if workers taking lawful action for a few days, in accordance with your laws, to secure their legally accrued entitlements is treason, how would you describe the actions by G & K O'Connor meatworks in Pakenham, Victoria, who locked out their employees for nine months in an attempt to cut their wages by up to 17½ per cent? Why is it that there was not one word of criticism made by you, the Prime Minister or any member of your government about the actions of that employer in that dispute? Isn't this just another example of the government's bias and double standards?29128Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The fundamental difference between the government and the opposition on this is that the government supports workers' rights and the opposition supports union rights. That is the fundamental difference. We support the workers of this country. Members opposite just support the unions of this country. Let me make it very clear that the dispute at Tristar is not about legally accrued entitlements; it is about creating new entitlements. It is about putting money into a fund—a union controlled fund—before that money has legally become an entitlement of the workers in question.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr Bevis—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My question was actually comparing the actions of the workers in Tristar with that at G & K O'Connor. It was not about the entitlements scheme, which was the subject of my earlier questions. The minister has got the opportunity now to say whether he supports that nine-month lockout or not.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business was asked a question about a comment he had made relative to the Tristar dispute and its relevance to other disputes. I deem him to be in order, and call him.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—Mr Speaker, as you say, the question was about actions going on at the moment inside the motor industry. Let me make it very clear what the distinction between this government and that opposition is. While Labor's mates, while the friends of members opposite, are trying to drive a company out of business and trying to drive an industry to its knees, this government, this Prime Minister, went to Japan to negotiate the arrangement which will secure this industry's future. We are about the future of the motor industry in this country. They are just on about driving companies out of business in support of their union mates. 2912914:55:0029129McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Small Business. Would the minister inform the House of the impact on small businesses of the proposed changes to the protection of workers' entitlements?29129Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. I have spoken to small businesses in the Corangamite electorate and I know from that visit that the member is a very staunch supporter of small business in those areas. Members of the House would be aware of a proposal by the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union to impose a 1.5 per cent payroll levy on the manufacturers to allegedly protect workers' entitlements. Outside the immediate and damaging impact which the proposal will have on the automotive industry, the scheme has significant impact potential on the 86,000 small businesses in manufacturing in Australia. Ninety-three per cent of businesses involved in manufacturing are small businesses, and the AMWU's proposal will impose a significant burden on those small businesses by pinching their capital and putting in place a scheme controlled by the unions.The Australian Industry Group indicates that it is estimated that the Manusafe scheme could cost up to 19.5 per cent extra for the wages bills of companies involved. A 19 per cent increase in the wages bill will cost jobs and it will cost businesses. We know that this scheme will only spread to other businesses and we know that Australian businesses have plenty to fear from a Beazley led, union dominated government because we know that in that scenario what the union wants is what the union gets.We saw a situation the other day where the unions wanted an increase in the superannuation guarantee. Firstly, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition said he supported 15 per cent. Then he said no, he did not. Then there was Senator Conroy—who has these fits of honesty—who said he was a 15 per cent man. Lastly, we saw the opposition leader finally admit that because the ACTU wants 15 per cent the Labor Party in government will give workers a 15 per cent superannuation guarantee. Then the Leader of the Opposition wants to use the superannuation guarantee as a discretionary tool to fund his ill-considered workers' entitlements scheme. Small business has a lot to fear from a Labor government. The shadow opposition spokesman on employment admits that this current strike over Manusafe is hurting the car industry but she still continues to support the union. Labor always puts the unions' interest ahead of that of Australia and ahead of that of small business.2912914:58:0029129Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, I refer you to yesterday's Age newspaper, which reported that your department has asked the DPP to consider charges against five people working in the Job Network and that three cases of fraud are currently before the courts. Minister, didn't you already know this when the department said disingenuously in its report into Leonie Green:... in the course of the Enquiry various practices used by Job Network members—that is plural, members—have come to attention.Minister, which Job Network providers do the individuals referred to the DPP work for, which Job Network providers are currently before the courts, and why didn't you tell the full truth in the report into Leonie Green and Associates?3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that the question infringes the sub judice principle and the natural rights of those before the courts.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the member for Dickson that the question is being addressed to the Speaker.3K6Cameron, Ross, MPMr Ross Cameron—Mr Speaker, I believe that the question offends the sub judice principle and the rights of those currently before the courts. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Parramatta will have noted that I hesitated to recognise the minister because there is some validity in his point of order. However, it will be the answer that needs to be monitored, not the question.29130Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I make two points here. First of all, it is the government's view that if anyone has broken the law, appropriate action should be taken against them. That is our view; it always will be our view. That is the first point. The second point that I make is that, notwithstanding this action, the government totally supports the Job Network. It is a great scheme, and the people behind it are some of the greatest institutions in our country. Unlike the government, which supports the Job Network, Labor wants to close it down and it snipes at the Job Network at every opportunity.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It was an explicit set of questions to ascertain who it was who was under investigation—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I have been informed that the minister has concluded his answer.2913015:02:0029130Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs.5I4McMullan, Bob, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I remind the Manager of Opposition Business of standing order 55.OK6Mr NAIRN—Will the minister inform the House of the entitlement to Commonwealth funding of Lumen Christi Catholic College at Pambula Beach in my electorate of Eden-Monaro? Is the minister aware of any particular threats to that funding?29130Kemp, 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 Eden-Monaro for his question.R36Albanese, Anthony, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Grayndler! The minister has the call.BT4Dr KEMP—I know that the member for Eden-Monaro has a very great interest in that school. In fact, he visited it recently and presented a new Australian flag there. Doubtless, while he was there, the school would have expressed its concern over its entitlement to establishment grants. The October entitlement of the school, of some $17,750 in establishment grants, has now been put at risk by the actions of the Labor Party in the Senate. Lumen Christi Catholic College is one of 54 new schools, generally low-fee schools, whose budgets have been flung into uncertainty by the actions of the Australian Labor Party. It is one of 54 schools, including the Bentleigh Chabad Jewish Day School, the Nykina Mangala Indigenous Community School and the Coast Christian School, to which the government has an obligation to pay establishment grants in October. Unfortunately, the government will not be in a position to make these payments of establishment grants to these schools because the Labor Party voted down in the Senate the legislation which provides the resources for these schools. The Labor Party split the legislation in the Senate. It knows that once the Senate splits legislation from the House of Representatives, that legislation is dead; it never returns to the House of Representatives.None of those schools will be paid unless the Labor Party backs down in its attitude to that legislation. What the Labor Party is now about is attacking schools across the breadth of the non-government sector. It claims that it wants to reduce funding for wealthy schools. In fact, as we know, it is going to cut the funding for some 30 boarding schools that are important to remote and rural Australia. But now it is attacking the funding for low-fee, new schools right across this country. Every one of the two million parents of students at non-government schools will now be in doubt about whether their school will receive cuts in funding under the Labor Party. We know the Labor Party's policy on new schools is just part of its capitulation to the policy of the Australian Education Union. The Australian Education Union—let me be quite clear about it—said in its submission to the Senate last year that the AEU has long opposed any funding to private schools and will continue to do so. As recently as 26 July, Mike Pope, the AEU Tasmanian President, said: The federal government must redistribute the money that is currently going to private schools into the public sector.So the whole $9 billion that is going to be paid to the Catholic parish schools over the next four years is now under attack by the Australian Labor Party. The Labor Party has made it clear—MG4Lee, Michael, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Dobell! The minister has the call.BT4Dr KEMP—The Labor Party has made it clear that it is going to rewrite the formula for non-government school funding for the next quadrennium. It has made it quite clear that it is going to reintroduce a new version of its infamous new schools policy, which left many students at low-fee schools unfunded. We know it is going to cut funding to 30 boarding schools, and now in the Senate it is attacking establishment grants to new low-fee schools. This is all because it is seeking to compromise with the extreme policy of the Australian Education Union. It is not a party concerned with educational equity and justice in this country. It is threatening the funding to the whole of the non-government sector by its attitudes, and two million parents are now being left in doubt. The Labor Party is desperate for money. It is going to put up taxes, it is going to put up income taxes, and now we know it is going to slice money away from low-fee non-government schools.2913115:08:0029131Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—My question is to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, are you aware that in a recent speech to the NESA conference, your junior minister identified changes to the Job Network to deal with the dishonest practices of job splitting and serial placements? Minister, given that you—excuse me, Prime Minister—presided over the creation—Government members interjecting—XW4Ms KERNOT—This is a question to this minister because he was in charge of Job Network 2.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Dickson has the call and will address the question to the minister.XW4Ms KERNOT—Minister, as you presided over the creation of Job Network 2, why did you allow the continuation of a fee structure that encourages short-term churning of the unemployed into job splitting and serial placements simply to inflate outcomes? Don't you share the responsibility for these identified rorts?29131Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The essence of the Job Network is that we, the government, do not pay under the Job Network for process; we pay for performance. We pay for people who are placed into jobs.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Dickson.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—That is the way the Job Network operates and that is the way it should be. If there are any allegations of dishonesty or inappropriate behaviour, let them be made and they will be investigated, as the allegations in question relating to a Job Network member in Queensland have been investigated and dealt with.The fundamental point is this: this government supports the Job Network. It believes that the Job Network is doing a much better job than the old CES and it is providing much better value for taxpayers. What members opposite want to do is strip the Job Network contracts away from organisations like the Salvation Army, Mission Employment and Centacare. That is what members opposite want to do. They want to destroy the operations of these great companies and go back to a Canberra knows best centralised bureaucracy. It is just not on. It shouldn't happen and this government will never support that kind of betrayal of the jobseekers of Australia, and betrayal of the great organisations that are doing their best to help.XW4Kernot, Cheryl, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Dickson is warned. 2913215:10:0029132Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Would the minister inform the House of the progress being made in raising literacy and numeracy standards among Australia's schoolchildren? Is the minister aware of any threats to the national literacy strategy?29132Kemp, 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 Dawson for her question. When this government was elected after 13 years of Labor, around 30 per cent of young Australians could not read or write properly, and, when Kim Beazley was the education minister, he did nothing about this. As he said, `I felt that there was less capacity to achieve in this portfolio than in any other.'VU5Griffin, Alan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The member for Bruce is warned.BT4Dr KEMP—That was his view about a 30 per cent illiteracy rate amongst young Australians. One of the first actions of this government was to put in place a national literacy and numeracy strategy which requires every child in years 3, 5 and 7 to be tested against nationally agreed benchmark standards, and that the states report publicly to parents. The Commonwealth now requires the states, in return for Commonwealth funding, to commit to achieve literacy and numeracy for every child. The legislation recognises, of course, that there will be a very small number of students who will not achieve this.At the ministerial council meeting last Friday week, the state Labor governments attempted to roll back the literacy and numeracy strategy. They made it very clear that they want to repeal the Commonwealth legislation which underpins the right of every young Australian to learn to read and write, to acquire basic literacy and numeracy skills. The Labor states also voted to reject the Commonwealth proposal that they tell parents what their child's performance was against national literacy benchmarks. They refuse to reveal to parents the performance of their child against the national benchmarks. In other words, they refuse to tell parents whether their children can read and write at national standard levels.This is not entirely a surprise from the Labor state governments because the Bracks government in Victoria has backed away from its national commitments on literacy and numeracy; the New South Wales state government has no state target at all for literacy and numeracy; and the Leader of the Opposition has never once criticised any of the unions boycotting literacy and numeracy tests in the states. He never utters a word when thousands of students are disadvantaged and their parents are deprived of vital information.Since this government was elected, the number of Australian students not achieving the national benchmark level has halved. Year 5 data released in the week before last shows a similar trend. Year 5 reading results show that 85.6 per cent of students nationally achieved the agreed minimum national standard. This shows that our strategy is working. The Labor Party is under enormous pressure from the teacher unions to roll back the national strategy. The states are now attempting to do that and they are going to put pressure on the Leader of the Opposition to go along with them. What Australian parents now want to hear is whether Kim Beazley is going to commit himself to the Commonwealth legislation which requires the states to teach every young person to read and write properly.2913215:14:0029132Swan, Wayne, MPMr SWAN2V5LilleyALP00—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, do you support the statement in the report of the government's Advisory Committee on Homelessness which says:Myths that link homelessness to personal flaws or bad choices must be dispelled. Homelessness is caused by structural factors such as ... poverty and unemployment.Minister, if you agree with the committee that government policies rather than individual failings cause homelessness, what is your response to the committee's view that a lot more could be done to improve employment outcomes for people experiencing homelessness? 29133Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I certainly accept that structural factors can cause homelessness. There is no doubt about that. But there are also other factors that can cause homelessness. This government is trying to maximise the opportunities that people have to make the most of their lives. It is about building freedom and opportunities. It is certainly not about trying to enmesh people in suffocating bureaucracy, which is typical of members opposite. The best thing you can do for almost anyone who is suffering deprivation is provide them with a job. The most compassionate thing that you can do for anyone who is suffering deprivation is to provide that person with employment, and I am delighted to say that this government has created 800,000 new jobs since 1996. Not only that, we have boosted the wages of low paid workers. Basic award earnings have gone up by nine per cent over the last five years after declining in real terms by five per cent when members opposite were in government. Average award earnings have gone up by over 10 per cent under this government. In fact, they declined by nearly 15 per cent in real terms when members opposite were in government. So this government have done a magnificent job. We are not perfect and there is always more that can be done. But this government have put in place the foundations which will enable the underprivileged people of this country to make more of their opportunities and we have put in place the kinds of services that they need to make the most of their lives.2913315:17:0029133Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Minister, what progress has the government made in implementing the Defence white paper? What alternative policies exist to jeopardise its continuing successful implementation?29133Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—I thank the member for Herbert for his question. He is a great supporter of defence and we have a lot of members on this side who know the importance of defence and are very keen to see it do well in the future. I am asked what the government are doing to support defence. We are implementing the best plan that defence has had in probably 30 or 40 years. We have given to defence a vision and a set of guidelines and real support of the sort which it never had when the Labor Party was in office. I am also asked whether there is a threat to this. There certainly is a threat to the Defence white paper, and that threat sits across the chamber, on the front bench at the bar table—the former Minister for Defence, one of the worst defence ministers Australia has ever had. One only has to mention the Collins class submarines to any audience for most Australians to know that. The Leader of the Opposition has a promise for every audience he meets. He goes to Adelaide and he promises two free new submarines—Kim 1 and Kim 2—which he will launch if ever he gets in. His shadow minister promises a new boat just at a click of his fingers—$80 million. The Labor Party in Newcastle have got the free bombing range at a mere cost of $1 billion to $2 billion, supported by the Leader of the Opposition. They have got the Anzac battalion—half a billion dollars—and then, just for good measure, he is around Australia promising a coastguard which, when he was the minister, he was totally opposed to because he said it would not work and it would gut the Navy.Then floating onto my desk comes another example of the incoherent incompetence of the Leader of the Opposition. This was a brief discussion by him on Townsville radio. He says:We want to ensure that the government gets the balance right.It is great him giving us advice. And then he goes on that they may be proceeding on the equipment at the expense of members of the armed forces. I thought that he was now promoting the idea that we are spending too much money on equipment and not enough money on personnel. So I kept reading through the transcript and I found that it is not actually that—he wants to spend more money on equipment. We know that, because he has a list as long as your arm—the biggest blank cheque you have ever seen. As the Prime Minister has said, all roads lead back to a certain proposition. On Townsville radio last month Mr Beazley said that he was now not talking about cutting the defence budget at all: the Labor Party was going to increase it. So now we have from the Labor Party the biggest surplus, the biggest spending, the promise to the states, noodle nation, and it is going to spend more money on defence. And, of course, he says, `You will be told what we are going to spend it on after the election.' Senator Conroy gave us a glimpse. When you put all of these bits of the puzzle together, they add up to one extra thing: there will be nothing for defence. People in defence will pay more income tax. That is what they ought to be worried about.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations2913415:21:0029134Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Yes, on about five separate occasions in question time.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Firstly, the Minister for Small Business purported to quote me when he said that I had suggested that the superannuation guarantee charge should be increased to 15 per cent, and that that was my intention should I be Prime Minister. I do not know where he gets this from. It is rubbish. I have said no such thing. Secondly, on several different occasions the Prime Minister and the Treasurer said that I intend to raise income taxes. I have never said any such thing, nor did the quotes they used indicate that I had said such a thing. It is not our intention and, indeed, we have given undertakings that we will not raise income taxes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that he must indicate where he has been misrepresented, not enter into argument.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Thirdly, the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs has said—and he has several offences here—that I am threatening the funds to Catholic schools and to low income private schools. We are not; we support the grants that go to those schools. We invented the system.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition must indicate where he has been misrepresented, not where the party has been misrepresented.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—He said that it was me.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I interrupted the Leader of the Opposition only because he had made frequent reference to the term `we', unless he thought I was in some way curtailing his rights.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—Fine. Fourthly, the minister for education also said that we have never supported skills testing. We have.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition must refer to where he has been misrepresented, not where the party had been misrepresented.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—I have, as well. I do not know where he is going with that particular proposition. I do support skills testing. Finally, the Minister for Defence, the man who has deserted his post—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition knows that he must come to the misrepresentation or resume his seat.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEY—He said that I would increase defence spending, and then he left it at that. That is a partial quote which misleads. If you decide to create a coastguard, all expenditures associated with it, according to the International Institute of Strategic Studies—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition has indicated where he has been misrepresented; he cannot get into an argument about that misrepresentation. The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.15:24:0029134Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the Deputy Leader of the Opposition claim to have been misrepresented? DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The Minister for Small Business today in question time claimed that I said that we would introduce a 15 per cent super guarantee levy, presumably referring to a report in the Australian newspaper. That is totally incorrect. The Australian newspaper admitted that that report was completely without foundation and printed a correction.Questions to the Speaker291352913515:24:0029135Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—In today's Notice Paper question No. 2815, which would do justice to a Monty Python type scenario—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will come to the point. He is rising under standing order 150, I presume?83DMr MURPHY—Yes. It asks the Minister for Health and Aged Care when will he answer—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe must only indicate which question is outstanding, and I will draw the number of that question to the minister's attention.83DMr MURPHY—That question relates to my question of 22 May that I put on the Notice Paper, question No. 2546 to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, which asks when he will answer my question No. 2110—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will not proceed to restate the question. I will follow up the question that he has nominated.83DMr MURPHY—Mr Speaker, all those questions relate to questions that I asked last year of the indolent Minister for Health and Aged Care, who is a serial offender—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Lowe will resume his seat.2913515:25:0029135Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00—Mr Speaker, under standing order 150, would you write to the Treasurer for the sixth time asking him to respond to my question No. 1290 of 3 April last year and assure him it is not a trick question.29135SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matter raised as the standing orders provide.Bills2913510000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I wish to inform the House that on Friday, 29 June I met with His Excellency the Governor-General at Government House and personally presented for the royal assent the following bill:Appropriation Bill (No. 1) 2001-2002This is the first bill ready for presentation following the swearing-in of His Excellency. His Excellency, in the name of Her Majesty, was pleased to assent to the bill, which is now act No. 64 of 2001.291351The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:2913549009CWFI4Ms Corcoran;Mr Allan MorrisTo 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 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; andnot approve any commercial activities inconsistent with the ABC Act and Charter.43Ms Corcoran009CWMs Corcoran (from 43 citizens) and6Mr Allan MorrisFI4Mr Allan Morris (from six citizens).2913612HM5Mr GeorgiouTo 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 Church of Christ, Surrey Hills, Victoria 3127, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.12Mr GeorgiouHM5Mr Georgiou (from 12 citizens).2913622WU5Mr O'ConnorTo the President and the Members of the Senate in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We therefore, the individual, undersigned Members of St Matthew's Anglican Church, Geelong East, Victoria 3219, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound will ever pray.22Mr O'ConnorWU5Mr O'Connor (from 22 citizens).2913610643K6Mr Ross CameronTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of residents of the state of New South Wales draws to the attention of the House, Israel's continued occupation of the 1967 Palestinian and Arab territories in violation of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, Israel's continued refusal to allow the dispossessed Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland and pay compensation in accordance with UN General Assembly resolution 194, as well as Israel's collective punishments, daily killing of innocent civilians for the last eight months, its economic and military siege of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories, its confiscation of Palestinian land and the building of Jewish settlements, all of which are war crimes and crimes against humanity and contravene international law, UN resolutions, the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.Your petitioners therefore request the House to:. demand that Israel comply, in full, with the peace process agreements it signed with the PLO, withdraw from the occupied Palestinian and Arab territories in accordance with UN resolution 242 and 338, recognise the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, including their right of return to their homeland in accordance with UN resolution 194 and the establishment of their independent Palestinian state, and exert every pressure on Israel to do so. . adopt measures that would help to ensure Israel's compliance with the 4th Geneva Convention, as a High Contracting Party to the Convention. Australia has a contractual obligation under Article 1 of all four Geneva Conventions to do so.. condemn Israel's crimes and expansion of Jewish settlements in the 1967-occupied Palestinian territories and exercise pressure towards those ends.. cancel the tax-exempt status of all fund-raising appeals in Australia for Israel and in particular the discriminatory Jewish National Fund of Australia Inc., until such time as Israel revokes its racist laws against its non-Jewish citizens, withdraws from the occupied Palestinian and Arab territories and recognises the rights of Palestinian people.. increase the financial assistance to the Palestinian people.1064Mr Ross Cameron3K6Mr Ross Cameron (from 1,064 citizens).29137481009CWMs CorcoranTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain electors of the Division of Isaacs draws to the attention of the House the intention of the Department of Defence to sell the land in Levanto Street Mentone known as Chicquita Reserve, and used for the last 25 years as public open space, for residential subdivision. Your petitioners request that the House:suspend the proposed sale of the Chicquita Reserve pending negotiations with a view to finding some means to save the Reserve for residents' passive recreation and scouting activities and for its environmental value;consult with representatives of relevant state and local governments and with concerned residents in an effort to work out appropriate funding arrangements and sources, which might include the National Heritage Trust and Conservation Trust for Nature, to purchase the Reserve if necessary.481Ms Corcoran009CWMs Corcoran (from 481 citizens).29137408009CWMs CorcoranTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament:The petition of certain electors in the Division of Isaacs draws to the attention of the House to:. the severe costs to Cranbourne district residents of STD charges on calls to most of Melbourne, when Cranbourne is clearly part of the Melbourne metropolitan area;. the unfairness of Telstra's current call zones and charges being based on the 1960s telephone network and demography of Melbourne, with dramatic changes in technology and Melbourne's growth patterns over the subsequent three decades being ignored;. the inequity of call zone arrangements in which Telstra discriminates against some citizens (Cranbourne residents) by denying local call access to most of metropolitan Melbourne, when citizens more distant from Melbourne have such access, based merely on historical chance.Your petitioners ask the House to: (1) require Telstra under its Universal Service Obligations to develop equitable policies and criteria to ensure it does not discriminate amongst customers in similar geographic circumstances;(2) ensure that Telstra establishes fair and equitable call zones and charging systems for customers in similar geographic situations in the Melbourne metropolitan area.408Ms Corcoran009CWMs Corcoran (from 408 citizens).29137767WF6Mr 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 22/06/01, 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.767Mr DanbyWF6Mr Danby (from 767 citizens).291383477K6Mr EntschTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain canegrowers from The Mulgrave Central Mill Co. Ltd area and employees of The Mulgrave Central Mill Co. Ltd, Gordonvale, points out to the House that this petition is in support of a joint submission by The Mulgrave Central Mill Co. Ltd and the Mulgrave Cane Production & Productivity Board. The submission details the extent of grub damage that has affected the Mulgrave Mill area to the detriment of Canegrowers and the Mill by reducing productivity and causing serious financial loss.Your petitioners therefore request the House to support a 33.3 per cent rebate off the price of the insecticide Confidor for application to the 2002 crop.347Mr Entsch7K6Mr Entsch (from 347 citizens).2913819HM5Mr GeorgiouTo 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.19Mr GeorgiouHM5Mr Georgiou (from 19 citizens).291381583NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.These petitioners of the Division of Shortland and adjoining areas are deeply concerned at any plans to further privatise Telstra.Further privatisation of Telstra will result in the loss of thousands more Telstra jobs, worsening services to regional and rural Australia, and the loss of up to $1 billion a year for all Australians earned from Telstra profits.We believe these profits, both now and in the future, should be set aside to secure improved educational opportunities for our children, increased research and development funds for our scientists and doctors, and more money for rural and regional Australia.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request that the House reject any further sale of the Commonwealth's shares in Telstra and that the annual profits from Telstra be used for the benefit of all Australians.15Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 15 citizens).291382283NMs 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.22Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 22 citizens).2913898I4Dr MartinTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the plan by the Howard Government to raise $10 million by increasing the amount paid by diabetes patients for blood glucose test strips, syringes, insulin pen needles and urine strips.The undersigned believe that this move would unfairly punish people, who as well as managing this disease, would be faced with higher prices for essential diagnostic items.Your petitioners therefore respectfully request the House recognise the significant financial burden this heartless budget measure would place on people with diabetes and reject the proposal. 9Dr Martin8I4Dr Martin (from nine citizens).2913940083DMr MurphyTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the citizens of Strathfield Municipal Council draw to the attention of the House our concern over the ethnic conflict currently occurring in Sri Lanka.We ask the House to support negotiations to finding a political solution to the current ethnic conflict through peaceful means—a negotiated settlement that is fair, just and equitable and which would satisfy the political aspirations of the Tamil people. In addition we request the House to forward this petition directly to the President of Sri Lanka.400Mr Murphy83DMr Murphy (from 400 citizens).29139241RW5Dr NelsonTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the electorate of Bradfield draws to the attention of the House the unfortunate situation whereby the general grants from Federal Government to the States can be reduced, as a result of the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment using a proportional change in enrolments, even though the actual enrolment numbers in a public school system may have increased.Your petitioners therefore request that the House instruct the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, the Federal Treasurer and the Minister for Finance to work together and find a way of changing the method of calculating the amount to be deducted from State Government General Grants under the Enrolment Benchmark Adjustment, from one using a proportional change in school enrolments to one using a per capita basis, so that when student numbers in public schools increase there is no reduction in the General Grant.241Dr NelsonRW5Dr Nelson (from 241 citizens).291393306J4Mr SciaccaTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of certain residents and/or citizens of Australia, draws the attention of the House to the application of Khin Maung Tunn, a national of Myanmar (Burma), currently residing at 2 Dillwynnia Grove, Heathcote, New South Wales, for the protection of the Commonwealth of Australia as a political refugee.Khin Maung Tunn was an active member of the National League for Democracy in Myanmar, and has continued his political activities in Australia for the promotion of the cause of democracy in Myanmar.In Myanmar, he suffered both imprisonment and professional disadvantage for his support of democratic principles.Additionally, his family's relationship, friendship and support for the persecuted leader of the democratic movement in Myanmar, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, have drawn the intimidating attention of the military government in Myanmar.Consequently, it is our belief that Khin Maung Tunn is in extreme and life threatening danger should he be refused protection, and forced by the Australian Government to return to Myanmar.Your petitioners therefore request the House to do all in its power to ensure that Khin Maung Tunn is provided with protection as a political refugee and is allowed to reside in Australia permanently, or alternatively, that he be granted permanent residency as an act of compassion on humanitarian grounds.330Mr Sciacca6J4Mr Sciacca (from 330 citizens).291393175V5Mr Stephen SmithTo the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled:We, the undersigned residents of Australia ask that the House of Representatives consider the health and welfare of the present and future residents of this country and the environmental impacts of possible negative impacts relating to the visits of nuclear powered and/armed vessels into Australian ports.Nuclear navies are not welcome here whatever the colour of their flags.The recent spate of accidents involving nuclear-powered submarines should be enough to convince all governments that the risk to the environment of these floating Chernobyls is a risk we don't have to take.Accordingly, we respectfully request that the parliament legislate to prevent all visits of nuclear armed/powered vessels to Australian ports and waters.And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever humbly pray.317Mr Stephen Smith5V5Mr Stephen Smith (from 317 citizens).29140134IJ4Mr SnowdonTo the Honourable the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives assembled in ParliamentThe petition of certain citizens of Australia draws the attention of the House to the unfair and inequitable gender biased administration of Family Breakdown Services, whereby Families in Breakdown are provided services differently and unequally according to the gender of the parent. These services are discriminatorily promoted and provided as free services to mothers but unequally or not at all to fathers, thus discriminating against fathers and their children. This injustice is creating unnecessarily exaggerated disruptions to family and children's lives. Such services are (1) Domestic Violence Strategies targeting only fathers whilst ignoring Australian and world-wide social science research, supported by other family service, crime and medical statistics that overwhelmingly reveals mothers are equally violent family members. (2) Family Crisis Centres that do not accommodate fathers with children who are in similar circumstances as mothers with children that are accommodated, and (3) restraining orders issued exparte against separating fathers as an administrative routine, without adequate investigation or reason about the fathers behaviour ever requiring such services. (4) Only fathers and their children are subjected to these administrative distortions and humiliation as in (1) (2) and (3) above.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House will henceforth have all aforementioned Family Breakdown Services administered, according to proper statistical facts to fathers as to mothers without fear or favour of gender, and according to their true family needs so as to avoid over servicing vexatious allegations.134Mr SnowdonIJ4Mr Snowdon (from 134 citizens).Petitions received.Private Members' Business291402914015:30:0029140Hall, Jill, MPMs HALL83NShortlandALP00—I move:That this House:(1) condemns the Government for failing to ensure that residents in nursing homes receive an adequate standard of personal medical care;(2) notes the concerns of the families of nursing home residents and workers in the aged care industry about the impact of the Government's aged care policy on nursing home standards and care; and (3) calls on the Government to review its aged care policy to ensure that the wellbeing of nursing homes is paramount and not secondary to government savings.There is no greater challenge for government today than that of ensuring adequate care and accommodation for Australians as they grow older. It is about people and ensuring that older people in our community who are frail and who need special care and accommodation can receive the quality care they need. It is about treating them with dignity, in the way that you would want your mother, father, husband, wife or even yourself to be treated. Aged care is about caring for people who have made enormous contributions to our nation and who now depend on government to ensure that they receive the care they deserve. Unfortunately, the Howard government has failed to ensure that older people receive this care. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Aged Care have forgotten that they are talking about real people when they blame everyone else but themselves for the aged care crisis. The government stands condemned for its inaction, for placing nursing home residents at risk, for failing to provide sufficient nursing home and hospital beds for people who need them, for undermining the viability of many nursing homes because of its flawed funding formula and for failing to plan to meet the future needs of older Australians.In this House we have heard about the poor medical attention that residents at Riverside and Yagoona nursing homes received. This government's response was appalling. The minister was more interested in justifying her performance and passing the buck than addressing the real issues. It is not good enough, and it certainly does not equate to a government taking seriously its responsibility to care—remember that word—for some of the most vulnerable people within our society. The government and the minister have argued that the accreditation process would ensure that all residents of nursing homes receive quality care, but this is not the case. Most nursing homes pass the scheduled inspections but problems still continue in nursing homes run by unscrupulous operators. The government's commitment to meaningful spot checks still has a question mark over it. Most areas throughout Australia are experiencing an enormous shortage of beds. The minister has detailed the number of beds that the government has allocated to address this shortage. But what the minister—or, for that matter, anyone in the Howard government—does not tell us is how many of these beds are actually available. In the Hunter, the area I come from, there are currently 89 phantom nursing home beds and 460 phantom hostel beds, and on the Central Coast of New South Wales there are 147 phantom nursing home beds and 528 phantom hostel beds. This represents one bed in 10 in the Hunter and one bed in five on the Central Coast that exist only on paper. And on the mid-North Coast the figure is one bed in six.I have very little sympathy for the government's argument that it has delivered all these beds to the area I represent when every day I have families telling me about the problems they are having locating a bed for their mother, father, husband or wife. There are people like the lady from Swansea whom I saw last Thursday. Her mother is 89 years old and suffers from slight dementia, but she is not a danger to herself or others, so she is not a high priority. She is very frail and disabled. She has been assessed as needing hostel accommodation. She has been waiting for six months and is also on the waiting list for a community care package. Her daughter visits every day and pays for her to get care in her home. Wouldn't it be good if some of those 460 phantom hostel beds existed, because then this lady would have somewhere to live?Recently in the Hunter, Catholic aged care announced that St Catherine's of Siena at Waratah and St Joseph's at Lochinvar will close. The member for Hunter has just expressed to me his great disappointment that beds are going from Lochinvar. These closures are a direct result of the government failing to adequately fund aged care facilities and, from what other aged care providers in my area are telling me, they will not be the last nursing homes to close their doors. Catholic aged care is a quality aged care provider. It places a high value on the care of its residents above all other aspects, so it is very sad when we see this organisation being forced to close a quality nursing home, one that has had $1.5 million invested in it in recent times. The minister, as always, blames the closures on something else: the closures were outside her control; St Joseph's is too small; St Catherine's is a heritage building and on three levels, which makes it expensive to operate. We hear excuse after excuse, but these excuses will not find nursing home beds for the 88 residents who live at St Catherine's, nor will they help all those people in the Hunter and on the Central Coast who are waiting for nursing home beds.So what has caused this crisis? If we can believe the minister, we could be forgiven for thinking that there is no crisis. She has told the Australian people and the nursing home industry that the funding for aged care is generous and that nursing homes should be making a 12 per cent profit. But, when the funding is looked at in detail, the problem becomes obvious. I will use St Catherine's of Siena to illustrate the minister's deception. The minister has stated that St Catherine's has received a 54 per cent increase in funding over the last five years. True, but what the minister is not saying is that this funding increase has been absorbed totally by 16 new beds, which accounts for 31 per cent; increased insurance premiums of six per cent; increased superannuation contributions of three per cent; and award increases of 14 per cent. This leaves no funding for increases in the cost of food, electricity, maintenance, service contracts, medical supplies, linen services, cleaning products, telephones and the implementation of the GST. It is little wonder that St Catherine's of Siena has to close its doors.The government relies heavily on the Gray report to justify its performance in the provision of aged care. Unfortunately, whilst this review was conducted by an eminent person independent of government, it relies on government data and unreleased government modelling to support its key finding. There is no independent research, so how credible and independent is this review of the government's reform program when it has used the government's data? A report released by Aged and Community Services Australia on Friday for the National Aged Care Industry Council concludes that the aged care industry is fast reaching crisis point and that its ongoing viability is under threat. That is a real problem for Australia. The report details the problems that that industry is having in gaining access to capital to make necessary building improvements or to finance new beds. It also demonstrates the government's failure to portray the real costs of nursing homes by its statement that it costs only $68,500 to provide a nursing home bed when, if all costs are taken into account, it costs somewhere between $85,000 and $120,000. No wonder there is a crisis within the nursing home industry, and no wonder a question hangs over its ongoing viability. This, in turn, has led to the closure of facilities like St Catherine's of Siena, those 549 phantom beds in the Hunter and 675 phantom beds on the Central Coast—beds that exist on paper only.There are many other issues that threaten the viability of the nursing home industry—and which the government has failed to recognise—such as the enormous cost of the accreditation process and a number of staff related matters that also impact on the industry's ongoing viability. The government has failed to recognise that aged care is about care—care for vulnerable people who deserve to be treated with respect and dignity. Aged care is not about passing the buck, it is not about cutting costs and it is not about apportioning blame; it is about planning and ensuring that the needs of our communities are met. I call on the government, and in particular the minister, to sit down with all interested parties and groups— (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?84SO'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.15:40:0029142Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—Health and wellbeing of all Australians, in particular the elderly, is a central concern of this government. In her closing remarks, the member for Shortland said that the future of aged care was about planning. Let me indicate to the House that it was the total and abject failure of planning by the previous Labor government that established the baseline for the situation that this government faced when it came to office in 1996. Indeed, the government has significantly increased the number of aged care places available for older Australians. After the government came to office in 1996, the Auditor-General—an independent officer— found that a 10,000 aged care place deficit had been left by the previous Labor government. In the last two approval rounds, and in the 2001 approval round, more than 31,000 new places have been released to in part make up for this deficit and to meet the need for growth.A review was taken, again independently, by Professor Gregory. What he found about the building fabric of the nursing homes in Australia at the end of the Labor rule of this Commonwealth parliament was that 13 per cent of nursing homes did not meet the relevant fire authority standards, 11 per cent of nursing homes did not meet the relevant health authority standards, 70 per cent of nursing homes did not meet the relevant outcome standards and 51 per cent of nursing home residents were living in rooms with three or more beds. That was the legacy left to this government by the previous government—the opposition of which the honourable member is a member in this place. It is that legacy that this government has been attempting to address over the five years it has been in government.Indeed, Professor Len Gray, in the two-year review of aged care reforms, found that there had been improvements in building standards since this government came to office. Specifically he stated:Substantial increases in the quality and quantity of residential buildings was a specific objective of the reforms. The evidence indicates that considerable progress has been made towards achieving this objective.Professor Gray also found that the new arrangements introduced by this government generated sufficient income to enable the industry to meet its capital requirements, and the system is now sustainable well into the future. Indeed, extensive rebuilding, upgrading and refurbishment work has been undertaken. In the past two years, $1.4 billion across Australia has been committed by the industry to capital building works, and 12 per cent of all aged care homes in Australia have been either newly built or completely rebuilt. There has been a steady decline in the number of residents per room since October 1996, when there were 1.6 residents per room. This has fallen in 3½ years to 1.5 residents per room. In 1994, Professor Gregory found that, under the Labor Party, some 51 per cent of residents were living in rooms with three or more people. Now, fewer than 22 per cent of residents are living in rooms with three or more beds, and this number is steadily declining.In 1995-96, the former Labor government spent $2.5 billion on residential aged care. The outlay in the 2000-01 financial year is expected to be $3.9 billion. If you look at the projections into the future—and we are the first to admit that we have a lot further to go, that we came from a very poor base left to us by the Labor Party—you will see that there will be an increase from some $4.2 billion to $6 billion in 2001-02, an increase of some 41 per cent. So the moves and the measures taken by the government have been substantial.Referring to the Hunter region, which the honourable member represents, the total number of new operational beds commenced or scheduled to commence by 31 December this year is 461; the total number of new aged care homes commenced or scheduled to commence by the end of this year in the Hunter region is five, which will account for an additional 163 residential aged care places; and seven extensions to existing aged care homes have commenced or are scheduled to commence by the end of this year, which involves an extra 298 residential aged care places. So in the Hunter region alone, which the honourable speaks about in part of her remarks, there is an expected increase in actual beds in aged care facilities on the ground of some 461 beds. In my own electorate there have been numerous new nursing homes and aged care facilities that have been built and there are many hundreds of new beds. I am sure that members, if they are frank about the matter, can speak about that right throughout this area. The other issue that the honourable member failed to mention when talking about the situation in the Hunter was the high and increasing workers compensation costs which, in effect, have been imposed by the Labor government in New South Wales. One would have thought that, if she were truly making a fair representation of the situation, she would have admitted to those high and increasing workers compensation costs in the state of New South Wales and would be calling upon the Labor government in New South Wales to do its part in relation to these matters.Certification in this area has provided the first ever audit of the building quality of all aged care homes. We hear about problems that arise from time to time with certain aged care facilities in this country. But we have a better situation now—not that any of us want problems to arise—where there is certification, monitoring and checks and we can have some assurance of the quality in these nursing homes. The situation that prevailed prior to this government—when the party of the honourable member opposite was in government; when it was occupying this side of the House—was that we did not have those checks, we did not have that system of accreditation, we did not have that monitoring and we did not know what the standard was in relation to many of these homes. The accreditation agency and the department have the power to visit aged care homes and conduct spot checks. In fact, more than 643 spot checks have occurred so far this calendar year. As at 1 June 2001, a total of 1,320 spot checks had been conducted and some 3,000 accreditation sites audited. Professor Gray's overall conclusion was that reforms have resulted in substantial improvements to the aged care system. His assessment of this government's performance was clearly a distinction. He said:It is my conclusion, on completion of the Review, that the reforms have delivered substantial improvements to the aged care system. The fine-tuning undertaken to smooth the implementation of the reforms and address unanticipated anomalies has been largely successful. That is all part of a situation in the context of the budgeting ability of this government. As was pointed out in question time today, when we came to office there was not only a deficit in the Commonwealth budget, in terms of the 1995-96 budget when we came to power, but also a $96 billion Commonwealth debt, $80 billion of which—or most of it—had been run up while the current Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, was the Minister for Finance in the Hawke and Keating governments.We did not start from a level playing field, and we will have paid back by the end of this financial year something like $60 billion. That is important because that frees up interest which is now available to provide for health care, aged care homes, education, police forces and all the social services that the people in Australia want. But I do not hear anything from the honourable member in terms of the base of income in this place. She is part of a party that says, `We'll roll back the GST. We'll roll back the revenue and somehow, magically, we are going to find more money for aged care facilities, amongst other things.' We have a growing and ageing population. In 1998, 2.3 million Australians were over 65 years—12 per cent of the population. That is estimated to be five million by 2030—something like 19 per cent of the population. This government recognise that there is more to be done in this area. But I would say to the people of Australia that, having recognised the problem, having recognised the legacy, having recognised the inadequate system that the Labor Party left us in 1996, we have made substantial improvements which have enabled us to provide thousands of more places and to put billions of more dollars into aged care. We have more to do and we will go further. This motion does not recognise that at all. We will build upon those results.15:50:0029144O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I rise to support the motion moved by my friend and colleague the member for Shortland and join with her in calling for this House to condemn the government for its failure to provide a safe aged care framework for older Australians. I would like to speak about some of the comments made by the member for Menzies. He said that aged care was now sustainable. I suppose he probably does not realise the situation in Tasmania, where the coalescence or funding equalisation—or whatever the government chooses to call it on any given day—actually results in a lessening of the funding to aged care facilities. Many facilities are now trying to decide whether or not they can remain open. That is not a sustainable industry, from my perspective.The member for Menzies also gave assurances with respect to aged care standards and told us how we can believe in them. But time and time again we hear horror stories emerging from our nation's aged care facilities. Many of these facilities are good providers, particularly the ones in my region for which I have the utmost respect. They are struggling to do the best that they can under immense pressure from this government, which refuses to acknowledge the true state of the aged care industry. The fact that we have a far greater demand for aged care than is currently available should not have come as a surprise to any government. Australia, in common with other developed nations, is ageing. This phenomenon is predicted to continue well into the next century. The member for Menzies referred to the ABS projections, which indicated that, while the percentage of the population over 65 in 1997 was 12 per cent—and he gave the figures for 2031—the figure will actually reach something like 25 per cent by the time we get to 2051.Tasmania is second only to South Australia in having the highest proportion of citizens over the age of 65. In terms of future growth rates, Australia is expected to experience a higher than average increase in aged population over the 1995-2005 period compared with the rest of the Western world. This is information we have known about for some time, yet the government continues to stick its head in the sand when it comes to the needs of our ageing population. These are people who have fought wars, raised families, contributed immeasurably to our society and paid a lifetime of taxes, but still the government continues to insult them through the incompetent and, I believe, uncaring Minister for Aged Care. Families who are faced with the prospect of having an elderly relative in a nursing home must be able to feel confident that their loved one is receiving the highest possible level of care, that their wellbeing and dignity are respected, and that they have the same quality of life that the rest of us in the community expect. With the current inadequacy of care subsidies, families cannot be sure that their relatives will receive even those basic standards. I regularly speak with staff in the excellent aged care facilities in my electorate who are heartbroken because they simply do not have the time and the resources that they need to provide the level of care that they not only want to provide but know they need to provide.I recently met with a group of aged care providers, and in one short meeting they raised over 13 issues which were of extreme concern. They included a long list of concerns about the accreditation system, heavy workloads, impossibility of paperwork, documentation driving funding, wage parity, and lack of recognition of nurses' skills. One issue that really concerned those at the meeting was the acuity of residents. Residents can come into a nursing home with an acuity comparable with that of patients in a medical ward of a hospital. What is of critical concern is that these facilities will sometimes have a ratio of one registered nurse to some 90 residents in his or her care. This is an outrageous situation and not what any of us would expect for someone we care about. Waiting lists are an issue that is often brought up in my electorate, and I share the concerns of the member for Shortland. It seems that practically everyone I speak with has a relative or knows of someone on a waiting list for an aged care bed. In 1997-98, 12 per cent of people waiting for high care beds in northern Tasmania waited over three months for that bed. This year, that figure has blown out to 25 per cent. One quarter of the people waiting for essential care services are waiting for over three months. Despite this, northern Tasmania was not granted a single extra high care bed in the 2000-01 allocation round. That means that frail, elderly Australians are waiting. They are waiting in hospital beds; they are waiting at home, unable to look after themselves; they are waiting in inappropriate services and not receiving the care they need to be safe and well. They are just waiting. While the Minister for Aged Care wastes time blaming the states for this terrible problem, frail Australians will continue to wait. And it is just not good enough. At June 2000, the northern Tasmanian aged care planning region had a shortage of 139 residential aged care beds, but in the 2000-01 allocation round northern Tasmania was granted only an additional 94 low care beds. These beds are not even going to come on line until 2003-04.I want to mention that the honourable member for Dunkley will be speaking next in this debate. I know that he is particularly concerned about phantom beds in his electorate, with Lestlin Nominees, a Queensland company, having received an allocation of 140 beds in 1999, and yet not one of those beds is operational. I believe that the member for Dunkley has even undertaken a search for a location where an aged care facility could finally be constructed. It appears that the member for Dunkley appreciates the unacceptable impact of the current Liberal government's aged care policies, and I hope he supports this motion.15:55:0029145Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—That was a wonderful, kind introduction from the member for Bass, and I thank her for drawing attention to my assiduous and tireless work in representing my constituency. The point that the member for Bass missed, and the point that my colleague highlighted, is that when the coalition government were elected, the Auditor-General identified a 10,000 bed shortfall and a half billion dollar shortfall in capital funding left to us by the former Labor government. The best the member for Bass can do is complain about the 30,000-plus beds that we have brought onstream since we were elected and the fact that these multimillion dollar facilities require considerable work to have them available and to a standard that provides for the dignity and the proper care of residents. They are not simply hospital beds, which is another point of confusion the member for Bass has identified. These are people's homes. If someone is assessed as needing this sort of accommodation, there is an obligation on all of us to play a constructive role and make sure that that level of care is there. I am glad the member for Bass highlighted the work I am undertaking at a local level. We have been able to convince the various state and federal planning authorities that there is an urgent need for additional beds on the Mornington Peninsula. Again, the member for Bass's criticism is that we have actually been successful in attracting more than 400 new residential aged care beds to the Mornington Peninsula region. These are substantial facilities and, again, I thank the member for Bass for her kind praise and for drawing people's attention to the work I have been doing to assist with the early availability of those beds. There is a considerable need for aged care beds, and that is why the government has made more than 30,000 additional aged care beds available since it was elected—to make up for the 10,000 shortfall left to it, plus the growing population that my colleague Mr Andrews was speaking of earlier.The good news—and this is something that the member for Bass might not be aware of—is that, in the most recent allocation of beds, the region that I represent is getting additional beds, again recognising the need of a growing population and the fact that the Mornington Peninsula is highly regarded as a retirement destination. People choose to retire in our area, and in some cases that retirement takes the form of residential aged care. In addition, we have the RSL Park facility in Frankston—and I am surprised the member for Bass did not talk about it, but I will come back to that in a moment. We find in today's Newcastle Herald what this is really all about. The federal member for Shortland, Jill Hall, is just chasing headlines; nothing more than headlines. Where have the Labor Party been while we have had hard work to do to clean up the mess left behind in the aged care sector from 13 years of neglect from the former Labor government? They have been AWOL—absent without leadership. They had no idea how to fix the horrendous problem they left us with. The Gregory report, a report the former Labor government commissioned, identified a half billion dollar shortfall in capital funding, and what did the Labor government do in their final years? They cut capital funding by 75 per cent. That shows the sincerity with which the Labor Party addresses these issues, and that is probably why we have two recently elected members of the Labor Party talking about this subject: it is really helpful to stand up and seem sincere when you have got zero corporate knowledge about where we have come from. That is the only explanation that could be attributed to those earlier speakers. They must have no idea of the mess that was left to this government by the former Labor government in the area of aged care, and that is why they are here talking so sanctimoniously about aged care. The member for Bass talks about the acute nature of the care needs of people going into nursing homes. This highlights another confusion in the Labor Party. If they need hospital care, Member for Bass, put them in a hospital. But again that highlights a problem that the aged care community is facing as successive Labor state governments around this country churn people through hospitals: as soon as there is half a chance to get them out of there, they whip them out and dump them on the aged care industry. The member for Bass should go and talk to providers faced with having to accommodate people coming out of hospital at such a rapid rate and who might need care for only a few days, when that is not the appropriate care they need. You should jump to your feet and apologise for those disgraceful remarks you made before.84SO'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne—I rise on a point of order on relevance, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is not in any way reflecting the aged care crisis and the people who need—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—There is no point of order. Resume your seat.1K6Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON—The member for Bass tries to not learn more about the aged care industry by burning up the time that is available to me. Let me again highlight another point that the Labor Party have a problem with: they run around the country saying that they are concerned about the quality of aged care. But, when some action is taken to ensure that the quality of aged care services available to residents is enforced, what do they do? They run around saying, `Gee, this is all too hard. How can you be so cruel?' They did that: the Labor Party did that in Dunkley when the RSL war veterans park was identified as needing some additional assistance. In Riverside, when its problems were identified years ago, they did nothing. They are a hypocritical bunch. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.2914716:01:0029147Hull, Kay, MPMrs HULL83ORiverinaNP10—I 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(5) calls for financial and export enhancement assistance to this significant industry in the arid zones of rural Australia.The citrus industry has around 3,000 growers across Australia and 94 per cent of production is undertaken in the Riverland, the Murray Valley, the Riverina and South Burnett. In August 1996, the exemption from sales tax for fruit juice products which contained 25 per cent or more of local product was converted to a sales tax concession. The exemption increased demand for domestic produce over imported produce. Prior to the introduction of the sales tax concession, local orange juice production was relatively low and by the mid-1980s real prices had increased by over 30 per cent. An ad valorem tariff of 35 per cent was introduced in 1988. At the same time, an antidumping duty was put in place on imported juice. At this time, a floor price of $1,640 was being realised.In the early nineties, valencia production in Australia was almost 500,000 tonnes. In line with the federal government's focus on microeconomic reform and commitment to the World Trade Organisation, tariff protection was reduced, with the tariff for orange juice being reduced by the former Labor government from 35 per cent in 1988 to five per cent in July 1996. Assistance to the industry had fallen from 22 per cent in the late 1980s to four per cent in 1994-95. From 1990 to 1995, imports of orange juice increased slowly, from 5,000 tonnes in 1990 to approximately 12,000 tonnes in 1995. The year 1996 saw the immediate impact of the reduction in tariffs, with a 50 per cent increase in imported juice in one year to over 18,000 tonnes—the equivalent of almost 240,000 tonnes of fresh fruit.My Riverina growers and the growers of Riverland and Sunraysia, et cetera, responded to the decreasing prices and the increased competition by undertaking a massive valencia tree pull in the mid-1990s. They diversified to plant navels and in some cases other crops, such as grapes. A 1995 benchmarking study identified that Australian citrus growers were among the best in the world in relation to on-farm efficiencies. This study supported the general belief throughout the industry that the problems of being competitive with imported products lay with other factors, including government imposed costs and regulations, rather than with grower inefficiency.Australian real farm gate prices fell from around $350 per tonne in 1984 to around $100 per tonne in 1996, when the former Labor government left office, with the cost of production increasing from around $260 per tonne in 1996 to around $425 per tonne in 1999. This government has assisted by putting in place labelling laws. However, the requirements in relation to labelling are not necessarily being complied with in the marketplace, nor does the Australian citrus industry believe that the laws are strong enough to further assist consumers to easily identify real Australian made products incorporating Australian fruit growth. In 1986, the case was successfully proved that Brazil was in fact dumping fruit in Australia. This entailed undertaking extensive research, which proved that Brazil was selling frozen concentrate orange juice at a price lower than the cost of production. Since that time, Brazil has altered its pricing structure and linked the price of FCOJ to the world price. My Riverina growers and the growers in the electorate of the member for Mallee, John Forrest, have undergone massive change and restructure. They have pulled hundreds of thousands of trees, changed varieties and gone into other horticulture such as grapes and vegetables. To demonstrate, currently 20 per cent of our citrus is exported, 30 per cent is packed for the domestic fresh fruit market and 47 per cent is processed. In 1990, five per cent of fruit in Australia was exported, 35 per cent was packed for the domestic market and 60 per cent was processed. The member for Mallee has supported the citrus industry over the many years that he has been in this parliament.It is now a fact that, due to the reduction in tariffs by the former Labor government, imports of processed orange juice have increased by almost 100 per cent over the last five years, and we have more requests pending. A large number of growers have already left the industry, with a majority of the remaining growers now on the verge of financial ruin and bankruptcy. A high percentage of these growers rely solely on Centrelink parenting family payments to purchase everyday living requirements. Debt levels in many of these circumstances exceed three times the grower's gross income. The present indications are that growers on average will endure a loss of almost $1,500 per tonne this year, based on growers realising an average price of $150 per tonne.Also, supermarket chains are using their market power to abuse the system. It is interesting to note that the average retail price of oranges at present should equate to my Riverina growers, and those growers represented by the member for Mallee—DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim Fischer—And the member for Farrer.83OHull, Kay, MPMrs HULL—and by the member for Farrer, receiving almost $2,500 per tonne. Instead, they are receiving anywhere from $90 a tonne for their valencias. Recently, I liaised with Carmen Formosa, who is working with the industry. She was able to provide me with a great update on the progress of the rural partnership program, PowerPACT, in relation to the current citrus industry crisis. Carmen has indicated that 150 local farmers have enrolled in the business plan and 114—or 76 per cent of them—are citrus growers. This represents 18 per cent of the total number of growers in the citrus industry in the Riverina. This demonstrates both the dynamic and the desperate nature of the citrus industry.Growers understand that they need to restructure their properties, as they are not currently viable, but they do need some assistance to do this. Many growers have now put together their business plans through the program, which is essential for growers who need to determine a future path for their farms and their families to meet the changing industry situations. These growers have demonstrated their commitment to the industry and their willingness to restructure their farms, diversify and find new markets. This highlights the need for some assistance for growers who are normally reluctant to participate in such programs. Carmen has said:Though keen to become involved in the program and take charge of their future the growers I have spoken to have highlighted the following potential failings of the program, 1. Insufficient redevelopment incentive for those in a dire financial situationWith 10 years in crisis the growers that remain in the industry are in levels of debt that will not allow them to borrow further to expand. Current prices will not allow them to fund redevelopment on farm with earnings. Therefore growers have identified that the 25% subsidy for redevelopment is not sufficient as they will be unable to raise enough capital to cover the other 75% of the cost. Without further assistance they will remain trapped by the unprofitable plantings on their farms. It is suggested that we increase the grants to 50% of the cost of redevelopment to a maximum of $30,000 for citrus growers. And provide an additional 100 grants of 100% of the cost of removing citrus up to $1250ha to a maximum of $12,500 per farm.It should also be recognised that there is insufficient assistance for those growers wishing to leave the farming for this region. There is a definite need for some type of assistance package to aid growers out of the industry and into jobs or businesses in town. I recognise that Farm Family restart under the AAA package is available however the grant is subject to assets test and farmers and their partners may have up to $100,000 in net assets to qualify for the maximum grant. No grant is payable if net assets exceed $167,500. There must be some way that we can tailor this great program to reflect the fact that there are varying values around Australia for land and that what may be a fair sum for some geographical areas will equate to next to nothing in other areas. Therefore discriminating between farmers and producers.On 2 April 2001 I stood in this House to speak about the crisis that my Riverina citrus growers are facing. It was in a grievance debate, and I genuinely felt for the plight of these proud producers of the citrus industry in this position. The citrus industry is one of the largest horticultural industries in Australia, with an estimated gross value of production of $392 million and exports of around $138 million. It is the largest fresh fruit exporting industry, and Australia is the largest citrus producing country in the Southern Hemisphere after Brazil. The citrus industry is an important contributor to the Australian economy and it is critical to the economy of the Riverina and to the electorate of Mallee.The industry now seeks immediate support and action from the government. Until the change to navels realises benefits to growers in the mid to late years of this decade and new markets are opened where large quantities of fruit can be exported, this industry faces a very bleak future. This very bleak future was put in place by a former Labor government and it has withdrawn from this industry their lifeblood, their support, their every opportunity to foster and forge a pathway to survive within Australia. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?NV5Forrest, John, MPMr Forrest—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.16:11:0029149Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The member for Riverina made a reasonable speech on her motion in relation to the citrus industry and the people in her electorate—until she got to the end of it and had to blame the Labor Party for the problem. This motion shows that there is a need to do a lot more in the Australian agricultural industry to make us competitive while also providing a decent income to our farmers. I should point out that we do not have a very thriving citrus industry in Tasmania, although we do grow quite a few lemons and I have contributed to their growth.The citrus industry is facing a tough period across Australia at the moment and it is time to start looking at a complete restructure of that industry. However, I do not believe the way to go is the way that the dairy industry has been deregulated. That has been an unmitigated disaster for the farmers concerned. The funds were badly targeted and there is still no proper industry plan to allow growth to occur. Now farmers are fighting a rearguard action. In many cases, those that have survived are now being swallowed up by New Zealand companies which are collecting Australian companies as souvenirs in their play to control milk production and marketing. Australian farmers will become poor cousins to those in that land of the long white cloud where there are plentiful udders.Nationally, the citrus industry is one of the largest horticultural industries, accounting for 20 per cent of the total value of horticultural production. Citrus production occurs on 32,000 hectares of irrigated land, of which 7,400 hectares are in South Australia. In 1997-98 production was 688 kilotons, followed by a `light' crop of 560 kilotons in 1998-99. Australia produces on average about 0.8 per cent of the world's citrus production. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, gross value of Australian citrus production in 1995-96 was $312 million. Nearly 80 per cent of Australian citrus production comes from the irrigated areas in South Australia known as the Riverland, in Victoria-New South Wales known as the Sunraysia, and in the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area. The Central Burnett region of Queensland, centred on Gayndah and Mundubbera, accounts for the majority of the remaining 20 per cent. Smaller areas of production are located in the Central Coast region of New South Wales and the south-west of Western Australia. This is a very important industry and needs proper attention, so my feeling is that the Australian citrus industry should start taking charge of its own destiny. It should come up with a plan to rescue oranges from the doldrums and make them the food of the future—perhaps MacOranges, so that everyone who goes anywhere near a Mac-anything-else will be besieged with MacOrange messages: what a funky food it is, what it can do for your health and various other messages. Get Thorpy to endorse oranges as the next Olympic food—and, I might add, not just oranges; there are lemons, grapefruit, red grapefruit, tangelos, mandarins, limes, cumquats and probably a few more that are being crossed and developed. Get Kylie into promoting limes and lemons as the new drink. The colours of summer are in these fruits— orange, lime, bright yellow—and yet somehow they are not the selected `tasty' that kids buy at the tuckshop. Why not? Because they are not seen as being `cool'. Artificial colours and flavours seem to be more appealing. We see kids choose the colours in clothes and lollies—why not in a healthier product?While Australia is going through the `green untouched by human hand' bit, we seem to be ignoring those health foods that are really natural and helpful in keeping healthy bodies in our young ones. There is not enough being done in the sickness prevention area: all the pushes are for products that deal with symptoms of sickness rather than positive endorsement of wellness and health. Fruit and vegetables should be eaten in considerable quantities with a few of the other food groups, such as protein—meats and fish—and carbohydrates—grains and pasta—and should make up the basis of our diets, and things that are high in fat, sugar and salt we should take in in minimal amounts.The citrus industry should be marketing the goodness of its product to Australians as one of the prime health foods. Perhaps we should reinvent programs like the school milk program but substitute fruit for milk. To make it more attractive to young ones, some future downstream processing will have to be considered. A product that can be either peeled easily or peeled for packaging should be produced so that the product is easer to eat. Work needs to be done as part of restructuring to see how these sorts of uses for the fruit can be best presented. As the growers themselves have recognised:... profitability of citrus enterprises is currently limited by lack of economy of scale and by the ability to consistently produce fruit of a quality suitable for fresh export.Audited approved supplier programs used by growers will greatly assist the future supply of quality fruit. Marketers competing for market share at the expense of returns to growers, have a negative effect on grower returns. The current arrangements for marketing fruit to the USA have provided an excellent exception to the normal export marketing performance.The arrangements involve “Riversun Pty Ltd” (a cooperative marketing venture) supplying a single distributor in the USA, DNE World Fruit Sales. Exports have risen from a negligible amount five years ago to approximately 30,000 tonnes or 1.66 million cartons in 1999.The larger returns to growers have enabled them to adopt better management practices and quality management systems. This will also enable them to in future change to new varieties and rootstocks and to use improved production techniques which will improve Australia's competitiveness on international markets. National collaborative research and development programs on variety evaluation, control of rind disorders and quality specifications will assist future competitiveness.Market access has been negotiated for mandarins to Japan and is being negotiated for citrus to India.The citrus industry also needs to take a keen interest in the water debate under way throughout all the states. Where the industry thrives most also coincides with areas that have experienced drought, and they will need some assistance in overcoming these barriers—and that should be in these consultations with the states. Water is going to be the limiting factor in many of our agricultural industries, and citrus is no exception. So citrus growers would be best served by ensuring that their voice is heard in the debate over the availability of water resources. I believe that this motion has been useful in highlighting the opportunities and challenges in a traditional industry. Now is the time for growers to come up with a package for themselves and to seek government assistance in facilitating a change in direction. If some of the smaller growers need to exit then arrangements should be made and the rest should be encouraged to start developing in new and diverse areas. They have a great product, and now is the time to show how good it is to the rest of the world—just as Tasmanian apple growers have done over the last 30 years. I support the motion.16:20:0029151Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—I am delighted to be here to support the motion by the member for Riverina. The first point of the motion asks that the House acknowledge the financial difficulties being experienced by certain sectors of the citrus industry. I am very grateful to the member for Lyons for his positive remarks and affirmation that this industry is suffering dire financial circumstances. He has called for restructuring, and he is right. But I ask the House to recognise the enormous effort that this industry has undertaken in the last eight or nine years. There has been enormous restructuring of an industry with too much reliance on valencia varieties and which has been unable to compete with that particular variety coming into Australia as frozen concentrate from Brazil. The industry ought to be commended for the effort it has put into that.I think what the member for Riverina is asking for—and I will support her in this—is some greater recognition from the government, from this place, to assist this industry further. It is an icon industry to the arid zone regions of southern Australia. The member for Riverina has mentioned those regions, as has the member for Lyons. It is a principal industry in my electorate of Mallee, a principal industry on which the prosperous provincial city of Mildura has grown and on which it relies for substantial employment and for support of all the other services it uses—a major issue.In response to the member for Lyons, I would like to say that all those other products—the tangelos, the mandarins—are going really well. The industry has responded and grown the products the world is asking for. That has been done. The member for Riverina is really saying here that there is a problem with oranges. The sad fact is that in equivalent fresh tonnage the concentrate that is coming from Brazil today is the size of the Australian orange industry—300,000 tonnes of fresh oranges. That is what 28,000 tonnes of concentrate represents. It is enormous competition. The only future this industry has, sadly, is its export activity. It has done this well, and the member for Lyons has made reference to some very good cases with Riversun in South Australia. My growers now rely on that single-desk opportunity to get their crop into the United States, particularly California and places like that—albeit that they get a three-month window to achieve that. It is very costly to the industry, but thankfully the returns have been generous.But that is only probably 10 per cent of their crop. They still have the other 90 per cent. That costs an enormous amount to grow in the first place. Some of my growers tell me that it costs them more to pick that crop than their return for it. Sadly, many have made the decision to leave it on the tree, which is not healthy for the long-term future of the industry. It saps the trees' capacity to grow a good crop in the future. It is a problem that is going around in circles.I am here in the chamber to support my growers. I am immensely proud of their achievement and their capacity to respond to the real world. We asked them to do that. We asked them not to focus on the domestic market; the opportunity was in exporting, and we asked them to go for it. I was grateful that the previous Labor government back in 1996 for once did something that I could commend them for.Opposition members interjecting—NV5Forrest, John, MPMr FORREST—Do something right and you will get a positive from me. They were able to produce a market diversification program which resulted in the spending of $9 million in market development and quality assurance, producing product that the market was really wanting and moving away from the reliance on valencias. With all the money that was spent in the potential markets of Taiwan, Korea and India, none of those markets have subsequently manifested. That is the tragedy for the industry that has worked so hard, so I would ask for the government's support. We understand there is a reference via the government for a Productivity Commission study. Give this industry its day in court. Give it an opportunity to say it had tariff adjustment foisted upon it, cold turkey, to compete with an aggressive competitor, Brazil. Give this industry its opportunity to state its case. See what comes out of a Productivity Commission finding and respond to that to give an industry—3,000 families across the southern region of Australia—some hope that this parliament cares about their financial circumstances. (Time expired)16:25:0029152Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—As a representative from a rural and regional electorate, I am always pleased to rise to support any initiative to assist rural and regional residents. I was delighted to hear a member from Tasmania supporting the citrus industry, because we all know there is not a lot of citrus in Tasmania. But that is the Labor Party. The Labor Party does support honest initiatives. I was delighted to hear the member for Mallee saying that Labor initiatives in 1996 were good. They are the sorts of things that we are proud of. When I had a look at this today I thought, `Yes, that sounds like something that a member might propose immediately prior to an election,' but I am going to give her the benefit of the doubt: I know that the citrus industry is very important to her part of the world.I would also point out that in the state parliament on 5 June the state Minister for Agriculture in New South Wales announced a study into the citrus industry. As a matter of fact, the federal parliament is also involved in this through the ACC, the Area Consultative Committee, and the department of workplace relations. A study is being done into the citrus industry in New South Wales.83OHull, Kay, MPUU5Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNE—This is the whole point: at least let us get the result of that study—and it is being supported by government at both state and federal level—so we know what we are doing is right. They are looking at far more diverse things than simply supporting the valencia juice industry. They are looking at alternative species, they are looking at alternative markets and they are looking at the value adding and the high value market for fresh fruit.I think there comes a time when we have to say: if we cannot compete at the low end of the market then really that is probably a part of the market we do not want to compete in. We are surely better to compete at the high end of any market, because that is the sort of thing that Australia is doing most successfully. Because we have an image overseas of clean and green primary production, that is the area where we can export successfully. This is a concept that people on the government side often have difficulty in accepting. They think that we should at all times be competing at all levels. If we cannot compete, let us accept that that is not the market we want to be in. Let us get the results of this report. If we can grow other species of citrus where we are growing valencia trees and market the fruit at a more valuable price, perhaps that is the best way to go. This study will be looking at citrus being an alternative to cotton growing. Why? Because an acre of citrus does not need as much water as an acre of cotton, and the return is greater. If water is a scarce commodity for agriculture in our arid western regions, let us start picking the crops that have less demand for water. I would think that sort of thing would make sense. Let us maximise the value of our primary production by being smart, not by wanting to do something that we have done for the last 50 years. Because grandfather did it this way does not mean it is the best way to go. Australian agriculture has shown that it is very successful at that sort of thing—innovation, value adding, finding niche markets and capitalising on that. That is why I commend Richard Amery, the state minister in New South Wales, for having this inquiry. I look forward to his report, and I look forward to the future of a new citrus industry in Australia. 16:30:0029153Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—When we are talking about matters to do with rural and regional Australia, it is important that we do not limit our debate to one particular industry. In the context of today's discussion, it is important not to focus only on citrus, although that is the focus of the motion that the honourable member for Riverina has introduced into this parliament, but to talk about a raft of different rural industries which are incredibly important to those communities in rural and regional Australia which depend on those industries for their livelihood.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Order! The time allotted for the debate has expired. 84HZahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA—That is a disappointment to me, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I am sure it is a disappointment to the parliament.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member for McMillan will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Grievance Debate29153Question proposed:That grievances be noted.2915316:32:0029153McFarlane, Jann, MPMs JANN McFARLANE83CStirlingALP00—I have a grievance. I am going to speak today on the confusion caused by the introduction of the Howard government's goods and services tax on the backbone of our community sector. I speak on this topic with some authority: 25 years of working in the community sector for a number of community service organisations and non-profit organisations, and of being on committees of groups ranging from playgroups to school P&Cs to adult sporting clubs. These organisations play a vital role in the fabric of our society. I am talking about the organisations that our kids play at, that help people in trouble in our local area and that run our sporting clubs. What they are faced with under the new tax system is confusion, uncertainty and in some cases the real threat of closure.Why has this tax system caused this type of chaos? It is causing chaos because it is complicated, ambiguous and in some cases downright destructive. Take, for example, the average sporting group in my electorate of Stirling—I have many such sporting groups. I have received many calls in my office from sporting groups grappling to come to terms with the GST. What has made it so hard? Firstly, the committees of these organisations are usually made up of volunteers. Volunteers, in this International Year of the Volunteer, are struggling and in some cases giving up due to the complexities of this tax system. The honorary treasurer in each of these groups is coming under increasing pressure in their voluntary role—pressure that is causing many of them to quit and to cease their contribution. They have spent the last 12 months coming to terms with issues such as GST registration and changes in the way their organisation is viewed by the Australian Taxation Office.I recently hosted a BAS inquiry hearing in Scarborough, in my electorate. I heard first hand from both small business operators and community groups about the absolute confusion and frustration experienced over the everyday application of Mr Howard's and Mr Costello's tax system. One of the most damning statements came from a chartered accountant who spoke to the meeting about the increased pressure on sporting club committees. He had been the treasurer of his local tennis club and he spoke about how he had to resign, reluctantly, from his position due to the sheer time needed to perform his voluntary role. This is a man whose accountancy practice deals daily with small businesses coming to grips with BAS and other GST related issues. He said that there had been an enormous amount of misunderstanding over what the club's responsibilities were in relation to the GST. For example, there was an argument on the club committee about whether they should register for the GST or not. The accountant advised the club not to, due to the huge amount of paperwork associated with compliance. He told them it would be cheaper in terms of time and resources to simply absorb the extra costs of the GST on the club's maintenance and running than to have to go through the rigmarole of complying. Why bother when the end result is basically the same in terms of cost? Countless hours of work for no tangible benefit. This tennis club was not the only organisation faced with this dilemma. A group of volunteers from the eastern suburbs of my electorate run a voluntary organisation which puts on blue light discos and dances for all age groups in our local area and also throughout the state. Their work with at risk youth through the blue light disco program is commendable. They also put on concerts and dance parties, free of charge, for children suffering from cancer through the CanTeen program. This group fundraises through supplying local councils with concrete slabs for their footpaths.The new tax system has hit this group in three ways. The first is GST registration. This group, like many others, applied for GST registration because they thought they had to. They thought they had to because the information given to them by the government and the Australian Taxation Office during the GST implementation was defective. It was extremely ambiguous; it was not clear. This group found as they approached tax time that they really should not have registered for the GST. They did not need to, and the amount of paperwork it created was prohibitive. They subsequently had to apply to deregister. The emotional toll on the committee caused by this was heavy. Finding advice through the current phone system was both time consuming and frustrating. They still have not had written notification from the tax office that their deregistration has actually occurred, they only have copies of the documents that they personally lodged with the ATO as proof of lodgment.The next dilemma was the status of their treatment as a charity. They rang the tax office and received the charity pack. This was subsequently filled in, and endorsement sought. For those of you in the House who are not aware of the processes involved, I will briefly outline them so they can be better understood. The current government has brought in a system of endorsing charities. Previously, a non--profit organisation which had operated as a charity prior to the introduction of the GST had self-assessed. Under the new system, to receive treatment as a charity they need to submit an application to be endorsed. The information for this process is in a tax office publication called Charity Pack. Once the application has been completed, it is sent to the ATO for review. In the case of my local community group, they received a letter from the ATO advising them that their application had been rejected. I will read to the House some of the text of this letter:Dear DirectorsINCOME TAX:Notification of refusal of endorsement as an Income Tax Exempt CharityWe refer to your application for endorsement as an Income Tax Exempt Charity.You are advised that ... XXX—the name of the group—is not considered to be an Income Tax Exempt Charity and your request for endorsement has been refused.Your organisation does not fall to be considered to be an institution that is established and run to advance or promote a charitable purpose, as described in the Charity Pack. The following are not considered to be charities:recreational and social bodies ....Further InformationThe following publications, which are available from our website at www.taxreform.ato. gov.au, provide further information:• CLUBPACK—helps you work out if your organisation is exempt from income tax.• CHARITYPACK—helps you work out if you are a charity.Should you require any further information the ATO has a range of publications to assist you. You should contact the Tax Reform Infoline if you need further assistance.The letter then goes on to outline the review rights under the legislation by giving the standard ATO response for appeals. The group then rang the infoline and spoke to the case officer from the ATO, but did not receive any coherent answer on their status. My office then rang the case officer and made inquiries on behalf of the organisation. The answers given were so obscure that my office asked to talk to a supervisor. The problem with the ATO letter is that it does not provide information on the reasons for the rejection. It then asks the group to get further information by recommending that they get a copy of the pack that they have just read and applied with. It is effectively sending the group back to the pack they have just used. No explanation is given. My office then spoke to the supervisor, who would not provide them with the number for a direct contact in Western Australia so we could contact them to find out information about the application. A promise was made to my office that someone from WA would ring the office and talk to my staff. A call was received from the ATO in Perth. After discussion it was agreed that information on a tax ruling for community groups, and a club pack, would be sent out. When asked about what training the ATO had provided to groups like this one, the answer was that money had been made available to peak bodies to train groups. Investigation revealed that this money was limited to peak bodies. In my electorate of Stirling there are over 400 community groups and the vast majority of these are independent from peak bodies. There are over 4,000 such groups in Western Australia alone, so the magnitude of this problem can be seen.When the ATO was asked whether there were officers similar to the GST compliance officers used in the business sector for these community groups, officers that would be available to visit and advise them, my office was given the answer, `No.' My office was told that the Internet and the infoline was sufficient and that no personal support was available. This reveals that the government has failed its obligations in relation to the community sector. It has failed to properly resource an education campaign that is sorely needed in the community. It wasted countless of millions of dollars on the Unchain Your Heart campaign, a campaign that provided no real information to the community and was spectacular in its failure. Money was wasted on glossy propaganda rather than constructive assistance, advice and education seminars for volunteer management committees. What has this caused? It has caused confusion amongst these small groups run by community volunteers who do not understand the intricacies of this tax system. It has failed to properly provide support for a vital sector of our community, a sector that provides services that enhance the lives of millions of Australians.The community group I have been discussing now has a third problem. It is trying to gain endorsement as a deductible gift recipient under item 4.1.1 as a public benevolent institution. This group enjoyed this status under the previous tax system but now its status is unclear. The endorsement criteria are complicated and rigid. What happens to this organisation if this endorsement is not achieved? It will struggle to fund raise for its activities that are playing a constructive role in our community. I will continue to assist local community organisations in my electorate on this issue. I will be writing to them all to offer assistance. What I want the Treasurer to do is to take action and provide field officers and education seminars to help avert a crisis in this sector. It needs to be done now. What does the government need to do? It needs to do more than hide behind glossy brochures—it needs to provide active support to our community organisations. (Time expired).2915516:42:0029155Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—My grievance today is that the Australian Labor Party seems to be having two-bob each way on the location for the latest defence project being announced, which is the Headquarters Australian Theatre—the operational headquarters of Defence. This project has been around for a number of years. In fact, back in 1996 the then Minister for Defence, Ian McLachlan, was certainly giving consideration to this particular project. I know that there was some debate within Defence and the forces as to just how this particular project should proceed. I remember speaking on a number of occasions to the minister at that time about the prospect of this project being located in the region around Canberra and Queanbeyan but at the time there was still a lot of work to be done. I then spoke with the minister following Ian McLachlan, Mr John Moore, as this project was further being developed and more recently with the current Minister for Defence, Peter Reith. It is a great project. It is a $150 million project. It will employ nearly 1,000 on an ongoing basis. Two weeks ago the Minister for Defence was in my electorate in Queanbeyan to announce that this region, the Queanbeyan region, would be the location for this vital project and that the Queanbeyan region was chosen for a variety of reasons—including cost effectiveness. One of the aspects that probably was not brought out anywhere near enough was the opportunity to retain personnel in the defence forces. We know in this region that people in Defence often are brought into Canberra for a promotion. They will be here for a period of time and then, to be promoted further, they have to be taken out of the Canberra area again to another part of Australia. Then they will often come back into Canberra yet again. They seem to be coming in and out. This particular project going ahead in this region will mean that there will be a greater capacity for promotions within one area, which actually helps with retaining officers. It was the subject of an inquiry which showed that that aspect would be improved with further development of these sorts of facilities.I was particularly pleased that the region was chosen for this vital project, and it was announced, as I said, a couple of weeks ago by the Minister for Defence. It will mean something in the order of 250 jobs during the construction phase, which is huge, and we know the flow-on effect of anything in the building industry like that is enormous for a region as well. Up to 1,000 people working on an ongoing basis means work for another 3,000 or 4,000 people, and the incomes that come from that and the flow-on effect as well into the community will be fantastic.So I was rather concerned to see the provocation by the Labor Party in relation to this. In fact, two days before the decision was announced the shadow spokesperson for defence, Steve Martin, was in Newcastle, and he was asked by the Mayor of Newcastle whether, if a decision was made prior to an election, the Labor Party would review it. Williamtown was one of the competing regions for this particular project. In the Newcastle Herald Lord Mayor John Tate said he asked him, the shadow spokesperson for defence, if the ALP would review any government decision made before the election on the headquarters of Australian Theatre, and then said:He gave me an undertaking and therefore the meeting an undertaking that he would review the decision.That was two days before the decision was actually made. So he has given a guarantee to the Mayor of Newcastle that, if the decision does not go to Williamtown and if the Labor Party is elected to government, he will review it. When the decision was made the member for Paterson, who also wanted to see it go into his area near Newcastle, was quoted as saying:I will continue to put to my colleagues the need to overturn this ... decision when we take government later this year.So Bob Horne has certainly highlighted that he will be out there making sure that the Labor Party not only reviews the decision but also actually overturns it. I know that he carries a bit of weight around within the Labor Party, so I am sure that he will go through with that particular comment. But then the shadow spokesperson, Steve Martin, after the decision was made put out a press release saying:Labor doesn't oppose this decision ...So he did not say that Labor supported it; he said that they did not oppose it. Given that he told the Mayor of Newcastle only two days before that, if the decision went against Newcastle, he would review it in a Labor government, he has chosen his words very carefully. He said, `Labor doesn't oppose this decision.' He went on to say that questions might be be asked about this decision. So he tried to make out that he was supporting it, because he wants to support the Labor candidate in Eden-Monaro, but he chose his words very carefully to leave the door open to do a review if the Labor Party happen to get into government. Then we had the other nonsense. There was debate about where this site is actually going to be, and there has got to be a lot of work done to choose the site now that we know the region in which it is going to be situated. There are various sites within Queanbeyan and the adjacent Yarrowlumla shire, and there is also the possibility of a site on Harman, which is actually in the ACT, but it is in the ACT by the width of a railway line. There is a railway line separating Harman and one of the sites that was being considered within Queanbeyan for this particular project. So we have had Steve Martin, Kim Beazley and the Labor candidate in Eden-Monaro on various occasions actually say that if the project ended up on one side of the railway line it would be good for Queanbeyan, but if it happened to be on the other side of the railway line, a distance of about 20 metres—the width of the railway line that forms the border between the ACT and New South Wales—then that would not be any good for Queanbeyan. What absolute nonsense. These people are absolute turkeys. They think if it is on one side it is okay, but if it happens to be just across the other side of the railway line then it is not okay. It is just a nonsense. This is going to be good for the whole region.The ACT Chief Minister is not perturbed about it going to Queanbeyan. He knows that it is great for the whole region: a $150 million project, 1,000 people permanently employed, 250 people during construction—he knows it will be good. The various industries know it will be a great project. The executive director of the Master Builders Association, David Dawes, is reported as follows:... the decision to locate the headquarters in Queanbeyan would provide a boost to the regional economy, both in terms of capital works and jobs. I note that the government is indicating that the complex will mean an investment of up to $150 million and an ongoing workforce of up to 1000 people. `This will have a positive impact on Queanbeyan and Canberra, not to mention the surrounding region' ...He understands how this works. He is out in the real world, not like these other blokes who think that one side of the railway line is okay and the other side is not. John Futer, for the ACT and Southern New South Wales Branch of the Housing Industry Association, said the Queanbeyan building industry already contributed around $100 million a year to the local economy. He said:The announcement of a single project worth $150 million is tremendous news and will see the industry more than double in size during the construction phase ... While the project is of a commercial nature, the benefits to the local housing industry are obvious, with demand for quality housing set to increase as Army, Navy and Airforce personnel are relocated to the region.Good stuff—they understand that it is great for the region overall, and we need to just decide on the most appropriate location. There are a number of sites within Queanbeyan and the Yarrowlumla shire that could be appropriate. There is also the site on the back part of Harman, very close to the various sites being considered within Queanbeyan.The Mayor of Queanbeyan, Frank Pangallo, who has supported it very strongly and who has formed a task force within Queanbeyan to try and get some more investment into the region, understood this. He said that the best site has to be chosen, and it does not matter where it is; as long as it is within this region it is going to be great news for Queanbeyan. It will be certainly great news for Queanbeyan, which is actually going very well. It has had record increases in development applications over the last year and strong growth in the real estate market, which is a great sign. But this particular project is a great project and will be delivered only by a member in the coalition government. (Time expired)2915716:52:0029157Edwards, Graham, MPMr EDWARDS83RCowanALP00—I want to deal with an issue that confronts many seniors in Australia, regardless of where they might reside. Once I have read a letter that I have received from an organisation called Elderbloom Community Care Centres in my electorate, members in other electorates will recognise exactly what I am talking about. I received this letter just over a month ago. It says: Dear GrahamRE: LACK OF GENERAL PRACTITION-ERS FOR RESIDENTS IN AGED CARE.I know you must be aware of the numerous serious concerns of Aged Care Providers. I should like to draw to your attention, yet another concern.Can you imagine the trauma of being old and frail and to not have the security of your own doctor to care for your needs?For a period of eight (8) weeks this year, despite an extensive search, one of our Hostels was unable to find a General Practitioner for ten (10) Residents who had been left without the services of a doctor.One of the attending GPs who cared for five (5) Nursing Home Residents, and thirteen (13) Hostel Residents, announced with only eight (8) weeks' notice, that he was retiring. This GP was not successful in his efforts to alleviate the situation or to secure the services of a colleague willing to act as his replacement in caring for his patients.No General Practitioner — also means — no Locum Service.Our Hostels Manager and Members of Staff contacted families of the affected Residents, and the Residents themselves. No one was able to find a replacement GP. The Manager and her Staff lobbied the other attending Physicians until reluctantly, one accepted the Nursing Home Residents and those at one Hostel, leaving 10 Residents without a GP.We also contacted by telephone, every General Practice in the telephone book within a 15km radius. This comprised some 35 Practices. No GP would accept one new patient, as it meant leaving the surgery to visit. We contacted the GP Advisory Board and the North Metropolitan Health Services, both of whom placed an advertisement for a GP with no response. We contacted the Australian Medical Association which was sympathetic, but of no assistance. Our Director of Nursing personally contacted the State Health Department and her call was never returned. When she contacted the Commonwealth Department, she was informed that Mr Stokes was too busy to get back to her and recommended that she contact the State Health Department. The State Department also, did not return her call.On one occasion whilst a Physician for the Locum Service was visiting a Resident, when requested to do so by a Staff Member, he agreed to see a Resident of the retiring GP who urgently needed attention. He wrote an x-ray request for a local Clinic and left. The x-ray result and the now even more distressed-and-in-pain Resident returned with a result showing displaced coccygeal fracture. Upon being contacted by telephone for analgesia for this Resident, the Locum Service expressed no interest in our Resident and abruptly terminated the conversation. The result was that —for a simple analgesic we had no choice but to call an ambulance and send the Resident to Joondalup Hospital's Emergency Department.Our enquiries in regard to this lack of accountability seem to indicate that there is very little regulation — if any — on General Practitioners or Locum Services.We are concerned that GPs seem to have little liability. No Registered Nurse, for instance, would ever go off duty knowing there was no cover for the next shift. Obviously the General Practitioners are not self-regulated. Does anyone have any interest in regulating this profession? The only responses we have received from State and Federal Government Departments, were to be `fobbed off'. The Departmental attitude that it is the responsibility of Residents and Relatives to find a GP is totally unworkable if there is no regulation. Many General Practitioners dislike leaving their surgery and simply refuse to do so, knowing there is no law or Government regulation in place which requires them to do so.Residents in Hostels and Nursing Homes are mostly very frail aged people. Upon entering a Hostel or Nursing Home, their family doctor will rarely continue to service the patient, citing travelling costs and the ever-increasing documentation requirements.Eventually—when a Member of our Staff took her father to a newly opened General Practice, and informed the GP of our problem, he agreed to see our Residents who were without a doctor.This is a serious problem, which we see as a denial of human rights of Residents in Aged Care Facilities, by the General Practitioners.Can the situation be improved in any way?Yours sincerelyBrian Cooper.Brian is the chairperson of the Elderbloom group and, in my view, they do a very good job. The group includes Belgrade Park Village, Jacaranda Lodge, Barridale Lodge and Wanneroo Community Nursing Home. Brian is a very well-known and well-respected local identity and he is a person who keeps his finger on the pulse. I also take the opportunity to congratulate the staff who work in the various care centres because I know they are dedicated, and I know, too, that they are frustrated and angry at the general lack of concern and care this government has for the job they are doing. Kim Beazley and Jenny Macklin recently launched another ALP policy that will see us into the next federal election, and it is called Medicare After Hours. In talking about Medicare After Hours, both Kim Beazley and Jenny Macklin recognised the problem I am talking about and they recognised, too, that it is a fairly widespread problem. It is one of the things that Medicare After Hours will assist in, because we will have a 24-hour telephone health advice line staffed by nurses under the supervision of doctors. The Medicare After Hours help line will provide immediate, expert medical advice, including information on the most suitable treatment options, such as calling an ambulance, attending an emergency clinic, visiting a GP or self-treatment. Kim Beazley went on to say:Medicare After Hours will demonstrate the benefits of the Commonwealth and State working together. It will enable Commonwealth funded GPs to work in partnership with Emergency Department staff funded by the States.Kim Beazley and Jenny Macklin also went on to note that other services that will be integrated with the proposed service are:Improved arrangements for nursing homes and aged care hostels to access medical assistance after hours. A significant number of emergency admissions involve transfers from nursing homes where medical assistance cannot be obtained for a resident suffering difficulty during the night. Often these people would be better off treated in their own bed without the stress of being moved.That is a very important point to note and it is one that I am pleased has been picked up in this Medicare After Hours policy. I am sure that if such a policy is implemented it will lead to a better service being extended to those in aged care, because it will enable people first of all to contact someone who is medically trained—for example, a nurse who, under the supervision of a doctor, will give people the first contact that they need. It needs to be said that this 24-hour service should be helpful to doctors who provide, in this instance, say, a locum service, because it will vet a number of calls and it will save doctors doing some of that work. It will free up other doctors who can take the next step, which is to visit people in aged care and provide to them the service that they need without the aged person having to be relocated from the comfort of their bed and without the need for them to be taken by ambulance to an emergency service at a hospital where they may need to wait some time before they get treatment.In my view, a lot of these issues can be resolved by common sense. They can be resolved by the Commonwealth and the state working together. They can be resolved by ministers who care about their responsibilities. In this instance it is important—it is crucial indeed—that we get a minister for aged care who does know about her portfolio responsibilities and who does care for the people who are in aged care. If we had a minister who did such, a lot of these problems could be resolved. It is indeed a crucial issue and one that the government needs to turn its attention to. (Time expired)2915917:02:0029159Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSONXT4BallaratLP10—This will probably be the last time that I speak in a grievance debate, so it is with a note of sadness that I do so today, but I want to speak about a number of issues in the 10 minutes available to me. First, I express some very real concerns on behalf of my constituents in relation to the plans of the Australian Labor Party for the Regional Solutions Program—RH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr Kerr—You're wasting your last 10 minutes.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—That is a very interesting comment from the member because, coming from a regional area, he should know better than to attack the Regional Solutions Program. I am a bit surprised, given Tasmania's problems, particularly under a state Labor government, that he would attack from the table the Regional Solutions Program. The honourable member is as aware as I am that in the 13 years of his government absolutely nothing was done for regional Australia. As soon as we do something, such as put in this innovative Regional Solutions Program, the first thing the Labor Party does is attack it. Why the member for Denison would want to attack the Regional Solutions Program really is a matter of great surprise to me. Whether it is with a measure of guilt for not having done it when he was in government, I am not too sure, but what is even more surprising is that the Labor candidate for the seat of Ballarat is also attacking the Regional Solutions Program. It is one thing being preselected in Melbourne and moving out to a country seat, but it is another thing altogether actually having some understanding of what the requirements of regional and rural Victoria are. The simple fact is that there has been a notion running around the country for a while that rural and regional communities have some expectation that everything will be done for them. That is not right. Indeed, what regional and rural communities want is the ability to maximise their own advantages. Part of that is to be able to take back some ownership of their own future—for instance, their own future economic and social wellbeing, et cetera. There are many great things about the Regional Solutions Program, but the one thing that is absolutely pivotal is that decision making is going from Canberra out to the regions. This is the first program in this country's history that takes the decision making ownership back to regional and rural communities.Many listeners of this broadcast around Australia today will be acutely aware that every single area and district—indeed, towns and cities within those districts—has different needs. In my electorate, the needs of Daylesford are different from the needs of Halls Gap. The needs of Marnoo are different from the needs of Ballan. The needs of Avoca are different from the needs of Haddon. Every town has different needs. The beauty of the Regional Solutions Program is that solutions are determined by the communities themselves, as opposed to a narrowly defined set of bureaucratic principles which in the past have made it extraordinarily difficult for regional and rural communities to maximise their own advantages that I referred to before.This is a fantastic program. I am yet to hear from the Labor Party that it will continue it. The community of Haddon, I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews, 10 days ago were very happy when, with the Liberal Party candidate, I announced $220,000 for the Haddon community centre. The Haddon community, with the assistance of the Golden Plains Shire Council and the Haddon Lions, are driving their own development and taking ownership of their own solutions. I congratulate the Golden Plains Shire Council, Councillor Gerald Dupe and his fellow councillors on meeting the $220,000 funding.I can see that the member for Denison is anxious to get to his feet, but I still have five minutes left and he will have his opportunity in due course. I want very briefly to talk about that Haddon program because it will enable a number of community activities to come under the one roof. There will be provision for maternal and family child care and there will be some visiting doctors' rooms. All those sorts of things enable a community to be self-sufficient.I want now to turn briefly to the Deer Park Bypass. Many of our listeners may or may not be aware that funding for the national highways system comes from the federal government, but the state governments are, in effect, our agents. They carry out the maintenance. The member for Mallee has just walked into the House. He will be acutely aware of this and he is a great supporter of our national highways system. Like me, he is a great supporter of the federal government's Roads to Recovery program, which is another huge initiative at great risk under an ALP government.There has been a lot of talk about the Deer Park Bypass because we are getting squeezed. The Western Highway, and the Western Highway users, are being squeezed by the encroachment of residential development in that important area, that great strip between Adelaide and Melbourne which is the lifeblood of Western Victoria. It is being squeezed by residential development and lack of planning. That will need to be addressed by the Deer Park Bypass. The priorities for the spending of national highways funding are determined by the state governments. I thought we were getting there. We had a long delay from the state minister, Peter Batchelor, about the route. That took over 12 months to decide. It should have been a fairly simple process, but it was dragged out. We thought we might be getting the Deer Park Bypass up towards the top of the state government's priority list but, when the transport minister was away, the state member for Bendigo West, who became the assistant transport minister, was trying to push the Calder Highway back up the list. The Howard government has already invested $100 million into Calder. We think it has had a fair slice of the action. We are always happy for more funding to be put into Calder, but that should not happen to the detriment of the Deer Park Bypass.I know that the Calder Highway is an important area to a number of my colleagues, and to the member for Mallee as well—and I know he has been a great supporter of the funding that has gone into it. Some $100 million has been put into that, and it is appalling that an assistant transport minister has utilised his position to protect himself in his own electorate when he knows as well as I do that the Deer Park Bypass should be right at the top of the list.There was a terrific announcement last week about the Australian prisoner of war memorial. How entirely appropriate that this magnificent Minister for Veterans' Affairs, the Hon. Bruce Scott, happens to be in the House. He has been a terrific minister and a great friend of veterans in this country—a very good friend. After considerable contact by me and after a direct approach from the Liberal candidate for Ballarat, Russell Mark, in relation to funding, I am very pleased that a further $150,000 was allocated to this project last week. That brings to $200,000—YT4Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce Scott—Very deserving.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr RONALDSON—It is a fantastic project. It brings to $200,000 the direct Commonwealth funding on top of that tax deductibility via an act of parliament passed through this House earlier last year. That is a significant contribution. On behalf of the people of Ballarat, and on behalf of former POWs throughout Australia, I would like to thank the minister most sincerely.Very quickly in the time that is left, we have Knowledge Nation—or noodle nation as it is now affectionately called—and Networking the Nation. The only similarity between those two is that they rhyme. Networking the Nation has put $7 million into my electorate in direct funding. That is averaged across other electorates, so it is not double dipping. It constitutes 30-odd projects into my electorate. They are about making sure that regional and rural Australians are able to access a modern and quick information technology system which their metropolitan counterparts—(Time expired)2916117:12:0029161Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—While it is a little early for valedictories, with all my colleagues on this side of the House, I wish the retiring member for Ballarat well. We will have a lot of opportunities to speak more on this subject. There is one point where we join in common when we put aside the partisanship of politics, and that is that each of us values what we bring to this House from the perspective of our electorates. I will use this grievance debate to highlight an area where I believe the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Robert Hill, has failed to make a decision which is in the national interest, and it is certainly not in the interests of my state.By way of background, I should mention that from the earliest days of ANARE, the Australian National Antarctic Research Expedition, Hobart has been the point of departure for Antarctic expeditioners. Under the Whitlam government, my predecessor in the seat of Denison, John Coates, persuaded the Whitlam government that they should move the now Antarctic Division Headquarters to Hobart, where it has been an important part of our community infrastructure ever since. Despite the defeat of the Whitlam government, my immediate predecessor, Michael Hodgman, continued the campaigning effort, albeit from a different political party, and saw the implementation and building of the Antarctic Division Headquarters in Kingston. In my term under the Hawke and Keating governments, we saw new resources put into Antarctic work in our state and the establishment of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies at the University of Tasmania; the establishment of the Antarctic Foundation; the headquartering of CCAMLR; and the unsuccessful but very passionate campaign to obtain the headquarters for the Australian Antarctic Treaty nations. Of all those enterprises, this has been a multipartisan approach, because it has had the support of the Nationals, the Greens and the Democrats. All have recognised that Hobart ought be the centre of Australian Antarctic efforts. Currently, about 65 per cent of Australian Antarctic scientists live in Hobart, and about 95 per cent on the eastern seaboard. The Antarctic related industry is worth about $93 million per annum. Over time there have been approaches to have more efficient ways of reaching the Australian Antarctic Territory than solely by sea. Whilst the sea trip is an unforgettable experience for those who are privileged enough to have that opportunity, for obvious reasons it is wise that we also have an operational air capacity which is a strip not built in any conflict with environmental responsibility. That seems to be possible.In the study that was put forward, the foresight report, Australia's Antarctic program beyond 2000: a framework for the future, a recommendation was made for a mix of sea and air transport. The government at the time responded that in cooperation with the Tasmanian government the Howard government would pursue efforts to further develop the role of Hobart as a gateway to Antarctica. Unfortunately, that commitment does not seem to have been followed through. There seems to have been an entirely political campaign, for reasons which I find difficult to understand, to make Albany the jumping off departure point for servicing Australian Antarctic Territory by air.I took the occasion, as did the Premier of Tasmania, to write to Senator Hill. I have also had meetings with all of my Tasmanian federal Labor colleagues, and I speak on their behalf in raising this issue in the House today. Every single Tasmanian Labor member—all five members of the House of Representatives and our senators—is extremely concerned that the possibility now seems to have substantially opened and that the commitment of government after government of different political persuasions, both at a federal level and a state level, may be starting to be unravelled by a decision that would enable consideration to be given of Albany as an alternative service point for Australian Antarctic ventures.Not only is Hobart the closest point to Antarctica; its flying time would also be significantly shorter—some 28 minutes faster on a return leg from Australia—but all that is detail. The bottom line is: to walk away from Hobart as a commitment where we are centralising Australia's Antarctic efforts would undermine the work of some 25 years of parties of all political persuasions at a national level and at a state level. None has been more passionately committed to Hobart as the centre of Australia's Antarctic efforts than the current Bacon government. It has worked very hard and passionately and publicly to persuade Minister Hill to move away from what seems to be a very wrong approach of leaving this question open, but so too did previous Tasmanian governments of other persuasions under Liberal premiers. All have been passionate in holding out Tasmania as being the appropriate place for all Australian Antarctic commitments and as the point which transport operations would work from.As a result of what has occurred, I have been advised, the Australian Antarctic Division recently announced that eight companies had been selected to bid for the air link project. The project will be divided into two elements. The first is that between the Australian community, which I hope of course will be Hobart, and the Casey station. The second element deals with the provision of an intracontinental air service between Casey station and other Antarctic bases. Eight companies have been invited to tender, including Jet Air Cargo of Queensland, Kenn Borek Air of Canada, National Jet Systems of South Australia, Polar Logistics of New South Wales, Sinclair Knight Merz of Tasmania, SkyTraders of New South Wales, Raytheon Australia of the ACT and Maroomba Airlines of Western Australia. Tenders are to close on 21 September 2001, with a recommendation to go to the minister, Senator Hill, in November of 2001. The pity is that the minister has not simply taken the opportunity, which every other Australian government hitherto would have done, to make it absolutely plain at the starting point that the departure point from Australia to Antarctic territory for the purpose of these tenders would be Hobart. That would have been consistent with the approach of previous conservative governments as well as previous Labor administrations. I regret very much that this has been left in such limbo. It smacks to me of cheap politics and, worse, it seems to me to envisage a substantial waste of community time and resources as tenderers go through a process which ought be resolved in the end on the basis of the massive advantages and the accrued infrastructure that is in place in Hobart. That outcome should have been a precondition of this tender process.In conclusion, I should mention one thing about one of my predecessors Michael Hodgman, whom I mentioned before, because both he and his brother have campaigned hard for Hobart as a base for Antarctic services. Michael now returns to the Tasmanian parliament. After losing the election, he will be returning on a count back. I think his decision to do so was fortified after his likely opponent Steve Mav on the count back called Michael Hodgman an ex-politician who had run his race. Anyone who knows Michael would know that that was an entirely inappropriate way to persuade him and to encourage him to be gracious and remove himself from the political environment.Whatever the case is, this is an area in which we have all had a common interest—every Tasmanian Labor member shares my strong views. My colleague Harry Quick in Franklin, who has a direct responsibility for the Franklin electorate where the Antarctic Division is based; me, with the university and all those services associated with the other Antarctic centres; my colleague Dick Adams, who is passionate about this; the member for Bass and the member for Braddon all share this common passion. (Time expired)2916317:22:0029163Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—Late one afternoon last week—at 10 minutes past seven—I was crossing Elizabeth Street near the Tattersalls Club in Sydney and heard a loud crash behind me. I looked around to find out what the occurrence was and noticed that a car window was being smashed. A young guy had his hand through the window and was picking a handbag out of the car. He put it casually over his shoulder and then proceeded to walk down the street. As I challenged him, he retorted and acted very casually as if this was a standard matter. You only have to walk around the streets around Hyde Park or St Mary's to find that the streets are littered with glass. This is a daily occurrence. I actually saw it with my own eyes one week ago in the middle of Sydney, when people were walking up and down Elizabeth Street.There is no doubt that crime in Sydney has got out of control. We have a police minister who has just spent the last month sipping chardonnay in Tuscany. We have a highly paid chief police officer being paid at $450,000 a year who does not even bother to attend parliamentary inquiries such as the one on the crime situation in Cabramatta—a situation which has got out of control with drugs being freely distributed on the street. He said, `My staff must have let me down.' Of course, that is Mr Ryan's problem. I was one of the people who welcomed him when he arrived in Sydney and thought, given his track record in the UK, that he would do great things for policing in New South Wales, but he has been a disappointment. He has been concerned too much with his own media image and not enough with fixing the real problem. Can you imagine being called in front of a parliamentary inquiry on policing in Cabramatta, somehow managing to forget it and then blaming your staff? When the pressure is on in his own police force, instead of standing by his men, he just simply moves them out. The photo on the front page of the Daily Telegraph the other day showed that, of the senior people in the police force who were there when he came in as police commissioner, very few are still there. I think it is about time he reviewed the situation of his job and also of the way that the whole surveillance of crime is being carried out in Sydney and within New South Wales. In fact, on that particular afternoon last week when I saw the window being smashed, I looked along the street to see if there were any police around and of course there were not. You have to go a long way to find a police station or to find police regularly on the beat. There is no attempt to address the situation. With new police cameras being put into place, motorists are being slugged daily, but we do not see this money being returned in the form of the extra policing that we need in the suburbs and in the city of Sydney for international visitors who come here. Unless we take action, we are going to have some serious problems in this country.Crime rates in Sydney are soaring. One month ago Dr Don Weatherburn, the Director of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, released a summary of the crime trends covering the preceding two years. His study highlighted the following problems: 11 types of offences have significantly jumped in incidence, five have remained stable and none have dropped. His major concern was that robbery with a weapon other than a firearm was up by almost 15 per cent. Muggings were up by 13.2 per cent and all categories of assault were up by seven per cent. As a further illustration, if you compare New South Wales with Victoria—even though there is a larger population in New South Wales—New South Wales had 68,714 assault victims in 2000; Victoria had only 16,541. So that is a huge difference. New South Wales had 13,325 robbery victims in 2000; Victoria had only 3,326. Why is there a difference? Why has crime in New South Wales got out of control and who is the minister responsible? The two most senior people responsible in the New South Wales parliament were in Europe doing their own summer sojourn through the vignerons of Europe, instead of addressing these problems that we find in New South Wales.In my own area, the Sutherland Shire, significant increases have occurred. Thefts from motor vehicles have gone up from 2,082 in 1999 to 2,418 in 2000. Break and enters have gone up from 1,755 in 1999 to 2,098 last year. General weapons offences were up to 190 from 170—still an unacceptably high level. Recently in Cronulla, the suburb in which I live, we had gangs firing guns at one and other across from the railway station into the park. You can see in one of the windows of the railway station the indent of a bullet that was fired into the glass.In today's Daily Telegraph the heading on the front page reads `Gangland: The crisis Sydney's community leaders are too timid to confront'. On the weekend in the Sun-Herald we had headlines such as `Police say they can't cope as thieves run rampant' and `Why police are losing the fight'. Police stations are being amalgamated at a cost to the community. In my own area, Miranda and Cronulla were amalgamated. The result is that, when serious crime is committed in Cronulla between the various gangs that come to the area, the police station in Cronulla that used to have 48 officers before the Carr government took office in 1997 now has only an administrative centre that is staffed by a constable at the front desk and there are no charging facilities. There are some other non-uniformed detectives present, but the station has no mobile response unit and is not there to respond to local issues as they arise. I spoke to the superintendent—and they are just about to get yet another superintendent—and he said, `We do not have a serious crime problem.' I asked, `We don't have a serious crime problem when gangs are firing guns at one another across the main street?' And he said, `These are isolated incidents.' They are certainly not as far as the community is concerned. The community is extremely concerned and people have raised it many times with me.People live in the Sutherland Shire because they regard it as a very pleasant area—it is close to the Georges River, to Port Hacking and to beaches—but the one big concern they have is the increasing level of crime. This issue certainly has dominated local newspapers and conversations. The member for Cronulla, Malcolm Kerr, has raised it several times. It is interesting that neither Commissioner Ryan nor the police minister has visited this area. I have been looking back and I cannot find any record of either gentleman having visited the Sutherland Shire, which has some 240,000 people, to look at the situation and to listen to people's concerns on this very important issue. I am not sure what Commissioner Peter Ryan does with his $450,000, but he certainly does not use it to visit my area. He did not take the time until very recently, after the media were on to him, to go to Cabramatta to look at the very serious problems there. Let him come into the city of Sydney and see what is happening every day; let him see how people's cars are being broken into. We heard police officers on 60 Minutes last night talk about the poor morale in the police force, about the lack of backup from the commissioner and about the lack of backup from the government. People want to be supported when it comes to being affected by crime. They are concerned. These figures show that it is not just some myth or paranoia in the community; these figures are based on real situations and real fears. The figures for resignations tendered by police officers who are new to the job are that 20 per cent are from probationary constables and 30 per cent are from constables with only one or two years service.On 11 February this year, the Director of Police Human Resources admitted that 750 senior police officers are on long-term sick leave—750 officers on leave with stress-related illnesses. The community does not want any more excuses. It does not want any more empty promises or Tuscan holidays at times of crisis. We want to see police on the beat; we want to see them patrolling our streets; we want to see police back in the police stations within my own area and within the city of Sydney. We also want to see support from the police commissioner for the police officers out there on the job and on the beat, because the level of distress and sick leave occurring among police officers indicates that they are not getting the type of support they want. I believe it is appropriate that the Premier, the police commissioner and the minister take this into account. (Time expired)2916517:32:0029165Morris, Allan, MPMr ALLAN MORRISFI4NewcastleALP00—This afternoon I want to raise a couple of matters, and the first is to comment on the farcical situation of the announcement by the minister that the Defence Headquarters Australian Theatre command be relocated in—and I think this was the precise terminology—the Queanbeyan region. The member for Eden-Monaro made some remarks about that this afternoon, and he made them in high dudgeon. This proposal is either a very nasty fraud upon the people of Queanbeyan or total dishonesty from the Commonwealth government. In my time in this place I have never ever heard a decision by Defence about locating a facility without that facility first being precisely itemised.After years of examination of this particular project, the facility could be located anywhere within, I suppose, 30 miles of the Queanbeyan region. It is farcical to suggest that Defence would go through this process without having particular sites organised, itemised and costed, and the options taken if need be—to do otherwise would be irresponsible. There is a budget for this; they do not just have an open chequebook to spend whatever they like. A budget has been provided for quite some time. So the suggestion that the headquarters is going to a region rather than to a location is nonsensical unless, of course, it is going to HMAS Harman, which means it is going to the ACT. If that is the case, why doesn't the minister just say so? Why doesn't he just say that it is going to Harman, which is near Queanbeyan? That at least would be a bit honest. It would mean that the member for Eden-Monaro could not claim that this project is going to his electorate, but if he is so supportive of it being on one side of the line or the other it would not matter. Furthermore, the suggestion that this facility will not be co-located but located independently, duplicating a lot of infrastructure, resources, security and a whole range of other things that Defence installations need, is questionable. Either one of two things will happen: if this government retains office after the next election it will announce that the headquarters will be at Harman, which, after all, is in the Queanbeyan region—it did not quite say the Eden-Monaro electorate precisely, so that falls within their area of fuzziness; or, alternatively, the defence department will undertake a thorough review to establish the cost of alternative locations, other than Harman, within the Eden-Monaro electorate. If that is the case, Defence will automatically have to review every other location as well, because the government of the day will need to have cost comparisons between one location and another. So, either way, the facility will not be going to Eden-Monaro precisely, as was suggested by both the member and the minister, and they should come clean. The government should come clean with the people of Queanbeyan and the taxpayers of Australia and outline just what it is actually up to. This dishonesty in relation to Defence is intolerable. Defence is a delicate and important area and to treat it with such disdain, as this minister and the member for Eden-Monaro have, is not just insulting; it is outright damaging. The credibility of the defence forces is being torn asunder by a minister who puts political game playing way ahead of every other issue.The other matter I want to raise is in relation to the earlier debate in the chamber about nursing homes. As members will be aware, the Catholic Care for the Aged organisation has announced the closure of St Catherine's of Siena nursing home at Waratah, in the electorate of Newcastle. This is an absolute tragedy; it is a disaster of enormous magnitude. It is the tip of a very big iceberg. What has happened in this area has been so dishonest. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Andrews, you and the member for Dunkley spoke in this debate and, quite frankly, I was appalled at the lack of honesty from both of you in terms of what you put forward.Let us go back to 1996. I remind those opposite that this government cut half a billion dollars from nursing home care over four years. Half a billion dollars was taken from one budget over four years. Since then there has been disaster after disaster, shemozzle after shemozzle. The government announced the introduction of resident bonds, which meant that money could be raised from residents coming into nursing homes. Some nursing homes, including St Catherine's, made some judgments about their future based on that policy. That policy was then changed, and the government announced that it was going to pay $12 a day towards capital costs. Quite frankly, members of the government, this is not working. There is now a build-up of enormous magnitude across the country; it is not just in any one nursing home or organisation. I expect that more than one nursing home closure will be announced before the election. I will be interested to see what the member for Dunkley and the member for Menzies will say then about how this is somehow different and that somehow it is the Labor Party's fault five years on.The fact is that there are fewer professional staff working in nursing homes than ever before. The government should recall what it did to help compound the situation. When Labor were in government, nursing homes had to account for how money provided by the Commonwealth was spent. That was how we tried to make sure that it went into care for residents and not into other activities. That requirement was removed by this government. It removed the need for nursing homes to justify its expenditure. It then removed the need to have nurses at nursing homes. Nowadays many nursing homes only have nurses part-time. For a substantial part of the day, there is not a qualified nurse on duty in the building at all. That is how nursing homes are coping with the cost squeeze: they are being forced to cut costs. Nursing homes, in many cases, are reducing the level of care at the very same time that occupancy times are increasing.Nursing homes now have higher and higher needs, particularly with the increase in dementia. Nursing home residents are living longer in nursing homes and need a higher level of care. At the same time, the government has reduced the ability to care. In so many cases, nurses are no longer there. Catholic Care for the Aged in Newcastle determined that it would not go down that path—that it would not reduce its level of care—which meant the nursing home became non-viable. Let me quote a few things that have been put forward to make sure that people understand the details of this. Firstly, the minister made big of the claim that St Catherine's had received a 54 per cent increase in funding over the last four or five years. That is correct, but let me tell the House where it went. Thirty-one per cent of that went to 16 extra beds; in other words, the home was expanded in 1997. Increased insurance cost six per cent. Superannuation costs increased by three per cent and award increases were 14 per cent. That is 54 per cent gone. There is no allowance for increased food costs or any other associated costs.Let us look at the budget for St Catherine's for the last two years. From their budget projection for 2000-01, the government subsidy was going to be $2,451,000. From the projected budget for 2001-02, the government subsidy will be $2,303,000—in other words, a drop of $150,000 this year compared with last year. That is a reduction in funds. It is not an increase in funds; it is a reduction.Look back to 1997 and those wonderful reforms we have heard about. Firstly, the government cut out capital funding; secondly, it took nurses away from nursing homes; and, thirdly, it rejigged the resident classification table. In 1997, this government brought in a rejigging of the whole classification table. It did so by putting people with behavioural problems as those most in need. It did not increase the funding for them, but it pushed all the others down. Rather than making the table bigger to absorb the dementia and behavioural problems—potentially psychogeriatric cases—it pushed the others down. That change in 1997 cost St Catherine's of Siena $200,000 a year in its subsidy. Subsequent changes have cost it even more, and add to that what is happening now with the reclassifications and the reviews taking place.In this year's budget, the government announced it was appointing an extra 38 people to conduct further reviews. In this current year, it expects to conduct 24,000 reviews of people living in nursing homes, which will end up as a saving to the Commonwealth of $1 million a week. The government is out there each week knocking $1 million off the recurrent subsidies of Australia's nursing homes. Each week nursing homes will have to cope with $1 million less than they had the week before—throughout this year and the years ahead. The disaster is not accidental. It is government made, it is minister made, and it should be rectified. (Time expired)10000Andrews, Kevin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Andrews)—Before I call the member for New England, I remind the House that, while it is appropriate for any member to criticise the remarks of another member by reference to the name of his or her electorate, it is not appropriate to directly link any criticism made to the occupant of the chair from time to time.2916717:43:0029167St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Andrews. I am certainly pleased that you clarified that situation. I was a bit taken aback with the comments and the reference to you. I want to pick up on a couple of points made by the previous speaker. When we came into government in 1996, Australia was some 10,000 nursing home places short. In this debate this afternoon, we should never forget that. I do not want to dwell on it for long, but the issue needs to be continually brought up so the Australian public can look back at what 13 years of Labor did do to this country, and in particular to the care for our aged population.This government brought in a system of accreditation for our aged care facilities. That accreditation process has been widely embraced and warmly welcomed by those providers of aged care facilities in my electorate of New England. Accreditation starts to sort out the wheat from the chaff. The number of places that we have funded and that are under construction at the moment is a great credit to this government and particularly to this minister. The philosophy of keeping people in their homes and providing them with the proper care, attention, service and nursing that we can have in the home today is certainly a major step forward. As I get around my electorate and talk to many of our older Australians and senior citizens, they have expressed to me a very strong desire and wish to stay in their homes where possible. They find that more advantageous and more acceptable than being shipped off to some home where they do not want to be.I will finish on the subject of nursing homes by talking about aged care facilities and by again looking at my electorate of New England and the places that we have been able to add to our aged care facilities. We have another 30 places going into the town of Tenterfield, to add to the 36 places in their aged care facility there. This makes it a 66-bed aged care facility, providing tremendous service and quality of care to the people of Tenterfield and surrounding districts. The sods on that greenfield site have already been turned and the work is being done, and we are looking forward to the completion.I would also say on the question of aged care facilities that, due to the flexibility of the system we run in government of delivering quality aged care services, we have been able to provide the shire of Uralla, which has a wonderful aged care facility, McMaugh Gardens, with 22 aged care facility beds, 11 of which are going to be placed in the small, remote community of Bundarra in an old hospital that has been beautifully refurbished. The community there is very much appreciative of our minister's understanding of the importance of keeping our senior citizens and our older Australians in our towns. I might say the same thing with regard to multipurpose services, which are also starting to come around in country Australia, in country New South Wales and in my electorate of New England. What concerns me greatly is the contempt with which the New South Wales Carr Labor government deals with communities in its discussions with the aged care people and with the communities in general. The topic that I particularly wanted to raise was in relation to regional airlines in New South Wales. A New South Wales airlines working group summit was called about two months ago in response to a number of regional airline services being closed or shut down. In my electorate of New England I have four major airports: one in Tamworth, one in Armidale—serviced very well by Qantas Link and Hazelton—and two others in Glen Innes and Inverell. There has been some discussion on the removal of some services to both those ports. I want to talk about a number of issues that were dealt with by the New South Wales regional airlines summit working group, which was to make a submission to the air working group of the Australian Transport Council. At the end of the day, I, as a member of that summit committee, refused to endorse the submission that was sent forward, and there were a number of reasons for that: one, because I care deeply about the level of air services received into the regional towns in my electorate of New England; and, two, because I do not believe that the working group had an opportunity to really look at the total of the financial pressures that relate to regional airlines. There seemed to continually be a narrow focus purely on the cost pressures. A number of things should be said with regard to that submission. One of the factors that really needs to be continually looked at in regional New South Wales is the load factor. A study by the Australian Aviation Insurance Group for the Regional Airlines Association of Australia into the status of regional airlines in Australia provides good information on the overall Australian regional airline industry. Initial information from AV stats indicates that load factors have, in fact, increased for New South Wales regional airline traffic from 58.6 per cent in 1995 to 61.6 per cent in 2000. The average figure for those smaller routes—in other words, those with a population of fewer than 20,000—is 58.2 per cent. However, the average conceals an enormous variation in performance of the regional airlines. As I pointed out at the summit, some regional airlines have been performing extremely badly, with load factors of around 30 per cent. Of course, what they need to do is ensure that people use these airlines. Just after the presentation of the submission to the state minister for transport, the minister made the gesture of removing landing fees to the tune of $50,000. This was not $50,000 per airline. This was not $50,000 per air route. It was not even $50,000 per airport. It was $50,000 to all regional airlines that operate in New South Wales. 10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted and I put the question:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative.Business29169Motion (by Ms Worth) agreed to:That Main Committee orders of the day Nos 4 and 5, government business, be returned to the House for further consideration.10000Hollis, Collin (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hollis)—The matters will be set down for consideration at a later hour this day.Bills29169Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the following bills:Corporations Bill 2001Australian Securities and Investments Commission Bill 2001Corporations (Fees) Bill 2001Corporations (Futures Organisations Levies) Bill 2001Corporations (National Guarantee Fund Levies) Bill 2001Corporations (Repeals, Consequentials and Transitionals) Bill 2001Corporations (Securities Exchanges Levies) Bill 2001Governor-General Legislation Amendment Bill 2001Migration Legislation Amendment (Electronic Transactions and Methods of Notification) Bill 2001Health Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001Export Market Development Grants Amendment Bill 2001Family Law Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 2001Primary Industries and Energy Research and Development Amendment Bill 2001Trade Practices Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001Appropriation Bill (No. 2) 2001-2002Appropriation (Parliamentary Departments) Bill (No. 1) 2001-2002Excise Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001Dried Vine Fruits (Rate of Primary Industry (Customs) Charge) Validation Bill 2001Dried Vine Fruits (Rate of Primary Industry (Excise) Levy) Validation Bill 2001Family and Community Services Legislation (Simplification and Other Measures) Bill 2001Social Security Legislation Amendment (Concession Cards) Bill 2000Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2001Taxation Laws Amendment Bill (No. 3) 2001Appropriation (HIH Assistance) Bill 2001Child Support Legislation Amendment Bill 2001New Business Tax System (Capital Allowances) Bill 2001New Business Tax System (Capital Allowances—Transitional and Consequential) Bill 2001New Business Tax System (Simplified Tax System) Bill 2001Passenger Movement Charge Amendment Bill 2001Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 2001Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Amendment (Wildlife Protection) Bill 2001Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Legislation Amendment Bill 2001Interactive Gambling Bill 2001Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill 2001Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 2001Parliamentary Contributory Superannuation Amendment Bill 2001Vocational Education and Training Funding Amendment Bill 2001Taxation Laws Amendment (Superannuation Contributions) Bill 2001 Import Processing Charges Bill 2001Customs Depot Licensing Charges Amendment Bill 2001Broadcasting Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2001Health Legislation Amendment (Medical Practitioners' Qualifications and Other Measures) Bill 2001Dairy Produce Legislation Amendment (Supplementary Assistance) Bill 2001Customs Legislation Amendment and Repeal (International Trade Modernisation) Bill 2001Bills29170S29229170Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate agrees to the amendments made by the House.Bills29170R130029170Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate agrees to the amendments made by the House.Bills29170R115129170Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate does not insist on its amendments disagreed to by the House.Bills29170The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Higher Education Funding Amendment Bill 2001Migration Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001Bills29170R133729170Debate resumed from 21 June, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.17:54:0029170Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr KELVIN THOMSONUK6WillsALP00— The Superannuation Contributions Taxes and Termination Payments Tax Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 is designed to improve the equity of the termination payments surcharge and superannuation contributions surcharge legislation. It makes permanent the transitional provisions that have applied since 20 August 1996. These are measures which were announced in the budget on 22 May this year. The bill will ensure that only the post 20 August 1996 amount of an employer eligible termination payment taken as cash will be taken into account for the surcharge. This reverses the current situation that makes all of the retained amount of an employer eligible termination payment—including amounts relating to pre-20 August 1996 service—accountable for the surcharge. This particular provision has been roundly criticised as being inequitable, including in the Australian Financial Review on 31 March this year.The bill also provides that only a notional amount of an employer eligible termination payment is included in the calculation of the employee's adjusted taxable income for surcharge purposes. This will benefit employees or former employees who would not normally be subject to the surcharge but could become liable to pay the surcharge in a given year as a consequence of receiving an employer eligible termination payment.The bill will also ensure that employees will not have to pay an effective tax rate higher than the top marginal tax rate plus the Medicare levy when taking their ETP as cash. Currently, some people may face a higher effective tax rate due to the interaction of the termination payment surcharge and the reasonable benefit limits provisions. In terms of impact on Commonwealth revenue, according to the explanatory memorandum, the estimated cost to revenue is $14 million in 2001-02, $21 million in 2002-03, $17 million in 2003-04 and $21 million in 2004-05. The opposition will be supporting this legislation. Indeed, it reflects measures which the opposition have been calling for and matters which we opposed at the time the surcharge legislation was introduced. The opposition drew these matters to the government's attention back then as anomalies and it has taken them until now to come around.The termination payments surcharge came into effect on 20 August 1996. It is imposed on what might be described as golden handshakes paid on termination of employment of so-called high income earners. Termination payments are the retained amounts—that is, amounts not rolled over or transferred into a superannuation fund—of eligible termination payments made by employers on the termination of employment of an employee. The surcharge is payable only if the taxpayer's adjusted taxable income for the financial year in question exceeds the surcharge threshold. For example, for this financial year, 2001-02, it is imposed at the rate of one per cent for each $1,219 of assessable income where a member's assessable income and superannuation contributions exceed $85,242. The maximum surcharge is 15 per cent, and that maximum is reached when assessable income and superannuation contributions reach $103,507. The government announced in the 1996-97 budget that a surcharge would apply to contributions that are subject to a tax deduction—including employer contributions and those made by the members where there is no employer contribution and the deduction has been claimed—where the assessable income and superannuation contributions exceeded $70,000. That has since been indexed to the amounts that I just outlined. Since 1999-2000, the so-called reportable fringe benefits of an employee are taken into account in working out superannuation surcharge liabilities.The government introduced a transition period, which was scheduled to expire at the start of July. Following the expiry of the transition period, all of the termination payments accrued after 30 June 1983—even entitlements accrued prior to the introduction of the surcharge legislation—were to be subject to the surcharge. The surcharge itself has received a great deal of criticism, but some of these measures have attracted particular criticism. The termination payments surcharge and the superannuation contributions surcharge were examined in the 23rd report of the former Senate Select Committee on Superannuation, Superannuation Surcharge Legislation, which sets out in very comprehensive detail many of the concerns that have been raised.One of those concerns is a question of inequities in the transitional provisions for the termination payments surcharge. The definition of assessable income includes termination payments or golden handshakes. But inclusion of termination payments can result in lower income persons—not simply high income people—being liable for the surcharge. Somebody who loses their job and receives a redundancy payment can find themself in this category where the redundancy payment is included in their adjusted taxable income for the year in question as if it were income for one year only, and therefore it can put that person in the surcharge category. Despite the government having been made aware of these sorts of problems through the Senate Select Committee on Superannuation inquiry into the original surcharge legislation, it has taken these past four years for some of these issues to be addressed. We were going to face the situation where the full 15 per cent super surcharge would apply to most substantial taxable separation payments, so that before the age of 55 normal unfunded super tax of 31.5 per cent for post-1983 benefits and the 15 per cent surcharge—a total of 46.5 per cent tax—would apply on taxable separation payments. That would have seen thousands of taxpayers being unfairly caught in the surcharge net after receiving large termination payments. Often those termination payments were received on retrenchment.There is no doubt that the superannuation contributions and the termination payments surcharge have become important sources of revenue for this government since it introduced them. In 1999-2000 surcharge collections alone amounted to $577 million. Senator Sherry indicated to me that in the latest budget papers the surcharge collection amount has been hidden and it is no longer possible to identify what the surcharge collection yields for the government. It has simply been hidden in superannuation contributions and taxes more generally. I am indebted to the Department of the Parliamentary Library's Information and Research Services for their comment: ... the history of the superannuation contributions and termination payments surcharge now appears to have gone full circle in a rather “Kafka-esque” manner. I think that they have put it more boldly than the Parliamentary Library usually put these things, but they have put it very accurately. I do not think that I can improve on that. They continue:These surcharges were introduced as “equity measures” to make the level of superannuation taxation concessions available to high income earners more comparable to those available to middle and lower income earners. On the brink of the expiration of the transitional provisions, the surcharge legislation is being amended to remove “the most inequitable provisions of tax law” that could potentially and unfairly (but legally) catch taxpayers in the surcharge net after receiving large termination payments, ...They go on:... the surcharge legislation remains on the statute books. Many of the witnesses to the 23rd report of the former Senate Select Committee on Superannuation provisions will still be dealing with the complex administration, clumsy assessment procedures and on-going administration costs that are borne not just by the high income earners, but by all superannuation fund members. As I said, these were not my words, but I could not put it better myself. In relation to this express issue before the House, the sort of situation that arose is the example of the bus driver with the Brisbane City Council—I do not have the express details in front of me—who received a pretty modest amount of about $17 an hour in pay. Over the course of 22 years he had built up in his superannuation account some $70,000—and people who know a bit about superannuation will know that $70,000 over 22 years is not much and will not take you very far. On the closure of that defined benefit fund that he was a member of and the establishment of an accumulation fund in its place, he and other members rolled over their money into that new accumulation fund, and that $70,000 was included in his taxable income for the year in question. The tax office said, `Thank you very much. We will have $10,000 of that by way of superannuation surcharge.' That sort of anomaly has really been a most unfortunate issue with this surcharge, which was claimed to be an equitable measure and something which impacts on high income earners.I want to indicate to the government that, while we will support it, Labor's view is that this measure certainly does not fix all the anomalies associated with the superannuation surcharge. One of the anomalies has been the subject of reports recently in the Financial Review in particular, and it is one which has been brought forward by the Australian and International Pilots Association who have done a submission to the Productivity Commission on the surcharge tax legislation. Their particular concern relates to the way in which members of certain defined benefit superannuation schemes are subjected to the surcharge tax. In their submission to the Productivity Commission they say:Existing legislation unintentionally confers a benefit on business at the expense of the members of those funds. Currently, if a fund chooses to implement a surcharge debit offset account to administer the superannuation surcharge tax, an inequity can arise because of the difference between the interest rates applied to a member's benefit and the rates applied to the member's surcharge tax liability.So you have a situation where your superannuation benefits are accruing—and in a defined benefit fund they accrue in a certain way—but you also have a liability accruing, this surcharge debit offset account, which can have a different rate of interest and can accrue at a higher rate than the rate at which your benefit is accruing. The submission continues:This inequity results because the surcharge tax is in effect borrowed by the super fund, from the super fund, in order to pay the Federal Government tax. The capital and interest on the loan is charged to an account in the member's name and compounds whilst a member remains in the fund. The compounded amount is then subtracted from the final benefit upon the member's retirement from the fund. So, according to the pilots association, for a member having around 30 years membership in the fund, a three per cent gap between the credited earnings rate and salary inflation rate results in a reduction of around 13 per cent of the final benefit. They say:Applying credited earnings rate to surcharge offset accounts is always detrimental. Despite the absence of express legislative authority, surcharge offset accounts are used by some corporate schemes as a result of discretion given to trustees by the trust deeds of their respective funds. In such cases, actuarial opinion varies widely as to the correct rate of interest to be applied. I have to say that this is a problem in the way that the surcharge is to be calculated for defined benefit funds, full stop, because there is a legitimate argument as to how you correctly calculate the employer contribution in the cases of these defined benefit funds.The advice obtained by the pilots association consistently confirms that the use of the credited earnings rate of interest will be detrimental in the long run to fund members, irrespective of members' years of service, when compared to either the actuarially assumed salary inflation rate or the 10-year long-term bond rate that is used for public sector unfunded defined benefit schemes. Their submission says that they have received advice from Senator Kemp, the Assistant Treasurer, that there is no need for the trustees to adopt the practice of establishing debt accounts for affected members. Nevertheless, this is occurring and the pilots association believe that the legislation has inequitable consequences for fully funded defined benefit members.It is clear that the federal government's legislation intends that the funds should recoup the tax from the members' accounts—there is no argument about that—but, because of the many different types of funds covered by the surcharge act, the decision by some trustees to use surcharge debit accounts for fully funded schemes when that method is only expressly authorised for unfunded schemes has resulted in significant issues for fully funded defined benefit members. That problem is even more exaggerated when inappropriate interest rates are used. So there are some serious questions that have been raised here, and I understand that the same sorts of issues arise in relation to other schemes as well, such as those of judges. It is possible that the amounts that they have their accounts reduced by can exceed even the 15 per cent of the surcharge, much less take into account the fact that they were entitled to benefits that had accrued during the years—and, in some cases, the many years—prior to the surcharge coming into effect.The other anomaly that I want to mention to the House goes to the way in which the surcharge is calculated on shift workers. People who work in mines and various types of employment have their superannuation guarantee entitlements, the amount of superannuation money they are being paid, calculated on a base rate of pay but have there superannuation surcharge calculated on a total rate of pay. So people are receiving the superannuation guarantee on a lower rate of salary but are having to pay the surcharge that is calculated on a higher rate of salary.A case of this kind was drawn to my attention recently by the member for Charlton, Kelly Hoare, which involves shift workers at the Eraring power station. They are entitled to the employee's base wage and have superannuation guarantee payments based on that. When they are assessing income, they have the base salary plus 20 per cent allowances, so their income is well below the superannuation surcharge levy lower limit. But the tax office applies the superannuation surcharge levy to the state government employee's base wage plus actual allowances of 37.7 per cent plus employer superannuation contributions, which puts the income above the superannuation surcharge levy upper limit. You can understand that a worker in a situation like that—where their entitlements are calculated on one salary but their taxation liabilities are calculated on a different salary—would be pretty unimpressed. I have come across a number of examples of that kind in the past few years, and I suggest to the government that these situations represent further surcharge anomalies which it ought to be prepared to examine. Having regard to these sorts of anomalies, Labor has indicated that we intend to have a review of superannuation. This government has no vision in relation to superannuation. By contrast, Labor in office built up superannuation from $40 billion back in 1983 to $500 billion now. We are prepared to look at some of these issues. We note the attempt by the government to mount a scare campaign based on misinformation in relation to superannuation. It is absolutely untrue that Labor intends to increase the superannuation guarantee contributions by employers; nevertheless, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Small Business have been endeavouring to beat that up and continually misrepresent the opposition.The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Treasurer and I have all said, no, there will not be an increase in compulsory employer contributions to superannuation. It is necessary to have some honesty in political debate in this country, and I think the Prime Minister, the Minister for Small Business and others would do us all a favour if they ceased and desisted from misrepresenting what we have to say in the area of superannuation. We are concerned about superannuation anomalies. We do intend to have a review of superannuation with a view to building on the achievements of Labor in government in this area. As I indicated at the outset, Labor will be supporting this legislation which we believe is some time overdue.18:14:0029174Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—The Superannuation Contributions Taxes and Termination Payments Tax Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 is one of those pieces of legislation where I believe the government has seen that change is needed and has moved with certainty to bring it about, and that change is a reduction in the surcharge on certain termination payments—that is, in regard to the termination payments surcharge and the superannuation contributions surcharge. We have listened to the Australian Labor Party tonight, and my colleague opposite has rightly said that they will not be opposing this legislation. However, neither did they oppose the introduction of the 15 per cent surcharge on superannuation termination payments when it was first introduced in 1997. Mr Deputy Speaker Hollis, I think you would be aware of that measure—the so-called measure to reduce the advantage that recipients of very high, late payments from super funds or golden handshakes had in the tax system—that was introduced by the government to rectify that problem. Labor did not oppose that measure; Gareth Evans, who was the shadow Treasurer at the time, I believe, did not seek to modify or change it. I notice that a number of members of the opposition, in the speeches made at that time, all skirted around the issue but said that they thought it was reasonable at the end of the day.I picked up today a report in the Financial Review dated 10 May 2001, where the spokesman on these matters for the Australian Labor Party indicated:Labor has been opposed to the additional 15 per cent surcharge for high-income earners, and Mr Thomson said this new tax had been “adverse” for funds and “problematic” for investors.I would just say that, after listening carefully to his speech tonight, I think he ought to clarify exactly where his party stands. He cannot make statements to the press saying that the Labor Party is opposed to these measures and then come in here and say, `Well, we are not opposed. We're worried about some of the administration, but we are not opposed to the measures.' That report continues that the shadow assistant Treasurer:... also argues that it was anomalous for eligible termination payments and rollovers for low-income people to be hit by the tax.It is perfectly proper for him to have that view, and that is the measure that is being resolved here tonight. The changes that we are introducing here are well thought through changes, changes that are necessary and changes that will improve the application of the measures by bringing into effect, before the time necessary, before 19 August—which I believe is the eligibility date—the temporary measures introduced by the government now being made permanent. Those changes will be welcomed by everybody affected. That article in the Financial Review of 10 May, to which I have already referred, continues:In criticising the Government's approach to superannuation, Thomson also spelt out the reform targets for any incoming Labor government.“[The Howard] Government did a lot of damage to super through imposing the surcharge, through not proceeding with our co-contribution, by requiring over-55s to access their super before they can be eligible for unemployment benefits,” he says.While these reforms would be aimed at boosting voluntary contribution, Labor is also sympathetic to increasing the compulsory contribution from the 9 per cent level that will take effect next year.He says the evidence suggests that the proposed 9 per cent compulsory contribution in 2002 “is still not enough”, although the issue of adequacy would be examined in detail by the inquiry.That is the inquiry he has mentioned here tonight.So both the spokesman and the Leader of the Opposition are saying, `We know it is not enough money to meet the goals to have the compulsory level of super pegged at nine per cent,' but they trail their coat by saying, `Well, we are not sure whether we are going to do it; we are going to have an inquiry.' That is code for `we are going to do it, but we do not want to tell you we are going to do it.' That is exactly the system that Bob Hawke and Paul Keating adopted on a number of occasions when they were in office to break the news that they were going to change the tax system—like bringing in capital gains tax and other taxes. I notice that the Leader of the Opposition, in a doorstop on 2 August, said: We introduced the Superannuation Guarantee charge that is still not quite complete. It will be at 9 per cent of your income next year. It needs to be more than that.In the same doorstop he goes on to say: If you can get it [superannuation contributions] say to 12 to 15 per cent instead of 9 per cent of people's earnings you have solved the problem ... we are almost there at 9 per cent. Next year, we will be almost there, we just need another three to five on top of that. That is as good as saying that there is going to be an increase in compulsory super contributions for employers. That is an added cost that the Labor Party are not saying they are going to apply, but they are going to apply it.One can go back over a series of weeks to statements that have been made—including statements made by the shadow Assistant Treasurer, Kelvin Thomson, who has been in here tonight—saying that the 15 per cent is a desirable goal. That 15 per cent is a different 15 per cent to the super surcharge that we are debating here tonight. As was indicated by Mr Thomson, he would not want to see the super surcharge—`and I have quoted from the appropriate sections of the Financial Review that the Labor Party was opposed to the super surcharge.' Not true; absolutely untrue. The Labor Party are supporting it. They are not going to vote against it here or in the Senate. They have always adopted that attitude, going right back to the day of its introduction. So I do not know what the Australian Labor Party are expecting to achieve by trying to play one side of the fence in a financial journal that I suppose they feel is read exclusively by magnates of some sort or another who would be affected by the super surcharge but not read by ordinary people. Completely untrue. It shows you how out of touch they are with the average Australian.It is almost universally agreed that superannuation is too complex. But when you go to examine how you might change it it becomes a problem; and, despite the agreement by many authorities that it is too complex, there does not seem to be any perfect plan on the way in which you should tax superannuation. So the government has moved to modify the taxation put in place by our predecessors, and has instigated a superannuation surcharge and a termination payments surcharge simply to bring some more equity into the system, to bring a balance, and to still, however, give favoured treatment to the taxing provisions of superannuation. I think any financial adviser will quickly tell a member of the public that there is still significant advantage in investing in superannuation. The advantage is still there, the certainty is still there and the benefits are still there. So, despite surcharges, complexity and all the rest of it, this government has moved to clarify areas of superannuation. This legislation before the House tonight does these things. The government has announced three measures relating to employer contributions and to the surcharge. I think these measures have been widely welcomed. The date—19 August—is going to be in place so that the changes to the transitional provisions for surcharge on ETPs would be coming to an end and therefore the full amount of the ETPs taken as cash would be surchargeable from 19 August. From the calculations on amounts that I have seen, that means a reduction of something like 75 per cent in the payments. That is a very significant reduction; there is still the application of some surcharge, but there is a significant reduction. The first measure in this legislation tonight addresses this issue and ensures that only the post-August 1996 amount of an employer contribution will be surchargeable. It is not going back before that time, but only taking in the four or five years since that time, so the averaging process applies only to that four or five years.The second measure in this legislation will ensure that low to middle income earners with modest employer payments will generally not be subject to surcharge. I have been given an example that a taxpayer who currently takes an employer ETP of $90,000 as cash will have the full amount included in their adjusted taxable income and could be subject to a surcharge of the full 15 per cent—the range, as I remember it, is one to 15 per cent. Under the new arrangements, if this taxpayer has 10 years service, only $9,000 will be included in their adjusted taxable income. Provided other components of adjusted taxable income are less than $72,000, this person will now pay no surcharge. That is a release and a relief for the lower to modest and medium income earner. The final measure in this legislation will ensure that taxpayers do not pay more than the top marginal rate plus Medicare levy on an employer ETP that is subject to a surcharge.So we have here a sensible provision, announced by the Assistant Treasurer back on 22 May—it has been coming for that long. The legislation and amendments are in place. It will be a big improvement. It will simplify the process and it will alleviate payment by a number of people within the system. Making these changes will, of course, result in a loss of revenue for government which, if I remember rightly, will be in the range of $17 million to $21 million in a full year. It is a significant loss of revenue. It alleviates the situation of lower to medium income earners. A bit of additional information which I think is useful is that for approved early retirement schemes and bona fide redundancy payments, the tax-free amount for 1999-2000 is $4,858 plus $2,429 for each completed year of service. That is indexed for the next year—2000-01—to $5,062 plus $2,531 for each completed year of service.I commend the bill to the House. It is a sensible modification made to legislation that many would prefer not to have, but which is a piece of equity legislation put in place by a government seeking to balance the opportunities for people, whether they be high earners receiving a golden handshake or a big superannuation payout or somebody who has a small DIY fund or a small fund contributed to by their employer as they work day to day.18:28:0029176Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—in reply—Mr Deputy Speaker, in summing up the Superannuation Contributions Taxes and Termination Payments Tax Legislation Amendment Bill 2001, I am well aware of the time and I will endeavour to truncate my comments. This bill introduces three measures which will improve the operation and fairness of the superannuation surcharge in relation to employer eligible termination payments. The government is responding to concerns that have been raised about the surcharge provisions, and these measures have been widely welcomed. The government announced on 22 May 2001 the measures contained in this bill as part of the 2001-02 federal budget.The first measure continues existing arrangements that are to finish on 19 August this year. Without this measure, surcharge would be payable on the full amount of a termination payment from 20 August 2001. This measure ensures that only the portion of a termination payment received that relates to service after 20 August 1996 will be subject to the surcharge. The second measure ensures that taxpayers who receive modest termination payments and who otherwise do not have high incomes should have a reduced or no surcharge liability. This will be achieved by averaging certain termination payments over the individual's period of service with the employer, for the purposes of determining the appropriate surcharge rate. The third measure will ensure that taxpayers who receive a termination payment in cash will not pay more than the top marginal tax rate plus the Medicare levy. I do have a range of rebuttal points to the matters raised by the honourable member for Wills but, bearing in mind the time allocated for this section of the debate is just about finished, I will not proceed in a detailed response. That does not mean, of course, that we accept the points made by the member for Wills. The measures in the bill clearly improve the overall equity of the termination payments surcharge and the superannuation contributions surcharge legislation. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. 29177Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Slipper) read a third time.Sitting suspended from 6.31 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.Bills29177The following bill was returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Superannuation Legislation Amendment (Post-retirement Commutations) Bill 2000Bills29177R1252BillsR125329177Debate resumed from 29 March, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.20:00:0029177Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medical Devices) Bill 2001 establishes a new comprehensive system for the regulation of medical devices in Australia. The Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2001 is consequential and it provides for annual charges to be imposed in respect of medical devices included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. In 1998, Australia signed a mutual recognition agreement with the European Community that covers a number of industry sectors, including the medical device sector, and permits conformity assessment of medical devices traded between Australia and Europe to be undertaken in the exporting country. In addition, Australia has been a principal member of a broader project, the Global Harmonisation Task Force for medical devices, that has used the European regulatory system, which is considered to be world's best practice, as the basis for a global model for medical device regulation. The system proposed in this bill incorporates elements of the EC regulatory requirements and will apply to medical devices that are not covered by the EC's system, including tampons and hospital and commercial grade disinfectants.The main provisions of this bill are: a new scheme that will be a separate chapter in the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989; the introduction of a definition of `medical device' including a classification scheme based on the level of invasiveness of the body, duration of use and contact with the central nervous or circulatory system; the requirement for manufacturers to meet `essential principles' for safety and performance; the requirement for manufacturers to demonstrate that appropriate quality management procedures have been applied in the manufacture of a device; and flexible options for pre-market assessment of medical devices. It includes provisions for exemptions for medical devices to treat medically ill patients or importation under the Personal Import Scheme, for special treatment or experimental purposes—that is, clinical trials—and those covered by an authorised prescriber authority. The bill also includes a wide range of post-market mechanisms to enforce compliance with safety and quality control standards; the additional power to suspend medical devices from the register; the introduction of additional offences relating to non-compliance together with penalties; and a transitional period of five years within which manufacturers must comply with the requirements of the new scheme. Overall, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medical Devices) Bill 2001 provides for a much more comprehensive and rigorous system for the regulation of medical devices than currently exists. In addition, unlike previous bills, such as the recently debated Australia New Zealand Food Authority Amendment Bill 2001, the proposed system has been developed in close consultation with both industry and consumer stakeholders and it has their support. However, it is disappointing to see that the Minister for Health and Aged Care has failed to take this opportunity to address a major concern raised not only by Labor but also by his own Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care that would see the establishment of a registry for permanently implantable devices. That is something that the Labor Party actively pursued publicly and in parliament last year as a means of providing additional public health safeguards for Australians who have had implanted devices such as heart pacemakers.Labor's efforts in this area follow the recall in Australia in June last year of the St Jude brand of heart pacemakers following concerns about the premature failure of these devices, which illustrated deficiencies in the system for identifying and contacting recipients. As an interesting aside, St Jude is the patron saint of desperate cases, which is probably the way that many of those involved in the recall felt at the time. I understand that the recall has recently become the subject of litigation by a group of patients who were understandably distressed by the experience.Deficiencies in the system relating to the tracking of implanted devices were also discussed as part of the inaugural meeting of the Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care in February 2000. One of the areas for immediate action identified during that meeting was the need to examine a system to track implanted medical devices. In support of this, I shall quote the media statement released by the council on 18 February 2000. It states:Chaired by Dr Bruce Barraclough, President of the Australasian College of Surgeons, and supported by State and Federal Health Ministers, the Council will provide national leadership to improve the safety and quality of care in hospitals and other health settings.`The Council has considered existing activities in safety and quality as they relate to consumers of health care, looking at the diversity and breadth of the issues as well as the available resources and the linkages that need to be made,' said Dr Barraclough.`We have made a good start on a strategic plan for the Council, its vision and our objectives over the next five years, as well as identifying areas for immediate action ...One of those areas identified in the media statement for immediate action is to `examine a system to track implanted medical devices'. The release goes on to state:`This Council provides health ministers and indeed the whole health sector, including consumers, with a unique opportunity to build on existing knowledge and work in the area of safety and quality to make genuine gains and implement credible and realistic national standards ...I understand that the council will be pursuing the medical devices issue as a priority next year.At the time of the St Jude recall, Labor called on the Howard government to heed the advice of the council to institute such an examination and to set up a registry for implanted devices, including pacemakers. In response, the minister for health, care of a nice dorothy dixer, told parliament that the current system was the best in the world and that was that. Well, that is not what his own expert committee thinks, as evidenced by their initial recommendations and their continued pursuit of the matter.Again, I draw members' attention to the council's statement, which calls for health ministers to take advantage of the opportunity to build on existing knowledge and work. We may indeed have the best system relative to others, but it is a system that can and should be better. That is why Labor will be moving amendments to this bill to provide a legislative and regulatory framework for the establishment of a registry for notifiable implantable devices that will enable efficient tracking and improve recall procedures. While the current bill provides that the Secretary of the Therapeutic Goods Administration may impose conditions on the inclusion of a device on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods, including keeping records relating to the tracking and location of devices of that kind after their supply, Labor and the experts believe that such conditions must be mandatory. Labor amendments will place responsibility for the accurate listing of implanted devices with both the manufacturer and the medical practitioner responsible for the implant. There will also be provisions for advising the registry if an implant has been removed.While the area of most urgency relates to those devices that are life supporting or life sustaining, such as cardiac pacemakers, it is the view of experts in the field that any registry should eventually cover all permanently implanted devices such as new hip joints, breasts and penile implants. Labor amendments, which allow for particulars in respect of the definition of a notifiable implantable device to be set out in regulation, provide sufficient flexibility to address these important issues. In order to ensure that the good system that Australians enjoy can be even better and even safer, I would strongly urge the government to accept these sensible and important amendments when they are moved during consideration in detail. In supporting the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2001, Labor, and I am sure many Australians, await with interest the government's response to our proposed amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medical Devices) Bill 2001.20:09:0029179Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—We are debating tonight changes to, and the launch of, the therapeutic goods processes in Australia. This is an area in which I have been most critical of the Therapeutic Goods Authority for the unnecessary delays they impose on Australian producers and manufacturers, often with nothing more than a bureaucratic reason, the result of which is to deny Australian users and patients the latest techniques to be used to their benefit and to improve their health. I have also been critical of the costs and charges of this organisation, because there seems to be no limit to what they can charge for what comes into their head. I urge the government and the minister to keep an eye on those processes and not to relent in respect of the high standards that obtain to the Therapeutic Goods Authority.The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medical Devices) Bill 2001 and cognate bill that we are debating tonight seeks to introduce an improved code and process, and something which is more structured and understandable than what we have had in the past. It is said that we are moving towards a European consideration of therapeutic goods and products. That has some advantages and some disadvantages for Australia. However, there is a view among similar countries, such as Britain, Canada, Japan and Australia, to name four, that the process we are following is by far the best process to gain the best results for Australians.I would like to draw the attention of the House to another area. If we settle for a code that has international credibility, then we must accept that, if a product or device is tested in the most rigorous way under the code or a code similar to the one we have adopted, that test should be adequate for Australian conditions. If there is a need for the manufacturers to verify at every stage that the testing processes have been properly supervised, and if they can verify all the testing steps, I do not see why we should spend months verifying those tests in Australia. That is often the case. I noticed recently that the TGA fast-tracked a simple product and that fast-tracking process took 10 months.I notice also that only just recently the Therapeutic Goods Administration has given approval to the general use of modified silicon breast implants. That comes just two months after more than 3,000 Australian women received a $38 million payout in the case against the Dow Corning Corporation. There is need for care in this area and there is also a need to make sure that Australians are not disadvantaged and that they have access to the most recent techniques and the best technology in the world for their own health and their own benefit. Among the issues dealt with by the TGA has been the ordering of drugs on the Internet. I understand that within Australia, the Pharmacy Guild of Queensland has said that about seven per cent of Australians could be buying illegal and unregistered drugs over the Internet without prescription or quality assurance. That is a very dangerous process. Pharmaceutical and health industry representatives are absolutely right to make sure that authorities such as the Therapeutic Goods Administration are aware that that could be happening. The administration has said that it has taken several actions to stop the illegal sale of drugs on the Internet, but it could not provide details of every case. That is understandable because the management of the Internet is new and difficult and it may impose very large costs on Australian authorities as they try to track down the way in which the Internet is being used and the purposes for which it is being used.I will run through the changes in the bill briefly. Five classes of classification are to be established. Some of the examples of the types of medical devices that will be covered by the regulations under the bill include class I which is defined as `low risk devices which are non-invasive, such as hospital beds'—we can imagine a long-term test on a hospital bed—`walking aids, wheelchairs, simple surgical and dental instruments'. Those are the sorts of areas that are quite irritating. It seems to take ages to redetermine whether something that has proved to be serviceable for many years, and which has a known reputation, is safe to use. Class IIa covers `intermediate risk medical devices ... such as hearing aids, dental filling materials, ECG machines, hospital grade disinfectants' and so on. Class IIb covers `intermediate risk medical devices, including some invasive or implantable devices, such as baby incubators, external pacemakers, surgical lasers, ventilators' and so on. Class III covers `high risk devices, including surgically invasive devices and animal-derived products, such as absorbable sutures, heart valves, vascular prostheses and stents' and other products. There is also a fifth class, AIMDs. This covers `implantable pulse generators, implantable electrodes and implantable drug infusion devices', all of which of course could be of high risk to the patient.This legislation is needed and it is warranted. It creates a registrable and listable group, which I have just described. I think the classification scheme is a sensible one. I appeal to those who have responsibility to use the terms and powers of the TGA to make sure that the complex definitions of medical devices and therapeutic devices are made clear. One only has to look at the list of devices which fall within the definitions—if they are to stand as proposed—to see the wide range, which includes:• diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, treatment or alleviation of disease,• diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, alleviation of or compensation for an injury or handicap,• investigation, replacement or modification of the anatomy or of a physiological process, or• control of conception.There are a wide range of products that spring to mind when one looks at those broad series of definitions.The government has been dealing with this and consulting for a long time. I hope the whole process works because it will be to Australia's benefit, but it must serve two purposes: it must provide quick, accurate access to known cures that can produce certain results and it must also act as a policeman against any abuse or uncertainty that can arise in the use of medical and therapeutic devices.20:17:0029180Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—Recipients of medical devices would not enjoy the same quality of life without them. In particular, when we think of things such as pacemakers or heart valves, it is clear that, without these, life expectancy for some people would be severely limited. Medical devices are health care products whose use requires the assistance of health care professionals. What these amendments do is benefit consumers through comprehensive risk management. Medical devices will be classified according to the risk involved in the use of the device, which is dependent on the level of invasiveness in the human body, the duration of use and things like contact with the nervous system or the circulatory system. The classification moves from what we currently have with the TGA—a prescriptive system with two classes—to a system with five classes. The new system will identify and manage risks involved with the new technology.When we think of medical devices, it is important that we have a system of regulation and this is an improvement on the previous regulation, which came into place in 1989. The TGA is our equivalent of the Food and Drug Administration in the United States. When we think of things like the Dalkon Shield or the Bjork-Shiley heart valve, this legislation attempts to ensure that, if there are any unintended consequences like there were from those items in future, there will be an improved ability, firstly, to assess the risk and also to recall those products.The bill allows the introduction of an internationally harmonised framework for the regulation of medical devices that will protect consumers and allow for the rapid availability of medical technologies. The problem with the Therapeutic Goods Administration Act 1989 is that it does not balance risk classification of new technologies with safety and quality standards. That is what this new bill does. The current act only recognises unique Australian standards and does not recognise the fact that something like 90 per cent of medical devices are imported. It also limits the post-market monitoring and the adverse incident reporting that can occur within the Australian jurisdiction.Since the mid-1990s, the Global Harmonisation Task Force—which includes the United States, Canada, Europe, Japan and Australia—has been working on the development of a global model to regulate medical devices. This model is based on the European approach and what this bill does is consistent with the global model and consistent with the European approach. The high risk devices are manufactured by a small number of multinationals. To avoid the costs of unique regulation we should have a consistent system around the world. I should also mention that, while about 90 per cent of medical devices are imported, within Australia this is a $1.8 billion industry and about 40 per cent of that is exported.There are consumer benefits from this new bill. As I said before, we will have a risk based classification, where the level of regulation will match the risk. Also, manufacturers will be required to be audited and to have their systems certified. It also allows certain high risk devices to be assessed by the TGA—for example, products which may contain contaminated animal material and may be contaminated with BSE can still be assessed by the TGA.There are also benefits for the industry in this new bill. It removes a system of unique Australian regulation. It also facilitates the agreement between Australia and the European Union on the mutual recognition agreement, and it provides flexibility for manufacturers and provides the option of electronic lodgment on the register. It also allows the TGA to suspend a device rather than just cancelling it on the register, allowing time to investigate adverse incidents.The bill is the result of extensive consultations since 1998 with consumers, the medical devices industry, professional groups and states and territories. The Therapeutic Goods Administration regulates medicines and therapeutic devices at a national level. This bill legislates for a new system to classify, assess and approve medical devices. Medical devices include pacemakers, heart valves, medical gloves, bandages, syringes, condoms, contact lenses, X-ray equipment, heart rate monitors, surgical lasers, dialysis equipment and baby incubators. That is not an exclusive list, but it is the sort of thing that we are looking at. The Australian medical device industry was valued at $1½ billion in 1996. We have about one per cent of the global market and, as I mentioned, 40 per cent of this is exported. But, of what we have here in Australia, 90 per cent is imported. In June 1998 Australia signed the mutual recognition agreement with the then European Community. This treaty covers a number of industries, including the medical device industry. I will go into some detail on the treaty. It allows assessment to be carried out in the exporting country. This is intended as a flexibility measure to remove unnecessary regulation and duplication. It does not require harmonisation or the mutual recognition of standards. All the European assessment body has to do is check that products comply with the Australian standards. There is also, as I said before, a wider Global Harmonisation Task Force which includes G7 countries and the rest of the European Union. The Global Harmonisation Task Force is based on the European system.The aims of this bill are to reduce unnecessary regulation and to give consumers faster access to new technologies while still maintaining safety standards. The bill defines medical devices. It also classifies medical devices based on the level of invasiveness of the body, the duration of use and the contact with the central nervous system or the circulatory system. For example, class I is low risk; class III includes things like heart valves, absorbable sutures and vascular prostheses. It also has a special class for active implantable medical devices, which includes things like pacemakers.The bill provides for a new and comprehensive system to classify medical devices based on the level of risk they will pose to patients. It also introduces essential principles of safety and performance and conformity assessment procedures for demonstrating quality management which provide minimum standards for quality and safety. The TGA will have the power to audit applications and to require a conformity assessment. These will improve the pre-market assessment for high risk devices. Much of the new scheme replicates the existing provisions of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 but, as I said before, it has not kept pace with actually reflecting the risk and classifying the risk of medical devices.One issue that has been raised is implant tracking. One of the problems with this is that implant tracking places requirements on manufacturers and sponsors to obtain information relating to individual patients. Sponsors and manufacturers do not have the power to access hospital and private patient health records, and many of these devices may sit on a hospital shelf for months before they are implanted into a patient. It would be very difficult for sponsors or manufacturers to obtain this information. Also, it is currently outside the scope of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 for the TGA to regulate medical practitioners.It should be noted that the government already does undertake some implant tracking. The bill already includes some provision for the keeping of records by sponsors relating to the tracking and location of devices under section 41FO(2)(c). Conditions will be placed on the supply of devices by sponsors to ensure that they are involved as far as possible in the keeping of records to facilitate implant tracking. Under Australia's existing regulatory system for medical devices, there are no provisions in law for the establishment of device registries for implantable medical devices which record the recipients of the device and conduct long-term patient tracking.However, currently there are some voluntary implant registries within Australia which are maintained by private or community financed organisations. Some link patients to specific models of devices; others merely record procedures. For example, the Australia and New Zealand heart valve registry seeks to identify and locate patients implanted with the Bjork-Shiley convexo/concave heart valve which I mentioned earlier. There is also the cardiac surgery register and the coronary angioplasty register, which are maintained by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. In my electorate of Boothby, the Australian corneal graft register is linked to Flinders University. There is also a national joint replacement registry which is maintained by the Australian Orthopaedic Association. Device specific registries are available for orthopaedic surgery. The Australia and New Zealand heart valve registry has retrospectively located 96 per cent of one particular valve, the Bjork-Shiley convexo/concave valve. Last year, the TGA was involved in a number of hazard alert recall actions involving cardiac pacemakers. In the two cases where it was considered necessary to trace patients with the affected pacemaker, 98 per cent of patients with one type of pacemaker were traced and 100 per cent of patients with another type of pacemaker were traced. No country in the world has established a successful implant tracking system that provides 100 per cent traceability of patients. In 2000 the government formed the Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care, which I think the member for Bruce mentioned in his speech and which is supported by state and federal health ministers, to provide national leadership to improve the safety and quality of care in hospitals and other health settings. One of the key priorities of the council is to examine a system to track implanted medical devices, and there has also been a suggestion for a nationally operated implant tracking system that would use the Health Insurance Commission database to link patients with their implanted medical devices. So, on the issue of implant tracking, there is already a lot going on in terms of community organisations and there is some scope, as I said, for using organisations like the HIC.In relation to unintended consequences with the use of a device, the bill carries an improvement in the free market assessment of products through the introduction of a comprehensive, risk based classification system that will allow an appropriate level of regulation to be applied to each class of device, and that should improve the safety of medical devices that are approved for supply in Australia. Despite all the precautions that you can have at the free market stage, there is still the potential for problems to occur with medical devices; therefore, this bill provides, which was not previously there with the TGA, an emphasis on post-market monitoring of devices, vigilance with mandatory reporting requirements for adverse incidents and provisions for the tracking of high risk implantable devices. All this should improve medical device safety. Australia has in place a sophisticated post-market monitoring and recall system, which will be enhanced by the new arrangements in this bill.The bill has been around for a long time. As I said before, it resulted from the mutual recognition agreement between Australia and the European Union. There has been extensive consultation with consumers and industry groups. Australia will be aligning with international best practice by adopting a global regulatory model for medical devices. This will ensure that consumers have timely access to new technologies, while both consumers and industry will benefit from avoiding unnecessary costs through the removal of regulatory duplication. Medical device safety will be improved by moving from the current prescriptive regulatory system that recognises only unique Australian standards to a comprehensive, risk based classification system that will allow the appropriate level of regulation to be applied to each class of device. An increased emphasis on post-market vigilance, with mandatory reporting requirements for adverse incidents, and provisions for tracking of high risk implantable devices will also improve medical device safety.20:33:0029183Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medical Devices) Bill 2001 will allow the introduction of an internationally harmonised approach to the regulation of medical devices in Australia. It follows recommen-dations made in the 1997 Industry Commis-sion report into the medical and scientific equipment industries. In this day and age medicine is a very complex science, and with that complex science comes the medical hardware that goes with it.In my electorate of Groom we have seen some enormous advances in the sorts of treatment that people can receive, both in the private and in the public systems. Part of those treatments includes the fitting of these sorts of medical equipment. It is important to not only the constituents that I represent but constituents right around Australia that they can have confidence in these devices and that they can be sure that the practices and the devices used in Australia comply with high Australian standards and high international standards. The electorate of Groom has an economy that has prospered as a result of supplying an exceptionally high level of services not only to the people of the Darling Downs but also to people in western Queensland and northern New South Wales. In return for that prosperity the level of service, in turn, improves. I am certainly proud of the hospitals that I have in my electorate. We have seen them continue to invest in the very latest that medical science has to offer—the sorts of things that give opportunity and quality of life to those people who receive their treatment. Hospitals like St Vincent's, St Andrew's and the Toowoomba Base Hospital are certainly involved in the day-to-day improvement to not only people's quality of life but also the fitting of some of the devices that will be covered by this proposed legislation. As well as those hospitals, of course, we have smaller hospitals that service small communities around Toowoomba, and both Clifton and Pittsworth are blessed with small community hospitals. Just outside my electorate, in the electorate of Maranoa, we have a hospital in the township of Allara and, to the north in the electorate of Blair, we have a fine hospital in the town of Crows Nest.As I say, medicine is a very important facet of people's lives these days and some of these devices have gone a long way to enhancing not only their longevity but also their ability to participate in the community, to remain active and to contribute to the community that is around them. The new regulatory system will lead to improved medical device safety through the maintenance of the highest standard of safety performance and quality and timely availability of medical devices marketed in Australia. The legislation requires all medical devices to meet substantive requirements for quality, safety and performance for the protection of patients and users. As I say, it is important that we are able to offer people the highest possible level of confidence while at the same time providing them with the highest possible quality equipment.The classification of medical devices will change from a prescriptive system to a system where the level of regulation applied to each class of device will be proportional to the level of risk posed by its use based on the level of invasiveness, duration of use and contact with the central nervous system or the circulatory system. All manufacturers will be required to meet quality system standards. Under the current system, only 50 per cent of manufacturers are required to meet quality system standards. You can see from that simple example the extra guarantees that users and patients who take advantage of the devices included in this legislation will receive from that one basic change.There will be an increased emphasis on post-market monitoring for safety, including the requirement that manufacturers and sponsors report adverse events involving their medical devices to the TGA within specified time frames. Again, it is almost an after-market service system that has been incorporated into this to ensure that, when these devices are fitted, they continue to be monitored in such a way that, if there are any sorts of issues, let alone problems, with these devices, they will be reported in such a way that the issue can be addressed.There will be provision to facilitate the tracking of high risk implantable devices. The bill will ensure that Australia will harmonise with international best practice for medical device regulation. As someone who sees internationalism and globalisation as one of the challenges facing small business, there are advantages in making sure that the medical fraternity keeps in step with international standards and that undue duplication of process and red tape will be decreased.Removal of red tape is something that I am sure those people on the other side of the chamber, as well as those on this side of the chamber, would support wholeheartedly. It remains a challenge for governments at all levels—local, state and national—to ensure that any opportunity to reduce red tape is taken full advantage of. Due to these changes, the amount of red tape will decrease as much of the regulation duplication under the current system will be removed.Under the present system, medical devices imported from overseas have to meet unique Australian standards. The new regulatory system will harmonise Australia's regulatory requirements with overseas best practice, based on the recommendation of the Global Harmonisation Task Force. It is not as though we are in any way compromising standards; we are simply aiming to facilitate the benefits of mutual recognition agreements with European Union countries. The industry will benefit from the amendments for removal of the unique Australian regulatory requirements for medical devices. This will decrease regulatory duplication and will facilitate trade for Australian exporters and importers. As the Minister for Small Business, I travel around Australia and visit various electorates. I have been impressed on a number of occasions by industries based here in Australia. In fact, some of them in regional Australia are not only competing with imported medical equipment but going out into that global marketplace and competing with the international companies in markets all over the world. I admire that sort of innovation and initiative, which we see so often from small business. The quality that these companies produce is very much world standard.This bill will also facilitate the operation of an Australian European Union mutual recognition agreement, known as an MRA, and will particularly benefit Australia's access to European markets. Access to markets in the international sense is something that we should strive for at every opportunity. Applications for entry of low to medium risk devices on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods will be streamlined using a new electronic lodgment process. Processing times will be reduced markedly from 28 days to virtual time if the pre-market certificates meet requirements. Twenty per cent of the applications will be audited prior to entry. Manufacturers will have greater flexibility and choice in the way they demonstrate that their products meet the substantive requirements for safety performance and quality through choice of different procedures such as type of testing or evaluation of technical dossiers by the regulator. All manufacturers will be required to have a quality management system.Given the sensitivity of certain high risk devices, section 41EA of this new legislation provides for these devices to be fully assessed by the TGA before they are marketed in Australia. This would exclude such devices from the scope of any mutual recognition agreement Australia may have with other countries. The government considers this to be a particularly important provision given the risks associated with these particular devices—for example, the possibility of products that may contain such things as contaminated animal material, including bovine sourced material from BSE identified countries. Australia does indeed enjoy a unique place in the world not only in terms of medical isolation, which protects us from some of these animal based diseases, but also in terms of our livestock industry. As a primary producer almost by birth, I think Australia has much to do and must be ever vigilant in maintaining that unique and safe position not only for our inhabitants of the human kind but also for our inhabitants of the animal kind. The scope of low risk, non-powered and non-sterile medical devices included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods will also be increased, allowing for a more effective post-marketing monitoring system that will ensure consumers continue to be protected from unsafe products. There will be a small number of products currently regulated as devices that will not fall under the new framework. They will continue to be regulated by the TGA, using existing Australian standards. It is proposed to also include in-vitro diagnostic products under the new regulatory framework within the next couple of years. These devices include all pathology tests. The global model for these devices is under development and the TGA is consulting widely with stakeholders on this matter.There will also be an increased emphasis on post-market activities, with the requirement for manufacturers and sponsors to report adverse events involving their medical devices to the TGA within specified time frames. Australia's involvement in an international post-market vigilance system should reduce the likelihood of repeated adverse events and influence the development of new medical devices. Australian consumers need and benefit from access to a wide range of medical devices, including new technologies. By dollar value, approximately 90 per cent of medical devices used by Australians are imported. The Australian medical devices market is approximately one per cent of the global market. It is therefore imperative that Australia has a regulatory system aligned with world's best practice that ensures a high degree of medical device safety, performance and quality and also allows timely access to new devices. This will ensure that we maintain maximum safety for the users of these devices while at the same time ensuring that, when these devices are of a standard in which we can have confidence, their introduction into the Australian medical system is not delayed or held up in any way.The international model of regulation adopts the global model developed by the Global Harmonisation Task Force, comprising the regulators of Europe, the USA, Canada, Japan and Australia. The European system is the basis for the new global model. The new regulatory requirements will facilitate the operation of the Australian-European Union mutual recognition agreement, MRA, by avoiding unnecessary or unique regulations which make Australian access to international markets less competitive.As is usually the case with changes, there will be some cost implications for industry, such as the cost of implementing quality assurance systems. But these costs should be more than offset by increased export opportunity under the new system and savings through the removal of regulatory duplication. In other words, it will be a more efficient system which will give industries that produce these goods here in Australia some added confidence to invest in the development and marketing of products. However, the impact on individual companies will depend on the commercial decisions they make and the market pressures. While there will be some increase in costs for those companies whose products are reclassified to a higher risk category and because of the need for all manufacturers to have a quality management system, overall there should be savings to the industry through the harmonisation of technical requirements and standards. Some areas of industry that market medical device products that are exempt from or excluded under the current arrangements have expressed concern about the move to regulate their products and the potential cost involved in implementing quality assurance programs. These changes are in line with international best practice to ensure high quality and safe medical devices. These increased costs could also be offset by potential gains through easier access to European markets for Australian manufacturers and entry into Australia for products imported from Europe. The TGA is looking at a number of measures, including the grouping of families of low to medium risk devices under one ARTG entry to ensure that there is not a significant increase in regulatory costs for suppliers of these devices. The vast majority of products that are currently regulated as therapeutic devices will be regulated as medical devices under the new system. A small number of products will not fall under the new framework, as they do not fit the international definition of a medical device. These include household, commercial and hospital grade disinfectants and menstrual tampons. These will continue to be regulated by the TGA using existing Australian standards. Devices incorporating human tissue will also not be included in the new framework. There is a general agreement internationally that human tissue should be considered as a separate category to medicines and medical devices for Australia to maintain its existing ones. The TGA is currently consulting on a regulatory framework for these products. In-vitro diagnostic products will also be regulated under the existing system initially. However, it is proposed to include in-vitro diagnostic products under a new regulatory framework within the next couple of years. These devices include pathology tests. The global model for these devices is under development and the TGA is currently consulting widely with stake-holders on this matter.The new system includes the power for the TGA to suspend a medical device from the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods when appropriate, rather than cancelling the device from the register. This measure will allow manufacturers and sponsors to investigate and resolve potentially serious medical device problems without requiring the sponsor to reapply to the TGA, with the associated costs of application and re-evaluation. The changes facilitate Australia's participation in the international exchange of vigilance reports and the TGA's acceptance of a single internationally agreed dossier for marketing approval. The current system was at the cutting edge of international regulatory practice for medical devices when it was first introduced in 1991 and has served the Australian community well. However, the range of sophisticated medical devices is developing quickly. This growth is matched by consumer expectations for safe and timely access to new technology. Australia must update its regulatory system and harmonise with international best practice or be left behind the rest of the world.To sum up, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (Medical Devices) Bill 2001 and the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2001 seek to allow the introduction of an internationally harmonised framework for the regulation of medical devices in Australia. This will allow better protection of public health while facilitating availability of medical technologies consistent with state-of-the-art and current knowledge. Australia will be aligning with international best practice by adopting a global regulatory model for medical devices. This will ensure consumers have timely access to new technologies while consumers and the industry will benefit from avoiding unnecessary costs for the removal of regulatory duplication. Medical device safety will be improved by moving from the current prescriptive regulatory system that recognises only unique Australian standards to a comprehensive, risk based classification system that will allow the appropriate level of regulation to be applied in each class of device. An increased emphasis on post-market vigilance with mandatory reporting requirements for adverse incidents and the provision of tracking of high risk implantable devices will also improve medical device safety. I commend the legislation to the House.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.29187Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.20:53:0029187Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—by leave—I move opposition amendments Nos 1 and 2:(1) Schedule 1, item 59, page 19, after proposed section 41BD (after line 35), insert41 BDA What is a notifiable implantable medical device (1) A notifiable implantable medical device is a medical device that is intended by the person under whose name it is to be supplied to be used in the body of a human being to operate for the purpose of the (a) prevention, monitoring, treatment or alleviation of disease, or (b) monitoring, treatment or alleviation of or compensation for an injury or handicap. (2) The regulations may set out particulars in respect of the definition of a notifiable implantable medical device. (3) Without limiting subsections (1) or (2), the following kinds of medical devices may be classified as notifiable implantable medical devices:(a) implantable cardiac pacing systems, including pulse generators, defibrillators, cardioverters, antiachycardia devices and their implantable accessories, and(b) prosthetic heart valves. (2) Schedule 1, item 59, page 51, after proposed section 41FO (after line 29) insert:41 FOA Notifiable Implantable Devices (1) The Secretary must ensure that those kinds of medical devices which are notifiable implantable medical devices are recorded in a part of the Register to be known as the Register of Notifiable Implantable Devices. (2) The regulations may set out requirements relating to the obligations of manufacturers, importers and medical practitioners in respect of notifiable implantable medical devices. (3) Without limiting subsection (1), the regulations must provide for the recording, in respect of each implantable medical device, of the (a) serial number or other unique identification of each device; (b) name, citizenship and contact details of any person in whom an implantable medical device is implanted; (c) date on which the device was implanted and the reason(s) for its implantation; and (d) date on which a device is removed from a person, the name of the person from whom it is removed, and the reason(s) for its removal. (4) The regulations may set out terms and conditions concerning access to the details contained in the Register of Notifiable Implantable Devices.41 FOB Conditions (1) The Secretary may authorise a person to import or manufacture notifiable medical devices subject to such conditions and duration as the Secretary sees fit. (2) Failure to comply with these conditions or to make notifications in accordance with the regulations are grounds for revocation of the authority.As already outlined in my second reading speech, Labor is moving two amendments to this bill in order to establish a register for notifiable implantable medical devices. I note the presence in the advisers box of the head of the Therapeutic Goods Administration, Mr Terry Slater, who would be responsible for implementation in this area. I draw to the attention of the House, as I mentioned earlier, the issue of St Jude's pacemakers. St Jude is, as I said, the patron saint of desperate causes. As a lifelong Collingwood supporter, I think Mr Slater is aware of the fact that St Jude can apply in a range of endeavours.The register will provide an additional safeguard for Australians by allowing tracking of implanted devices. This will facilitate improved processes in the event of a product recall. In acknowledgment of the work that is to be undertaken by the Council for Safety and Quality in Health Care, the Labor amendments provide a flexible framework for the establishment of the register. Thus the first amendment, which defines `notifiable implantable device' provides for the regulations to set out particulars in respect of the definition. This not only allows for products that are life sustaining or life supporting, such as pacemakers, to be covered, but will enable other implantable devices such as breast or penile implants to be included if deemed appropriate by relevant experts or expert committees.Similarly, the second amendment provides for the regulations to set out requirements for manufacturers, importers and medical practitioners in respect of notifiable implantable devices, outlines the information required to be recorded on the register, and sets conditions concerning access to details in the proposed register.These amendments provide the flexibility required to establish a register that can be refined and adjusted to take into account any future proposals and standards developed and recommended by experts or expert committees. Given the flexibility these proposals provide and the fact that an expert government committee has already recommended urgent action in this area, I again urge—although, I suspect, forlornly—the government to accept Labor's sensible and timely amendments.20:56:0029188Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I am disappointed that I have only five minutes to speak to these amendments. There has been extensive consultation on this proposal since 1998, with consumers, the medical device industry, professional groups and states and territories. There is support for the proposed new regulatory reforms amongst all these groups, and I am happy to say that the new medical device industry, consumers and professional groups are in favour of the new internationally harmonised regulatory system for all medical devices. All medical devices will have to meet the substantive requirements for safety, performance and quality for protection of patients and users. The technical expression of these requirements is ensured by internationally agreed standards. Medical devices will be classified according to the degree of risk involved in the use of the device, based on the level of invasiveness, duration of use, and contact with the central nervous and circulatory systems. The new rules based classification system will appropriately identify and manage any risks associated with new and emerging technologies. There will be an increased emphasis on post-market monitoring of product safety, with a requirement for manufacturers and sponsors to report adverse events involving their medical devices to the TGA within specified periods. There will be a provision to facilitate fast-tracking of high risk implantable devices.The TGA will introduce the world's highest standards for post-market monitoring of adverse incidents relating to medical devices. In the event of a reportable near adverse event, where the event has not resulted in death or serious injury, the sponsor must submit a report of the adverse event as soon as possible, but not later than 30 days after the date of becoming aware of the event.Currently there are some voluntary implant registers within Australia maintained by private or community financed organisations. Some link patients to specific models of devices; others merely record the procedures. These registers include the Australia-New Zealand Heart Valve Registry, the Cardiac Surgery Registry and the Coronary Angioplasty Registry—a register maintained by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. And the list goes on. There has also been a suggestion for a nationally operated implant tracking system which uses the Health Insurance Commission database to link patients to their implanted medical devices. The government received these amendments proposed by the Labor Party only this afternoon, so there has been little time to assess the proposals in detail. It would seem impractical to accept the amendments in their current form, as they place requirements on manufacturers and sponsors to obtain information relating to individual patients. Sponsors and manufacturers do not have the power to access hospital and private patient health records, and many of these devices may sit on a hospital shelf for months before they are implanted into a patient. Thus it would be difficult for sponsors or manufacturers to obtain this information. Additionally, it is currently outside the scope of the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 for the Therapeutic Goods Administration to regulate medical practitioners. On these grounds the government cannot support the proposed amendments as drafted. However, it should be noted that the government is interested in facilitating implant tracking, and the bill already includes some provision for keeping records by sponsors relating to the tracking and location of devices under section 41FO2(c). Conditions will be placed on the supply of devices by sponsors to ensure that they are involved as far as possible in the keeping of records to facilitate implant tracking.Amendments negatived.Bill agreed to.29189Bill (on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane)—by leave—read a third time.Bills29189R125329189Consideration resumed from 29 March, on motion by Mr McGauran:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.29189Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Ian Macfarlane) read a third time.Bills29190R132229190Debate resumed from 6 June, on motion by Mr Anthony:That the bill be now read a second time.21:02:0029190Evans, Martyn, MPMr MARTYN EVANSN36BonythonALP00—The opposition supports the Space Activities Amendment (Bilateral Agreement) Bill 2001, which seeks to amend the Space Activities Act 1998, which the House adopted only some three years ago when we were at the threshold of a new phase of the space industry in Australia, and which provides for the making of regulations that will give effect to certain aspects of the agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the Russian Federation which relate to cooperation in the field of exploration and the use of outer space for peaceful purposes. This agreement was signed in Canberra only recently—in fact, on 23 May 2001—and I was able to be present after the signing at the embassy, where a number of the visiting delegates from the Russian Federation presented their credentials in this area and discussed with those who were able to be present at that time the mechanisms by which they proposed to implement this treaty. The degree of enthusiasm they had for working with Australia in this area was very encouraging indeed.It is proposed that the bill will authorise the making of the regulations which in fact then proceed to implement in detail the treaty which we have signed with the Russian Federation. That is essential in order to protect a number of aspects of the arrangement which is proposed. They include the protection of not only the intellectual property and some of the physical property which is involved in the space industry and in particular with the Russian launch facilities but also the nature of the dual use technology which is involved in space activities. Obviously some of the rocket engines and constructions could have dual use facilities in a military context, as could many of the control technologies associated with this. Substantial protection is required for that.There are also issues with duty and import costs, both into Australia and into Russia, which need to be eliminated if we are to have a cost-effective industry. Indeed, the Russian government requires that as a precondition to ensure that their goods that relate to the space industry are given appropriate treatment on entry into Australia. The space industry itself represents the ultimate in export industries. I suppose it would have been exempt under the GST provisions anyway, even though some of the material occasionally may return—all of it we hope in a controlled fashion, but of course there is always a possibility of an adverse and uncontrollable return. We would certainly require that the appropriate safety mechanisms be in place, which is what the principal act seeks to do.This is the first time the Russian Federation have signed an agreement of this nature with another country. It is to Australia's credit that we have established the appropriate physical credentials in relation to the space industry, because obviously Australia has those in abundance in terms of the appropriate remote locations—whether that is Christmas Island or Woomera—and the appropriate areas where, if there is an adverse event associated with this, public safety is not put at risk. Also, we have a significant history in relation to the space industry, particularly Woomera in my own state of South Australia where a great deal of work has been done on this.Indeed, some opportunities were lost when the combined Australian, British and European space initiatives of the sixties were eventually abandoned, when Britain pulled out of the Blue Streak activity and the other European rocket launches here. Subsequently we have seen this technology adopted, with the Ariane space industry out of French Guyana in Africa, with a very substantial launch facility there and significant investment going into that. But our concern is with Australia, and particularly in this case the two areas where the Russian technology is involved: Christmas Island—my colleague Warren Snowdon will address those issues shortly in some detail—and Woomera in South Australia.The global space industry is a very significant industry. It employs something like one million people around the world these days and is probably worth in the order of $US100 billion. That is a very substantial investment in anyone's terms. Quite clearly, Australia needs to be part of this industry, not only because of the economic benefits that can arise from being part of the launch industry itself, which is what we are particularly discussing here, but also because that has numerous spin-off benefits in other technologies. That is probably the area where the government needs to pay the closest attention to ensure that our industry is able to benefit from the diverse opportunities which will arise from having a key component of the space industry here. We need to develop skills in that highly sensitive manufacturing area which is associated with space launches. Obviously, space technology is worked to very high tolerances and very exact manufacturing work, with very high quality control standards. That has very good spin-offs in other areas of manufacturing, because the skills you develop there can be broadened and applied across a wider variety of activities. Obviously, it flows on to communications equipment, communications expertise, telemetry and all of the associated data processing which goes with that. Other industries also flow from that, because space is very much a platform these days for the telecommunications and phone industries, for the Internet and data transfer industries, and for global positioning systems. The Europeans have launched their Galileo system, which goes with the Russian glasnost and the American GPS systems. All of those geographical determining electronic systems allow people to pinpoint their location in space and also in time, which is very accurate, I might say. That positioning system technology will be useful in many ways, including tracking aircraft, motor vehicles and trucks. It will be used in a wide variety of applications which we can also expect to be part of if we are participants in the space industry itself.Those spin-offs are also used in the telecommunications industry and the satellite television industry, whether that is direct to home satellite technology or mobile phone type technology. We have recently seen some economic catastrophes in mobile phone technology in relation to the iridium system, with multibillion dollar investments no longer being all that active. But a new use has been found for the system, albeit at a somewhat lower price, and many other systems are now competing to cater for that area, with new technology arriving all the time. Remote sensing activities are also something which Australia needs to become much more expert in deploying for our agricultural and mining industries. A wide variety of applications from remote sensing will ensure that we are able to capitalise on the flow through benefits of the space industry itself.So a wide variety of applications flow from the space industry, and the government has an important role in ensuring that our industrial sector can capture some of those benefits. To do that, an investment in research and development is required, something that this government has not excelled at in recent years, and there is a significant need for Australian industry to be alert to the opportunities. Those opportunities will only come once, and once they pass us by, as we have discovered in other industries, it will be very difficult to recover them.Australia does have its own involvement in the space industry with the FedSat program. FedSat is due to be launched from Japan, as it happens, in early 2002. It is a 58-centimetre cube weighing approximately 50 kilograms. This is one of the new breed of microsatellites and will be an increasingly important part of our technological capacity in the future. It can play a very important role in delivering benefits from the satellite technology, but at a lower cost and with lower risk. The problem with the very large, very expensive satellites is if they fail in some way. Obviously, the investment is massive, the cost implications are enormous and the development time is very long. NASA, the American space agency, has announced the trend of faster, cheaper and better satellite technology, which is relevant to the whole space industry but particularly NASA. It appropriately applies to the satellite technology as well to ensure that we are able to put a number of important platforms into space but on a reasonably cheap and effective basis. For example, the FedSat satellite will include GPS technology—which will allow a number of important experiments to be undertaken and resolved in relation to the accuracy of GPS—a magnetometer, high performance computing, Ka-band transponders, a base band processor, UHF communications payload and a historic CD-ROM, including some important Australian music and Australian records to serve as a time capsule over the next hundred years or so.The individual experiments by themselves are very important to those who are affiliated with them, although they are not as important from the parliament's point of view. The parliament is more interested in the fact that the platform is there to put them into space and the fact that Australians are working very actively in the Cooperative Research Centre for Satellite Systems. A number of young and enthusiastic engineers, scientists and technical people are involved who do great credit to themselves and to the Australian capacity in this area.The parliament will certainly share in the joy next year when this satellite is effectively launched into orbit and the first signals come back and we are able to demonstrate our capability in this area. I also hope that we will be able to demonstrate our capability in the launch area as a result of the technology which this legislation allows us to capture for Australia and the cooperation which it envisages with the Russian federation. Our industry should benefit from the subsequent spin-off technologies, which are very diverse and broad. This generation of young engineers and scientists should benefit from an Australian space industry, just as a previous generation did. They will ensure that in the future we have the experience, enthusiasm and capability to develop those very valuable spin-off industries around the launch industry itself. So the opposition supports the legislation, commends the bill to the House and looks forward to the future development of our Australian space industry.21:14:0029192Washer, Dr Mal, MPDr WASHER84FMooreLP10—I rise to speak on the government's Space Activities Amendment (Bilateral Agreement) Bill 2001. Introducing the bill for its second reading in the House, my colleague the Minister for Community Services, Larry Anthony, outlined its details. This amendment bill is necessary to accommodate a very significant recent event in Australia's efforts to reinstate itself as a player in the global space industry. That event was the signing of the `Agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the Russian Federation on cooperation in the field of the exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes'. Members may not be aware that there are four companies looking at Australia as a base for commercial space launch facilities; two of those companies are planning to use Russian technology. The signing of the agreement in May this year by our own highly productive and dedicated Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, the Hon. Nick Minchin, and Mr Yuri Koptev, Director-General of the Russian Aviation and Space Agency, is the green light for our space industry to develop as a global player.The agreement between Australia and Russia covers matters such as establishing a legal and organisational framework for the transfer of space technology, expertise and equipment; protection of intellectual and physical property; waiving of import duties for equipment into both countries; and allowing other parties access to these agreements. The agreement between Australia and the Russian Federation and this bill will facilitate progress by companies working with the Russian space agency. The most advanced proposal involves the Asia Pacific Space Centre plan, which will use Christmas Island as a space launch facility and utilise Russian technology.The government's support for the development of Australia's space industry is unambiguous. In that regard, I was delighted by Minister Minchin's announcement that the government is willing to spend up to $100 million on Christmas Island to support the project. This incentive was provided to counter the financial advantages offered by existing infrastructure at a competing space launch facility in Alcantara, Brazil. This money will be invested in infrastructure on Christmas Island, such as airport upgrade and new port and road investment, as well as providing assistance with ground station facilities. It is part of a total $800 million investment planned by the Asia Pacific Space Centre that will see Australia re-enter and be a player in the space industry in a way that we have not been since the 1950s. Being from Western Australia, I also welcome the investment as an economic boost for the Christmas Island community. It is expected to generate up to 400 jobs during construction and up to 550 jobs once it is operational. This investment and the work done by the government, especially Minister Minchin, have been vital in attracting interest to Australia and demonstrating our commitment to seeing a space industry and satellite launch facilities established in Australia.The APSC project will also open opportunities for the broader Australian space sector, especially in the design, manufacture, testing and flight preparation of satellites and in launch related technologies, such as space communications. Again, Western Australia is well placed in relation to this major project to benefit from these new opportunities. Examples of high-tech potential include the future development of new jobs in Australia for electrical and mechanical engineers, aerospace engineers, physicists and statistical specialists, working in such areas as payload integration, launch vehicle preparation and testing, and telemetry tracking. APSC also proposes to establish a space research centre, which will offer postgraduate teaching and research in collaboration with other Australian and international research institutions.Construction work on the spaceport and supporting infrastructure is scheduled to begin later this year, and APSC intends to conduct two test launches in 2003. APSC is the only project targeting geostationary orbits. Geostationary satellites are approximately 23,000 miles above the earth's surface and they remain above a fixed point on the equator. Satellites in geostationary orbit are usually large, with a long operational life, such as communications satellites. Christmas Island is located relatively close to the equator, enabling launch vehicles to carry heavier payloads. The main proposed flight path for rockets launched from Christmas Island will be to the east—in keeping with geostationary payloads—out over the Timor Sea and travelling between Australia and Papua New Guinea. All launches will be subject to stringent safeguards, with no member of the public to be exposed to a risk exceeding one chance of casualty in 10 million launches. The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, APPEA, has expressed concerns with respect to the safety of their workers and facilities. But I also know that Warren Entsch, in association with the Department of Industry, Science and Resources, has been working very closely for many months with APPEA to ensure that our petroleum and gas assets are protected.Labor's reaction to the coalition's commitment of $100 million to Christmas Island and APSC has been very strange. With Labor's talk about a Knowledge Nation, you would think the party would have been the first to congratulate the government for making such a substantial investment in this exciting high-technology industry—acknowledged earlier by the shadow minister. Instead, Labor came out the day after the government's announcement and started attacking the commitment as being economically irresponsible; the opposition finance spokesperson even referred to it as a `vote buying exercise'. This shows the hypocrisy of the ALP in relation to science and innovation: they are big on rhetoric but fail to deliver when it comes to the crunch.The coalition has shown that it is prepared to put its money on the table with a fully costed and planned science and innovation program. The Prime Minister's innovation statement, Backing Australia's Ability, will provide $2.9 billion of additional funding over five years for science and innovation. This is the largest commitment ever made by an Australian government. On the other hand, you have Labor's Knowledge Nation, which is simply an uncosted and confused series of motherhood statements.The APSC project is a very important step in terms of Australia's engaging in the high-technology commercial space industry. It will be good for Christmas Island, and it will be good for Western Australia. If Labor are serious about seeing Western Australia grow and develop in new and innovative ways, they should come out and state clearly that they support APSC and the Christmas Island project—and it appears that they will be doing so, and I congratulate them for that. I also congratulate the minister on his efforts thus far, and I commend the bill to the House. 21:22:0029194Snowdon, Warren, MPMr SNOWDONIJ4Northern TerritoryALP00—I am pleased to be able to speak on the Space Activities Amendment (Bilateral Agreement) Bill 2001 this evening. I note in passing that I spoke on similar legislation in December 1998, on the then Space Activities Bill 1998, and I recall the euphoria at that time that was around this place and, indeed, in the public domain about the importance of the agreement which preceded that piece of legislation and in fact was the cause of it. That was as a result of arrangements between Kistler Aerospace and the Commonwealth government. Despite the public statements at the time, we have yet to see any space activity get off the ground—if I can use that term—in the sense of having any of the bases commence or of having any of the bases that were proposed then, and are currently being proposed, launch any rockets. I will come back to that, but I first want to refer to the nature of the legislation this evening.The Space Activities Amendment (Bilateral Agreement) Bill 2001 is important because of what it will do. I will refer to the Bills Digest from the Library for the source of this first part of my contribution. It says the bill's purpose is:To permit the operation of an inter-governmental agreement between the Government of the Russian Federation and the Commonwealth that would facilitate the import of Russian space technologies for possible launch from Australia.In its background notes the Bills Digest points out that on 23 May 2001:... representatives of the Commonwealth and the Russian State signed the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the Russian Federation on Cooperation in the Field of the Exploration and Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes. The signing followed a saga of various proposals for the launch of foreign space rockets with satellite payloads from a number of proposed local facilities.I will refer to those in some more detail later. The Bills Digest says that the agreement provides for the exemption of imported specialised space-related goods and equipment from an Australian duty of up to five per cent. It says that we should note that the Sales Tax Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 1998 passed through parliament in early 1999 and that this involved an exemption for space objects such as satellites launched from Australia. Again, this was the result of the negotiations which took place primarily between Kistler Aerospace and the Commonwealth government. It goes on to say:Australia had already maintained a space agreement with the former Soviet Union. That Agreement between the Government of the Union of the Soviet Socialist Republics and the Government of Australia on Cooperation in the Field of Exploration and the Use of Outer Space for Peaceful Purposes of 1 December 1987 is replaced by a new Agreement. It is not clear whether any significant programs emerged or succeeded under the previous agreement.The Bills Digest says the effect of this legislation will involve an amendment to the Customs Tariff Act 1995, with the minister to authorise project concessions under guidelines to be developed. This would occur through the Customs Tariff Proposal No. 5 (2001) during winter 2001.The provisions of the bill amend the Space Activities Act 1998 to provide for new regulations to give effect to the provisions of the agreement. Regulations made under section 79A should enable the minister to nominate organisations to carry out specialised activities. Item 4 of schedule 1 of the bill inserts a new part 5A in the Space Activities Act 1998, the principal effect of which is to allow the making of regulations to give effect to the provisions of specified space cooperation agreements, in this case the new agreement. Item 6 of schedule 1 of the bill inserts a new schedule 6 in the Space Activities Act 1998 that contains an English text version of the inter-governmental agreement with Russia. An interesting feature in this Bills Digest, and something which I note is referred to in the informed or specialist media, is the nature of the current launch market. The Bills Digest says: A recent Euroconsult 2000 report estimates that the US$34.6 billion launch market for 657 satellites, over this decade, includes a 61 per cent allocation to commercial operators with 42 per cent open to tender.It goes on to say:However, according to a Canberra-based analyst, the projected supply of commercial space launches far exceeds estimates of demand over the decade. Asia-Pacific Aerospace Consultants believes that the oversupply approaches 200 per cent. As well, two major launch vehicle operators have made large bulk purchases of their own vehicles to lower costs.So it raises a question about the new launch opportunities that will be exploited by this site on Christmas Island and the two proposals for Woomera, which I will refer to now. The first is that of Kistler, which aims to use reusable rockets from Woomera in South Australia, and Spacelift Australia, which plans to use SS25 Russian ballistic missiles rockets, also from Woomera. What we need to be wary of here are the conditions under which these companies are coming to Australia. The Asia Pacific Space Centre proposes to launch Russian vehicles from Christmas Island and plans to commence construction of the space centre in September 2001. I will refer to that in more detail shortly, but I want to go back for a moment to refer to an article in Aviation Week & Space Technology on 28 May 2001 which is headed `Rocket shakeout looms as overcapacity grows'. The reason I want to say this is because I am a little worried that the conditions being placed upon this new industry for Australia may be a little too onerous and that in fact, in a very tight market, the possible effect might be that these launch facilities may not happen.I am not arguing that we should not be providing appropriate regulation, but we need to be very careful that we do not overregulate and that we strike an appropriate balance. We must understand that these companies are looking with interest at and have invested tens of millions of dollars in developing their proposals in terms of engineering, general planning and the consultation that takes place with these enterprises, and that we need to be very wary that we do not impose such regulations that will cause those companies not to be here.An issue that has been of some concern is hazard analysis. A view has been expressed by some that, because of the nature of the United States experience in this industry, Australian regulations should replicate those that exist in the United States. I have a different view. I expect that we have regulations that are appropriate, fair and reasonable, and that we protect as far as we possibly can Australian citizens against any contingency that might arise as a result of a malfunction coming from one of those launches. But it is also true to say that we are an attractive destination as a host for these launch facilities because of the relative isolation of Australia and because we can get paths for the trajectory of rockets that are launched from Christmas Island or Woomera that go over areas where, in normal circumstances, there is very low risk of impacting upon any population or population centre. That is not the case in the United States. It is therefore fair to presume, I would have thought, that when we are drafting regulations and determining, on the basis of hazard analysis, what these regulations should require, we pay appropriate attention and due regard to the nature of the Australian geography and to our relative isolation and seek to maximise the benefit all round to the Australian community.As I have said, I am not opposed to regulation. Indeed, I understand how important regulation is in what for us is a neophyte industry, but at the same time we want to be very concerned. If we combine the total investment that is proposed for launch sites on Christmas Island and at Woomera, we are looking at a sum approaching $2 billion or more. That is a significant investment. We need to be cognisant, as I have said, of the state of the market. It will not take too much, with the market as it has been described, for people to be turned off the possibilities here in Australia. We have heard already how the government came up with a package of $100 million for the Asia Pacific Space Centre because of the possibility that they might go to another country. That raises significant issues, quite frankly, and I will come to them in a moment, but the article from Aviation Week & Space Technology of 28 May in part states: Projections show a sustained market for the launch of at least 30 commercial geosynchronous satellite missions per year. But it also shows little growth to support multiplying launcher developments and dwindling insurance reserves.Further on it says:The projected commercial market can not sustain all of the launch systems that are here today, let alone all of the launch systems that are going to be in place by the end of the year ...That is what Wilbur Trafton, President of Sea Launch, told executives at a forum. That raises significant questions for us as a host to these launch facilities. At the end of the day, commercial decisions will be made and the proponents of the space launch facility on Christmas Island, the Asia Pacific Space Centre, and those for Woomera, Kistler and Spacelift Australia, will make their commercial decision. But we want to be careful that they do not make a commercial decision that is affected by costs that need not be imposed as a result of regulatory requirements that are too onerous. I make the plea to the government that they should expedite the negotiations in such a way that, whilst the regulatory requirements are appropriate, they are not too onerous.We have seen a lot of media reports over recent days about the launch facility on Christmas Island, in particular the undertaking by the federal government to make $100 million available for that proposal. The $100 million, I am advised, will pay for the upgrade of the island's runway, new port facilities and construction of the spaceport's mission control. I just pose the question to the government, and perhaps I will get a response, as to whether Spacelift Australia or Kistler will be afforded the same access to taxpayers' funds. Is there now a new proposal for industry development in terms of the aerospace industry that the government undertakes to support new developments such as those proposed for Woomera and for which moneys have already been invested? Does the government intend to approach the proponents of those facilities with an offer to assist in the way it is assisting the proponents for the base on Christmas Island? Will the government offer to pay for the construction costs of their mission control?You will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I am the member for the Northern Territory. Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands are part of my electorate. I am fully conversant with the conditions on Christmas Island and with the fact that infrastructure is extremely poor. I strongly welcome the $100 million in terms of the impact it will make on public infrastructure, infrastructure available for public purposes, that will be accessible to the community of Christmas Island on Christmas Island. There is no question about that. However, it is very important that the community is satisfied about the way in which these matters have been developed and about the desirability of having the Asia Pacific Space Centre project in the community. I say that because I was very surprised to learn recently that the announcement made by Senators Minchin and Macdonald on Christmas Island was not advised to the community. In fact, the Shire President, Andrew Smolders, who I spoke to earlier this evening told me that he was advised about the announcement by telephone after the ministerial party had arrived on Christmas Island.The issue here is one which dogs this government. In relation to Christmas Island and the Cocos Islands—but particularly in relation to Christmas Island—the minister responsible, Minister Macdonald, has shown a great reluctance to consult, communicate or negotiate appropriately with the community of Christmas Island. He has effectively refused to acknowledge the importance of the shire council as a democratic forum which represents the interests of the community of Christmas Island. When questions have been raised by the community of Christmas Island about the Asia Pacific Space Centre proposal, they have been frustrated by the lack of response they have received from the Commonwealth.There are mixed views on Christmas Island about the proposal from the Asia Pacific Space Centre project. Those views are mixed because people are concerned primarily because they have not been provided with appropriate information by the company or by the government. I find this very galling because, on the face of it at least, there are substantial benefits to be gained for the community of Christmas Island by the development of this facility. Indeed, it has been estimated that there will be 400-odd jobs, or thereabouts, during the construction phase, and in excess of 500 jobs when the launch facility is operating. That is not small beer, particularly when the largest employer on the island, Phosphate Resources Ltd, is currently employing around 180 people. A reasonable person should have a reasonable expectation that, in a remote community like Christmas Island, the government would go out of its way, because it is a small community which has been affected by the closure of a resort facility which, by the way, is owned by a sister company of the Asia Pacific Space Centre. Promises were made when Soft Star became the owner of the resort that they would have the resort up and running as a resort and a casino within 12 months. That has not happened and the community of Christmas Island is frustrated by that. When the resort was opened, it employed around 300 people. The community's expectations in relation to that issue were raised and they have not been met. Yet there has been no open, fair and reasonable communication, and no real attempt by the government to keep the community informed about the Asia Pacific Space Centre proposal, or to take them into their confidence about the negotiations with the Asia Pacific Space Centre people about what is proposed for their island community. It is no wonder that when I spoke to Andrew Smolders this evening he was meeting with his fellow shire councillors. They have expressed a very strong view about the failure of this government— particularly of Senator Macdonald—to inform and involve the community. As I say, this proposal for the launch facility on Christmas Island should bring undoubted benefits. But, if public confidence in the proposal has been undermined by a reluctance of the government to inform and involve the community, it is little wonder that the community is continually raising questions about the efficacy of the proposal, environmental issues, and other matters which arise.We should understand that this means a great deal to the community. Only recently the community were advised that CGU, the insurer that has been operating in the community, would no longer accept policies for general insurance. That is an issue for a small and remote community in the Indian Ocean. They are not being well served by some people in the business sector and it is a cause of some frustration as a result.While the government trumpets its role in these matters and offers $100 million out of a contingency fund—not through the budget, I might say—let me be very clear that the road infrastructure requirements and the need for an appropriate wharf facility to handle heavy cargo on Christmas Island have been matters the government has been aware of for some time—well before the budget was framed. There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for this $100 million not to appear in the budget papers. Presumably the negotiations with the Asia Pacific Space Centre had been going on for some time, yet we are led to believe that some extraordinary event has led to this money being provided off-budget. What extraordinary event was there?Serious concerns have been raised about environmental matters relating to this proposal, and that is an issue that should be of concern to us. It is an issue of concern to the community on Christmas Island. Despite the obvious commercial benefits that would accrue to the community as a result of the development of this facility, there are significant questions yet unanswered by the government in relation to the environmental issues concerned with this proposal. An article in the Sydney Morning Herald on 25 June this year titled `Manna from the heavens as we join space race' refers to Mr Warren Nicholls, a freelance consultant used by the Asia Pacific Space Centre. He said that the environmental impact statement for the launch centre was `shoddy'. He is quoted as saying: The water supply on the island is a critical issue and if there was any spill either while transporting stuff there or during the launch it could go straight into the water supply—in which case the island's finished.The article continues:Noise from rocket launches was the main threat to fragile species and a noise demonstration by APSC was “hopeless ... just a joke”. “Where you have so many species that are endemic to the island, you have to be extra careful.”I note on a matter of the environment that recommendations from the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources and the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, in accordance with section 931 of the administrative procedures of the Environmental Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, state that there are 65 conditions attached to this proposal.Another matter that I want to refer to just briefly is the role that has been played by the phosphate mining company. We need to comprehend here that this launch facility is to be built at South Point on Christmas Island. This is all under mining lease. The fact that the site has been established by the proponents has meant that the mining company has had to make arrangements with the Commonwealth over this land and has had to reschedule its mining operations so that it could mine out the areas to ensure that they were available to the space company. It should be applauded for this. As I say, it is currently the largest employer on Christmas Island, employing 180 people. It has a long history. it is a community based organisation. Those of you who have been in the parliament for any length of time will know that this company was built from, and by, the community after the mine was closed by a previous government and it has been acting very responsibly in the way in which it has dealt with this proposal, and it is to be applauded for itWe are supporting this legislation because it provides us with an opportunity. But it is very important that we do not blow this opportunity. We need to have proper regard to the regulatory framework which we are imposing. We need to ensure that there is a level playing field for all the proponents involved in this industry and we need to ensure that this government and the company involved come to their senses and ensure that the community of Christmas Island are properly informed about what is happening in relation to this space proposal, that their reasonable questions and concerns are properly answered and that the minister at least finally acknowledges that he has done nothing but treat with contempt the shire of the community of Christmas Island. He should offer to go over and take people through the issues and respond publicly to their concerns. And the space consortia people should have a public forum so that the people of Christmas Island can have their questions to the company and the government properly responded to. (Time expired)21:52:0029198Hoare, Kelly, MPMs HOARE83YCharltonALP00—We in the opposition support the Space Activities Amendment (Bilateral Agreement) Bill 2001 because of the opportunities it provides for Australia. The bill authorises the agreement between the government of Australia and the government of the Russian Federation on cooperation in the field of exploration and use of outer space for peaceful purposes, which was signed on 23 May this year. While the key provisions of the agreement include the protection of intellectual property and information, it also provides a legal and organisational framework for the transfer of space technologies, equipment and expertise to the Australian commercial space launch industry.The agreement also allows duty-free transport of space related goods and equipment which will be used in projects undertaken in either Australia or Russia. Launch vehicles, satellites, scientific equipment and telemetry and guidance equipment can currently enter Australia duty free, although some specialised equipment attracts an Australian duty of up to five per cent. This bill provides for the exemption of that duty. The implementation of duty exemption will be made through Customs Tariff Proposal No. 5 of 2001, which will be introduced during these winter sittings.There are at least four companies proposing to establish commercial space launch facilities in Australia. They are the Asia Pacific Space Station on Christmas Island, Kistler Aerospace Corporation at Woomera, Spacelift Australia at Woomera and the Falcon project at Woomera. Two of these would most likely be using Russian launch technology. The agreement between our two governments facilitates the release and ensures control of access of the sensitive and dual use nature of the technology involved. The most advanced project, as we have heard, seems to be the $800 million Asia Pacific Space Centre on Christmas Island. The Australian government has said that it would provide $100 million to help develop the centre. While this is a welcome commitment to the Australian space industry, there have been concerns raised in a couple of areas. I will reiterate some of those concerns. It has been claimed by the environmental consultant Warren Nicholls that the environmental impact statement for the planned satellite launch centre was shoddy. Warren Nicholls was invited by the Asia Pacific Space Centre last year to test the environmental credentials of the proposal. He said that the EIS needed to be redone and that it was the worst that you would ever come across. The main concerns that Mr Nicholls raised were noise and water issues, which could prove to be problems for the Christmas Islanders. He emphasised that the water supply on the island is a critical issue and described the decimation of the island that would occur if there were any spills, which would go straight into the water supply, either while transporting the equipment there or during the launch. On the issue of noise, he said that many species were endemic to the island and formed such a fragile community that a rocket launch within that community could be damaging to those populations. So it is clear that further environmental studies would need to be undertaken before this project went ahead.There have also been suggestions that there is on oversupply in the satellite launch market. It has been claimed that, once fully developed, the launch centre on Christmas Island would conduct 11 launches per year, generating significant economic benefits, regional development, new research activity and employment. The industry, if it achieves in gaining 20 per cent of the international launch market, is expected to contribute $2½ billion to the balance of payments until 2010 and to generate several thousand new jobs over that same period.However, an expert has said that the four space launch proposals will actually have a tough time making a profit. Mr Bruce Middleton, the Managing Director of Asia Pacific Aerospace Consultants, told the ninth Australian International Aerospace Congress that the projected supply of commercial space launches far exceeded estimates of demand over the coming decade. He said that the world's seven existing commercial launch providers would be able to provide a total of 685 launches into high geostationary orbits over the decade to 2012. Although figures support the supposition that economic benefits are going to be generated by the establishment of these four projects in Australia, experts say that it is going to be difficult for those economic benefits to be large and to be sustained.The discussion in the parliament and more widely in our communities on these initiatives has focused on Australia's opportunities to enter an expanding high technology and high value industry. In seeking to further develop the space industry, Australia should also be looking at contributing to and participating in other international activities. I specifically refer to the construction of the international space station by NASA. The construction of the international space station is a step towards the science fiction dream of colonising space. The first project of course was the Mir space station. When it was launched in 1986 it was a technological revolution. It was the first modern space station and the predecessor of the current NASA-led international space station. The reason for Australia's involvement is to ensure that it becomes a truly international space station and not just an American space station. The global power of the American space industry and its pursuit of a NASA developed space industry contributed to the demise of Mir. This theory was published in a recent media article in the Sydney Morning Herald's Good Weekend magazine of 10 February this year. The article said: Mir, a decidedly Communist creation, was on the verge of a second lease of life as a capitalist enterprise, thus threatening NASA's ambitions for an orbital monopoly with its own space station. For Mir had a second career in the offing. It involved colossally wealthy tourists, Hollywood entertainment contracts, and even a foot in the world of Internet startups. Dennis Tito, a former NASA engineer turned financier, had signed up to become MirCorp's first tourist—at a round-trip cost of $US20 million. There was a $40 million deal to produce a micro-gravity version of the “reality-based” American TV show Survivor. And there was another high-profile, mega-rich tourist in the offing: James Cameron, the director of Titanic. The old Communist rattletrap was getting a serious capitalist makeover.... ... ...There is a strong resemblance between Mir and the ISS ... But it was Mir that became the world's first international space station, hosting visitors from more than 16 nations. Among them was South Australian Andy Thomas, who spent 141 days aboard the station 1998.He said that he felt `a lot of fondness for Mir'. He said that it was his home, that he got to know it very well and that he got to feel very comfortable on board it. He said:I am very lucky that I'm one of only seven NASA astronauts to have had that opportunity.If Australia contributed to, and participated in, the development of wider space activities, we would benefit greatly. We would not be losing our knowledge and we would not have a brain drain; we would keep people like Andy Thomas in Australia and we would be able to use Australian technology to contribute to international space activities. I come from a region close to the city of Newcastle, and we have a very innovative, very smart and very high technological industry base in Newcastle. Newcastle would be one of the regions that would benefit in both an economic sense and an employment sense if we were to be more involved in some of these space exploration activities. The Good Weekend article continued:... the ISS will be the most expensive government housing facility ever built; its cost to full operation is now set at a whopping $60 billion, more than seven times the budget specified when Reagan first announced the project in 1984.An article in the Sun-Herald of 5 November 2000 stated:By the time it is fully assembled the International Space Station will be as big as a football field and from Earth it will be as bright as the planet Venus. It will orbit the Earth every hour and a half and take 10 minutes to cross the sky.It is the greatest international scientific endeavour in history, bringing together people who were once Cold War enemies and 16 other nations to work towards future manned voyages to Mars and beyond.I am sure you would agree with me, Mr Deputy Speaker, that this prospect is very exciting and that Australia should be grasping the opportunity to become involved and be an active participant. But Australia already does play a critical role in space exploration. The article from the Sun-Herald also stated:Scientists at Tidbinbilla, the deep space tracking station near Canberra, are a critical link in communicating with 15 unmanned outer space missions to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Venus and the sun itself. ... ... ...NASA's representative in Australia, Dr Miriam Baltuck, said without Australia's dish scientists there would be no missions to outer space.... ... ...Australia's geographic position enables mission control in the US to keep 24-hour contact with its spacecraft as the world rotates. There are two other dishes, one in California and another in Spain.While we are discussing these issues in the parliament, discussions are also happening widely in our communities. The member for the Northern Territory, who represents Christmas Island, where one of the proposed rocket launchers is being developed, talked about the discussions taking place in his community. Space exploration, space development and the possibility of space travel are capturing the imagination of all Australians. I for one believe that Australia has the capacity, the technology and the knowledge to contribute effectively and that we must be able to benefit, both in employment and economically, from these exciting developments, which will develop even further in the very near future. While the opposition supports this bill and the government's claims about the removal of impediments to the space launch industry by the particular agreement covered in this bill and that the creation of a competitive environment should generate significant benefits, regional development, new research activity and employment, I think we should all be aware of and continue to monitor some of those concerns and problems that may occur, such as environmental impacts and community and societal impacts, through the development of these rocket launchers. So we are ever-mindful of those and continue to keep a watchful regulatory eye on the projects, and we support the bill.22:06:0029201Entsch, Warren, MPMr ENTSCH7K6LeichhardtLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources10—I thank all the members who have participated in the debate tonight. Firstly, I would like to welcome the opposition's support for the Space Activities Bill 1998. I agree with the comments from the member for Bonython about the interest, support and general enthusiasm shown by our Russian counterparts for Australia as a potential space launch provider when they were here to sign the intergovernmental agreement in May this year. I too had the honour of being at the Russian embassy in May, with the member for Bonython, to help celebrate the signing of the IGA.The signing of the agreement between the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Senator Nick Minchin, and the Director-General, Mr Uri Koptev, here in Parliament House was the start of a very special relationship between our two countries, and I am sure that it is one that will continue to grow and develop. What is even more special about that relationship is the fact that Australia is the first country outside the Russian Federation to sign such an agreement, so it is quite significant.As the member for Moore stated in his contribution to the debate tonight, the benefits of this agreement should not be underestimated. The Australian space industry will directly benefit from the transfer of technology. In the longer run, I believe we will see the growth and development of Australian expertise in many of the areas some of the speakers have mentioned—for example, space and aerospace engineering, software development, payload integration, launch vehicle preparation and testing and telemetry tracking. Western Australia, particularly communities like Perth, will indeed be very well placed to benefit in the long run as the Asia Pacific Space Centre grows and develops. In the short term, as the member for Northern Territory noted, places like Perth and Darwin will be very important centres of supply and support to Christmas Island as the APSC launch facilities are constructed and other public capital works infrastructure is developed.However, there are a couple of issues that I would like to address in relation to comments made by the member for the Northern Territory. He referred to allegations by commentator Middleton with regard to market oversupply. The honourable member is correct in his comments that the market for low earth orbit launches is oversupplied, but the Christmas Island proposal—and I am surprised he was not aware of this—is for geostationary launches. This part of the market is quite stable. In any case, we should be taking a long-term view. Space projects take anything from five to 10 years to get into place. Even in the low earth orbital launches, the current slump in the market should not deter us from taking very much a long-term view.Independent analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers suggests Australia could aim to capture up to 20 per cent of the global launch market. That is not an insignificant value to the Australian economy. This share must be won through advantages offered in things such as price, market access and reliability of launch services. Quite frankly, I believe we will be able to deliver that through the Christmas Island site. The fact is that the APSC's Aurora rocket is one of the most proven in the market, with 100 per cent success rate on its commercial launches. Boeing, for example, is facing problems with its Delta workhorse at the moment. There are problems with Ariane-5, and Japan has yet to get its H II off the ground, so this arrangement with the Russian Federation to use their technology would certainly give us a competitive edge. That, together with the position of Christmas Island, puts us right at the forefront to grab that 20 per cent of the market share suggested by Pricewaterhouse. The other issue that was raised by the member for the Northern Territory related to issues with regard to the environment. The environmental impact assessment that has been carried out by APSC to date has cost some $2 million and has taken some three years to prepare. Everything has been considered, from rare and endangered fauna and flora through to the heritage sites through to some of the mining damage that has been done on Christmas Island. As the honourable member rightfully said, Senator Hill set some 65 conditions for APSC to meet with regard to environmental management, so I do not believe it is appropriate to suggest that this has in some way been overlooked. The phosphate mining company on South Point is having to expedite its process. One thing I think people can be assured of is that there is absolutely no chance—I repeat: no chance—that the development of the spaceport will in any way repeat the environmental devastation of phosphate mining. The member for the Northern Territory also quoted a Sydney Morning Herald article which referred to Warren Nicholls as a spokesman for APSC. That is incorrect. Warren Nicholls made some criticism of the environmental assessment with regard to ground water. That particular Warren Nicholls, I understand, is a former employee associated with the island. He was not associated with APSC. I think that needs to be clarified. In her contribution, the member for Charlton repeated the assertion that this Warren Nicholls was an employee of APSC. Again I say that this was not the case. Among other things, the member for Charlton made reference to Australia's most famous astronaut, Andy Thomas, and talked about brain drains— something the Labor Party has been raising in recent times. She may not be aware that Andy Thomas is in fact being taken on as an adviser to Paul Scully-Power, whom I recently appointed to head an advisory group to recommend strategies with regard to the space industry. So our two famous astronauts, Andy Thomas and Paul Scully-Power, have both come home to Australia and are very actively involved in and very supportive of the process that we are involved in with regard to getting a fledgling industry developed in this country—that is, our space industry.The other comment I would like to make is with regard to the comments by the member for the Northern Territory, who suggested that there was no consultation with the Christmas Island community. I note that that comment was repeated recently by Senator Sue Mackay. I would suggest that Senator Ian Macdonald has consulted quite widely with the Christmas Island community. I have actually been over there meeting with council representatives and talking on a number of issues. We commissioned officers from the Department of Industry, Science and Resources to spend some days there last year in open public forums, discussing issues relating to the establishment of this particular industry. The APSC put out various information sheets for the community not only in English but also in Mandarin and Malay to ensure that there was not any misunderstanding. So I think it is a little unfair to suggest that there has been absolutely no consultation with the community. I would suggest quite the contrary. We have laid our cards on the table, and it is now up to the Australian Labor Party to make up their minds as to whether they are going to support the APSC project in Christmas Island. I will be very interested to see whether or not they are prepared to give that firm commitment. Of course, the APSC project is just as important for the Christmas Island community as it is in terms of seeing Australia as a nation enter the world stage as a provider of commercial satellite delivery systems. But there will be long-term benefits as well. At the moment, Christmas Island is wholly reliant on phosphate mining as the driver of its economy and employment. Phosphate mining has a limited lifespan, and whenever it does come to an end— whether it be in five years or 10 years time—if we do not have anything in place, Christmas Island, from an economic point of view, will effectively die. This is something that has weighed heavily on the government when looking at the APSC, and I know how hard people such as the Minister for Regional Services, Territories and Local Government, Senator Ian Macdonald, have worked to ensure the long-term economic future of Christmas Island. The signing of the intergovernmental agreement will also be important for other commercial space launch proponents, such as Spacelift in Woomera, which other speakers here tonight have rightly referred to as well. I think that if Spacelift and Kistler succeed in getting their respective projects up and running, we will very quickly see the rebirth of Woomera as a major rocket launch facility. When I was last in Woomera and speaking to the range managers there, I was struck by how much intellectual talent Australia has lost in the field of space and aerospace since the heyday of Woomera. But there is a new generation of young people out there with an incredible desire to become engaged in a strong and vibrant home-grown space and aerospace industry. Young James Moody is one person who springs to mind. James Moody is heavily associated with the FedSat project and has an incredible amount of energy, enthusiasm and vision for the future of space and aerospace in Australia. It may take only one commercial launch proponent to get up and running for us to start to see new life breathed progressively back into interest in Australia in space and aerospace activities, and that can only be good for Australia.The Space Activities Amendment (Bilateral Agreement) Bill 2001 gives effect to certain aspects of the agreement between the government of the Russian Federation and the government of Australia on cooperation in the field of exploration and the use of outer space for peaceful purposes. Passage of this bill is necessary before the agreement may enter into force. The bill amends the Space Activities Act 1998. The bill creates a new part, part 5A, to provide a framework for the implementation of specified space cooperation agreements and includes a part 5A power for the Governor-General to make regulations for the purpose of implementing certain aspects of the agreement.The agreement was signed on Wednesday, 23 May 2001. The agreement provides a legal and organisational framework for the transfer to Australia of sophisticated launch vehicle technology, information and other space related technologies. It will also facilitate Australian access to Russian technical expertise and enhance collaboration between our countries in scientific research and technology development. This agreement, as I said earlier, is a milestone in Australian-Russian cooperation and is a symbol of Australia's increasing engagement in international space activities. The agreement is essential for those launch projects that will utilise Russian space technology, in particular the Asia Pacific Space Centre project proposed for Christmas Island and the Spacelift project proposed for Woomera.Consistent with the government's policy of promoting the development of a commercial space industry in Australia, the agreement was framed with a view to encouraging Australian companies and other organisations to participate in the agreement and hence access its benefits. The new regulation-making power provides a mechanism to enable both private and public sector organisations to access its benefits. Participation by organisations will be on a completely voluntary basis. Where organisations choose to access its benefits, however, organisations must also accept certain responsibilities. In accordance with the regulations made under this new power, the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources will be able to nominate organisations to participate in the agreement, subject to the agreement of the Russian government. This authorisation will be conditional on organisations satisfying certain conditions that will be set out in regulations made under this power. These conditions are necessary to ensure that authorised organisations act consistently with the obligations that the Commonwealth has undertaken. These conditions will include requiring suitable arrangements to be in place in respect of each project and may address such matters as intellectual property, protection of physical property, liability, transmission of scientific and technical data, and dispute settlement procedures. More detail is provided in the explanatory memorandum to this bill. In summary, passage of this bill will enable the Commonwealth to nominate private organisations to voluntarily access the benefits of the agreement, subject to certain preconditions being satisfied. Passage of this bill will also ensure that Australia fulfils its obligations under the agreement, and passage is necessary for the agreement to enter into force. The agreement, once it is in force, will facilitate the transfer to Australia of sophisticated space related technology and technical expertise, and it will enhance collaboration between Australia and the Russian Federation in scientific research and technology development.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.29204Leave granted for third reading to be moved forthwith.Bill (on motion by Mr Entsch) read a third time.Adjournment29204Motion (by Mr Entsch) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.2920422:25:0029204Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Last Sunday, my wife Adriana and I had the privilege of attending the celebration of the Eucharist to mark the 40th anniversary of the ordination of Monsignor Vince Redden, Parish Priest of St Mark's Catholic Church, Drummoyne. The celebration was a great tribute to a humble and very popular parish priest. The congregation was vast and included Monsignor Redden's parents and other family members, as well as members of the clergy, local parishioners and many friends of Monsignor Redden. During the Eucharist we all prayed for Monsignor Redden. Our prayer read:Monsignor Vince, we thank you for selflessly leading and challenging us in our Christian mission here at St Mark's. We pray that God will always be with you, sustaining and challenging you in your ministry. May you be faithful to God through the people who touch your life. May you be energised by God's love and always be conscious of our love, support and prayers for you. We thank you for all that you have been to us and pray that your ministry continues in our midst.During Monsignor Redden's homily, he mentioned the dwindling number of vocations to the priesthood in Australia and called for more vocations. He observed that he might be the last parish priest of St Mark's Church—an observation that struck the heart of all of us. The time has come when the devotion to the sacrament of holy orders is reaching rock-bottom. This is particularly prevalent in Australia, while in many other countries there is a spectacular resurgence in religious vocations of all kinds.The significance for Australia is profound. Australia's legal, administrative and jurisprudential systems are based on solid Christian ethics. Indeed, the very notion of the rule of law, the doctrine of universalism—that is, one person, one law—and a host of other cornerstones of jurisprudence and justice are grounded in our Christian ethos. Therefore, the decline in the number of Christian vocations marks an adverse trend away from the very foundation of our democracy. With the decline of Christian vocations comes the erosion of universalism, the erosion of the rule of law, the erosion of the natural law, the erosion of natural justice, and the erosion of judicial review. In this House we know that cultural, legal and moral relativism are becoming increasingly more prevalent in the laws we make today.Monsignor Redden's call for more vocations, whatever one's religion, needs all the support we can give. Let us strive for the restoration of those little republics of church that enshrine the critical link between morality and law. Let us deny the threat of agnosticism, with its lie in denying transcendental truth and, with it, the very foundation upon which our democracy so critically depends. Let us preserve our cultural, moral and political heritage that makes Australia one of the most desired places on earth to live. Relativism, consequentialism and liberalism are the very roots of morally inconsistent law-making. If we do not preserve our Christian cultural legacy, we will lose it in favour of another matrix, whether it is an alternative theistic belief or whether it is the worship of ego (liberalism), money (materialism), the state (nationalism) or some other morally erroneous ideology. Let us work for the preservation of our Christian legacy and encourage, ever more vigorously, teaching institutions to teach only truth. In so doing, we will play our part in ensuring that vocations thrive, thus preserving the moral rubric of our political and legal system which is so essential for the practical implementation of morality, and we will realise the ideals of Monsignor Vince Redden. 2920522:29:0029205Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I rise tonight to speak about the considerable debate of late about the federal government's education funding policy to government or state schools and non-government or private schools. Central to the government's policy on this issue is the belief that all parents should be able to choose the school they want their children to attend, whether it be a state or private school. Every Australian student, therefore, should be entitled to have access to quality teachers and resources. The Howard government believes that there is public good in providing public funding for every student in Australia. It is for this reason that the federal government has funded Queensland's Schools of Excellence, such as the one at Redcliffe State High School, to the tune of $10 million and the Quality Teacher Program to the tune of $3.7 million. Premier Beattie announced both of these initiatives as his own in the Queensland budget, and the Howard government funds both of them.Although school funding in Australia is a shared responsibility between the Commonwealth and state governments, it is the state governments that are responsible for the majority of public funding for government schools and the Commonwealth for non-government schools. The current campaign by the Queensland Teachers Union points more to its political agenda than to any emotive argument on the issue of education. Commonwealth spending in Queensland's state schools has increased by 52 per cent since 1996. In comparison, the Beattie Labor government increased their state education budget by less than one per cent in the 2000 budget and by only approximately five per cent in the current budget.Unfortunately, the QTU hardly uttered a word against Mr Beattie while mounting an expensive campaign against the federal government and their increased funding for Queensland's state schools. The QTU is spending big on campaigning against the Howard government but it is failing to acknowledge the complete funding picture. It is not only to its detriment that it is doing this, but also to the detriment of every child in every school in Queensland.Many in the Catholic education system are feeling very isolated by the QTU's segregation and reinforcement of the `them and us' mentality. The QTU runs the risk of secularising the education argument by their own political agenda and quest to distort the truth. Parish schools that will benefit from this funding are being labelled as elitist because the QTU chooses, in the best interests of its political agenda, to group private schools as one, without considering the whole issue. Parents choose to send their children to different schools for a number of different reasons. For my parents, choosing to send my siblings and me to a Catholic school was part of being Italian and Catholic. My parents worked long and hard so that we could have a Catholic education because we valued that. The QTU wants to punish parents like mine for that choice, and that is unfair.There are around 430,000 students enrolled in state schools in Queensland and around 307,000 in private schools. Legislation caps the funding to non-government schools so that the most that a non-government school can receive is 70 per cent of the cost to educate a student at a state school. Private schools serving the most needy communities will receive funding in 2004 of $4,368 for a primary school student and $5,721 for each secondary student. Private schools serving wealthy communities will receive in 2004 only $855 for each primary school student and $1,120 for every secondary student. By comparison, in the year 2004 the total funding that the state schools will receive per student will be $8,172.State schools across Australia enrol 69 per cent of students and receive 78 per cent of the total funding pie. In comparison, private schools enrol 31 per cent of students and receive 22 per cent of the funding pie. In dollar terms, federal funding to state schools across Queensland will result in $440 million for state school students in this financial year. The current campaign by the QTU does not consider the total funding picture and implies that the Howard government is showing favouritism to private schools. That is not the legislation I supported; the legislation I supported in the parliament provides all Australian students with better opportunities and better outcomes from education, whether it is at a state or a Catholic school. It injects funding into improving literacy and numeracy levels and promoting excellence in both students and teachers. And that is what education is about: it is skilling our children today for tomorrow's future.2920622:35:0029206Sidebottom, Sid, MPMr SIDEBOTTOM849BraddonALP00—Tonight I would like to speak about the exciting national energy project, Basslink. This is the proposed undersea power cable across Bass Strait and the new overhead powerlines that will link Tasmania's electricity grid with the national grid through Reeves Beach in Victoria to Loy Yang. The rationale is that it will allow the trade in electricity between Tasmania and the new electricity market. Victoria and the other states that are part of the NEM will be able to export electricity to Tasmania and, conversely and importantly of course for Tasmania, it will also allow the export of renewable hydro-electricity from Tasmania into the NEM. This $500 million capital project will provide the technological basis for an entirely new export energy industry by allowing up to 600 megawatts of Tasmanian energy to be exported into the national grid.Political critics of Basslink disparagingly argue that it will exist to run Victoria's air-conditioners in summer and import Victoria's dirty energy at other times. What they forget to add is that as Tasmania's renewable energy resources are developed the export of clean, green energy will far outweigh any imports and that any impact of Basslink will be greenhouse positive for Australia. It is estimated that when the full wind resource in Tasmania is developed it will be able to cut greenhouse gas emissions in other states by 9.1 million tonnes a year, or take the equivalent of two million cars off the road in greenhouse terms.Simply, Tasmania will have the capacity to export a surplus of its new energy when the demand is highest in Victoria, for example, at the same time when Tasmanian demand for hydro is in a summer trough. Likewise, Tasmania will be able to import up to 300 megawatts of Victorian energy and minimise the use of support facilities such as Bell Bay. In Tasmania, the employment effects will involve an estimated 257 jobs in the construction phase and 940 jobs in other industries by 2010, while the additional income generated in Tasmania is estimated to amount to about $110 million by 2010. There are also expected to be lower energy costs due to competition.Basslink will pave the way for greater competition among energy suppliers, which will drive energy and telecommunications prices down. Indeed, accompanying the electricity cable is a fibre-optic telecommunications cable. Reliable Tasmanian sources of renewable, clean energy will aid Victoria and South Australia in their attempts to secure reliable energy supplies during peak demand periods. The presence of Tasmania's renewable energy should have the effect of driving down peak energy prices in the NEM.An important spin-off from Basslink is the opportunity it creates for energy diversification in Tasmania. I have mentioned before the synergy of wind and water energy and the availability of natural gas, which will see Tasmania move from being energy deficient to having a surplus, offering investors in our state a mixed energy option, unlike the present and the past. Basslink will offer the nation an improved environmental option. Basslink, in conjunction with wind power, will provide 40 per cent of the nation's renewable energy resources in a renewable energy market worth $3 billion over the next 10 years.Basslink has its critics, so it is important that fact is not replaced with fiction, doomsayers and outright scaremongering. Contrary to some of the misinformation being put out, there will be no restrictions on fishing in Bass Strait, magnetic fields will not send sailors off course, the cable is trenched and will carry DC rather than AC, and there will be minute quantities of chlorine given off at the anodes at either end but with no environmental impact. Indeed, concentrations will not even reach the level of chlorinated drinking water. Basslink will drought proof Tasmania because it will allow wind energy to complement our existing hydro capacity, stretched as it is. Rightly, there are concerns for the riverine effects which follow the conversion of the Great Lake and Gordon storages from base to peak load. Hydro Tasmania has spent about $2 million assessing this prospect, identifying the Gordon power scheme, Poatina and the King River as needing special attention. These water systems are already subject to the impact of change in flows and Hydro Tasmania believes medial measures, such as coffer dams and better management, can minimise any additional impact caused by the hydro system being called on to meet peak power demand in Melbourne, for example. Likewise there are concerns that Tasmania will be left short of energy with peak demand from Victoria. However, because NEM rules prevent power from being exported from a region until its local requirements have been met, Tasmania will not experience blackouts during periods of high Victorian demand.2920722:40:0029207Billson, Bruce, MPMr BILLSON1K6DunkleyLP10—I would like to join the member for Braddon in congratulating the Tasmanians on the opportunity that the renewable energy market offers their state. It is a marketplace we would not have if it were not for the Howard government introducing the renewable energy certificates which will see, from memory, about 9,500 kilowatt hours of renewable energy available in the marketplace within a decade. That is enough renewable energy to power four million households. That energy production will be twice the size of the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme and is a great story for renewable energy and environment management in Australia. I congratulate the member for Braddon for his interest.I rise tonight though to talk about the small business community in Dunkley. Dunkley by the bay, that sunny community that I represent on Port Phillip Bay, had the pleasure of being visited by the Minister for Small Business, Mr Ian Macfarlane. I am pleased that the shadow minister is at the table to hear this, because it was a great day on Friday when Minister Macfarlane came down to Dunkley. We had two sessions of bonding with the small business community, where we listened to their concerns and worked through issues that were affecting the vibrant small business community in the electorate of Dunkley. There are about 8,500 small businesses in the electorate of Dunkley, all of them beavering away. It is a horsepower of enterprise and innovation in our economy, and it is a crucial part of the Dunkley economy because we do not have any major single employers. There are a lot of family businesses and small to medium enterprises making a go of things and enjoying the market and improved investment climate that the Howard government has helped to create.It was a good chance to hear first-hand from the small business community what was concerning them. It is interesting that a common theme in Victoria seems to be that most of them talk about the unions running the Bracks government and the Bracks government being a fully owned subsidiary of Trades Hall. There is a bit of a worry about the industrial climate, and there are concerns about WorkCover premiums and how they have escalated quite dramatically. When the small business people make the rare claim, they are greeted with the attitude that they have introduced some sort of disease into their community; they are not well received when those concerns come up. Many of them greeted with horror talk that the Labor Party would, if elected, raise the superannuation guarantee to 15 per cent. These were common themes that were striking fear and terror into many in the small business community and were yet another reminder of why, if you have a small business, you are employed in a small business or you would like to see small business continue to drive our economy and add to the 830,000 jobs that have been created since the Howard government was elected, the worst thing you could do would be to trust Labor with the interests of the small business community. Of the specific issues that came out, one which was most interesting was about age barriers to accessing finance. Noel Bowman, who runs a terrific business down our way making electrical supply equipment, has just secured the contract to make sure the Collins class submarines are properly powered when they are not at sea. Bowman Chargemaster Pty Ltd is a great local business. Noel has seen many a summer—that may be the best way I can describe it—and he recounted to the minister and me how his age was a barrier to banks providing him with finance—not that there was any question about the vitality of his business, not that there were not forward orders, not that there was not a great deal of enterprise going on in his business; the issue was just his age. You wonder to what extent it is reasonable for banks to be withholding finance for small businesses that meet all the requirements. The risk profile of Noel's business is very attractive for the banks, but still they point to his age as a reason not to provide finance, and that is something we need to tackle.Even domain names were mentioned. I know that some clever souls are running around buying up the domain names of members of parliament in the hope that we will spend some big money buying our names back for our own web sites in the lead-up to the election. But the point was made that a number of small businesses are not able to access their own domain names because someone has bought them in advance and that the business name registration and protection that is available does not extend to domain names—and there are opportunities to do things about that.Finally, there was a general concern that the risks, the entrepreneurship, the great vigour, and the opportunities that are created by small business are not properly recognised. I suggested that maybe a national `Small Business Day' might be a good idea, when we could pay tribute to all those people involved in the small business community who are driving our economy forward, driving innovation and creating the quality of life that we enjoy. Maybe that is an idea that the shadow minister at the table, the member for Hunter, can take on board. There is other work to be done in the area of bankruptcy law reform, where manager receivers tend to suck out whatever assets are left in a business and then say, `Thank you very much; we've done our job.' There were even questions about contracts let over the last six months and whether being paid for them represents a preferential creditor. There was plenty of good feedback—and thank you for your tolerance, Mr Speaker. (Time expired)2920822:45:0029208Cox, David, MPMr COX83UKingstonALP00—When the Howard government changed the law for assessing eligibility for carer payment, the Labor Party warned that many families that need carer payment would not receive it. Tonight I want to talk about one such case, the Borg family. Their daughter, aged 10, suffers from epilepsy, global delays and an intellectual disability. She has the development age of a three- to four-year-old. Centrelink rejected their application for carer payment. When they sought a review, the decision was affirmed by an authorised review officer, who noted that their daughter suffers a severe multiple disability but does not meet the legislative definition for a `profoundly disabled child'. The review officer did, however, note that caring for the child is a full-time job.On appeal, the Social Security Appeals Tribunal made the following findings of fact: the child requires care during the night at least twice between 10.00 p.m. and 6 a.m.; the child is up around 5.30 a.m. or 6 a.m. and is lively, energetic, messy, unable to understand the consequences of her actions, and highly vocal in her preferences; her mother is unable to work outside the home due to care requirements that include assisting her at school, and attending meetings to do with her care; and the child needs assistance with feeding, toileting, dressing, hygiene, bathing, safety, and school work. In short, the physical and time demands of care at home, instead of in an institution, are enormous. To qualify for a carer payment—in addition to her mother having to get up on two or more occasions between 10.00 p.m. and 6 a.m. each night—the child would have to satisfy two more of the following conditions: receive all food and fluids by tube; have a tracheostomy; use a ventilator for at least eight hours a day; not be able to stand without support; have faecal incontinence day and night; or have a terminal condition requiring palliative care, not active treatment. Her mother points out that, with the exception of faecal incontinence and palliative care, if the child had any of these conditions she would actually be easer to manage.The tribunal also considered the legislative requirements for carer payment where a person provides constant care for two or more disabled children aged under 16. The Borgs receive carer allowance in relation to their 12-year-old son, who has learning and cognitive difficulties. He requires assistance with his homework on a daily basis, supervision of twice-daily exercises for his gait difficulty, and orthotic treatment; and he receives assistance from a private tutor for two hours a week. The legislation stipulates that the level of care required to care for two children is at least equivalent to that required by one profoundly disabled child. The tribunal considered that both children are disabled but not sufficiently to be within the criteria to receive carer payment. The tribunal therefore affirmed the decision to reject the application for a carer payment on the ground that it was a correct application of the law. The tribunal concluded that, despite the intensive care provided by Mrs Borg, her situation does not come within that very narrowly specified in the legislation.It is apparent that the legislative requirements for a carer payment have been drawn with a view to administrative simplicity and not to reflect the demands on carers. The rigidity and lack of discretion preclude some people who would require full-time professional care if it were not for the care provided by a parent or carer. This is particularly the case where the disability requires predominantly functional care—for example, those with an episodic impact.A summary of submissions to the Review of the Measure to Extend Carer Payment Eligibility to Carers of Children with a Profound Disability, undertaken in 1999, shows that the criteria are `excessive and unduly limiting', `restrictive', `not broadly representative' and `do not adequately recognise the care needs of a variety of disabilities'. One submission suggested that the criteria for two or more children are contradictory. There is no consideration given to the extra functional care requirements of two disabled children; the emphasis is still on the medical care requirement in that both children between them still have to meet three criteria.The review raised six proposals to refine the eligibility criteria and, to my knowledge, the government has adopted only four. The two proposals not yet adopted are to recognise children who require high level supervision and to allow eligibility to be gran-ted on a discretionary basis. The Borg case demonstrates why those two recommendations need to be adopted. The Borg family would like to form a group for people in similar circumstances. If you are in a similar situation, phone Peter Borg on (08) 8381 5933 or contact him by email on luella@senet.com.au.Question resolved in the affirmative.22:50:0029209House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.Notices29209The following notices were given:UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin Thomson to present a bill for an act to amend the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992.MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr Mossfield to move:That this House:(1) notes that: (a) Western Sydney is one of the fastest growing regions in Australia with a high proportion of young people; (b) currently there is a negative perception of young people in Western Sydney, which is a mistaken view since Western Sydney is no different to any other region with regard to youth problems and youth achievements; (c) there needs to be public recognition of the achievements of young people which is linked to high self esteem and minimises anti-social behaviour; (d) lack of access to educational facilities, especially information technology, has resulted in an imbalance of academic achievements; and (e) there is insufficient provision of community and recreational facilities for young people in Western Sydney;(2) urges the Government to: (a) research methods of providing adequate access to computer facilities to the disadvantaged in Western Sydney in order to close the digital divide; and (b) to provide urgently needed youth community facilities in the Western Sydney area to address the social needs of young people; and(3) acknowledges the work of the Blacktown Youth Orientation in drafting this motion and bringing these issues to light.WF6Danby, Michael, MPMr Danby to move:That this House:(1) expresses its condemnation of human rights and civil liberties violations perpetrated by the Government of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, including: (a) political and other extrajudicial killings perpetrated by or with the assistance of security forces; (b) politically motivated disappearances perpetrated by ZANU-PF supporters with the tacit assent of the Government and security forces; (c) torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment perpetrated by security forces; (d) arbitrary arrest, detention or exile perpetrated by police; (e) denial of fair public trial and refusal to abide by judicial decisions; (f) arbitrary Government interference with privacy, family, sexuality, home, correspondence and property; (g) restrictions on freedom of speech and press; (h) restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly and association; (i) restrictions on freedom of religion; (j) restrictions on freedom of movement within Zimbabwe, on foreign travel, emigration and repatriation; (k) infringements of political rights, and particularly, the right of people to change their government; and (l) discrimination based on sex, race, religion, disability and sexual preference; and(2) calls on the Government to: (a) make the strongest possible representations to Robert Mugabe in respect of human rights violations while he is in Australia to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meetings this year; and (b) exhort other nations of the Commonwealth to make the strongest possible representations to Robert Mugabe in respect of human rights violations.Answers to Questions in Writing29211The following answers to questions were circulated:29211(Question No. 2170)217029211McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Aged Care, upon notice, on 27 November 2000:What facilities, programs and resources are available to assist the sufferers of Alzheimer's disease and their carers in the electoral Division of Barton. 29211Bishop, 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:In the electorate Division of Barton the Commonwealth Government currently funds:· the Warina Day Care Centre in Kogarah and the South East Sydney Carer Respite at Bexley to provide dementia-specific respite services under the National Respite for Carers Program;· the Benevolent Community and In-Home Flexible Respite - Southern City to provide services for people with dementia and challenging behaviour; and· the South East Sydney Carer Respite Service, whose services include respite for people with dementia.People in the Barton electorate can make a free call on 1800 059 059 for connection to the closest Carer Respite Centre, which is located at Bexley.Many services in the Home and Community Care (HACC) Program, which is 60% funded by the Commonwealth Government, can provide services for people with dementia. Examples in the Barton electorate include:· Greenwood Cottage Day Centre for Older People; · the St George Live At Home Service (a community options project); and· the St George Multicultural Day Care and Centre Based Meals Program.29211(Question No. 2303)230329211Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:Did he say that Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport would not be sold until the noise problems at the airport had been solved.29211Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The Government has addressed the aircraft noise issue by providing for a substantially more equitable sharing of noise compared with the arrangements in place prior to March 1996. 29211(Question No. 2323)232329211Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 February 2001:(1) Since the election of the Howard government in 1996, (a) what sum has been spent each year on the National Highway and (b) for what projects.(2) For those projects, what are the (a) anticipated completion dates, (b) State contributions, (c) Federal contributions and (d) total project cost.(3) (a) What are the Federal electorates which have all, or part of, the projects in them and (b) what is the party affiliation of the member representing that electorate.(4) Which projects have attracted a toll.29211Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) The amount spent each year on the National Highway from 1996-97 to 1999-2000 is as follows: 1996-97 ($m)1997-98 ($m)1998-99 ($m)1999-00 ($m)2000-01 (est) ($m)710.48702.54745.48631.62690.75 (2) (b) States do not contribute to the cost of projects on the National Highway which have been approved for Federal funding. (3) (b) The Department does not keep records on the party affiliation of the Member representing the electorate in which National Highway projects are funded.(4) There are currently no tolls on the National Highway. However, the Government has announced that the Western Sydney Orbital will be partly funded by a toll.(1) (b), (2) (a) (c) and (d) and (3) (a) The following table sets out for each of the years 1996-97 to 2000-01 each project funded, the estimated cost, the amount spent, the anticipated completion date and the electorate in which the project is located. Cost1996-971997-981998-991999-002000-01 (to 30 May)Anticipated Completion DateElectorate$m$m$m$m$m$mNEW SOUTH WALESSydney UrbanCumberland Hwy-Widen to 6 lanes30.101.210.453.407.55.732002ProspectSydney Orbital Route, preconstruction works300.002.005.627.3212.149.752007Macarthur, Mitchell, GreenwayElizabeth Drive east of Mamre Rd to Badgerys Creek Rd7.700.650.10CompletedMacarthur, Mitchell, GreenwayF3 FreewayDriver Aid Scheme22.601.101.640.81Not knownRobertsonF3 to Branxton link332.000.080.091.100.35Not knownHunterWidening to 6 lanes between Wahroonga & Kariong - study0.500.50CompletedRobertson, BerowraOurimbah-Kangy Angy54.9512.7819.512.34CompletedDobellHume HighwayCampbelltown Access ramps7.000.050.05Not knownWerriwaMittagong bypass rectification30.000.361.042002MacarthurCullarin Deviation21.570.050.010.03CompletedHumeGoulburn Byp-Ph 627.120.08CompletedHumeTarcutta Range Duplication62.600.60-0.010.04CompletedHumeYass Bypass40.440.330.17CompletedHumeConcrete pavements (Sth of Yass)15.040.13CompletedHumeSheahans Bridge EIS8.650.532.743.91CompletedHumeKyeamba Hill to Kyeamba Gap16.080.01CompletedHumeBookham Bypass80.151.0012.239.6927.8023.742001HumeCoolac Bypass EIS100.000.500.28-0.110.930.44Post 2004-05HumeCoppabella-Reedy Creek15.580.01CompletedHumeJugiong Bypass83.551.0100.190.050.050.09CompletedHumeAlbury upgrade187.01.003.837.185.153.63Post 2004-05FarrerNew England HighwayWilburtree St to Scott Road, Tamworth; reconstruction & widening3.451.601.68-0.02CompletedNew EnglandArmidale Bypass8.650.09CompletedNew EnglandBeresfield West - signalisation of intersection between Weakleys Drive and Thorton Road0.700.41CompletedNew EnglandDevils Pinch North of Armidale18.800.220.380.582004New EnglandRose Valley Deviation12.060.201.287.792002New EnglandLiverpool Range27.443.38-0.010.52.04CompletedHunterBelford Forrest Deviation30.704.0010.849.140.14-0.07CompletedHunterMuswellbrook Bypass0.500.040.140.09Post 2004-05HunterJohn Renshaw Drive Interchange10.683.031.87-0.03CompletedHunterLeneghans Drive - Weakleys Drive61.976.2117.159.530.02CompletedHunterMcDougalls Hill - Rixs Creek Bridge0.230.09-0.05CompletedPatersonUpgrade Intersection Anderson Drive1.500.09-0.12CompletedPatersonDuval Creek realignment7.700.09Post 2004-05Newell HighwayMoree Bypass30.000.030.110.300.320.73GwydirCoonabarabran Bypass - Planning34.00.080.060.070.120.07GwydirCoonabarabran Bridge2.241.000.03CompletedGwydirSturt HighwayYanga Crk bridge, east of Balranald3.010.06CompletedFarrerFederal HighwayLake George118.3840.0027.0024.312.590.27CompletedHumeACT Border-Sutton42.580.530.5311.3322.017.24CompletedHumeBarton HighwayMurrumbateman Bypass - Planning40.000.110.030.170.150.25CompleteHumeAsset Preservation147.54140.79152.38124.76109.53OngoingVariousTOTAL NEW SOUTH WALES229.08243.84245.40210.51172.19VICTORIAWestern Ring RoadAirport Section145.0035.230.780.67-1.20-0.06CompletedMaribyrnongBroadmeadows Section1.500.01CompletedCalwellMaribyrnong Section104.100.400.911.110.180.12CompletedMaribyrnongExtension to Edgars Road80.0019.3818.6216.600.91-1.11CompletedScullin, Wills, CalwellNew alignment from Robinsons Rd to Western Ring Road0.280.15CompletedBurke, GellibrandSafety improvement works on the Western/Metropolitan Ring Road12.001.00Jun 2003Calwell, Gellibrand, Wills, Lalor, Maribyrnong, 0.00Hume HighwayAlbury/Wodonga Bypass - Preconstruction Works6.004.000.720.08Not knownIndiDonnybrook Road grade separation - planning0.200.110.040.02July 2001McEwenCraigieburn link to the WRR - Planning1.300.200.750.220.03CompletedMcEwen, ScullinCraigieburn & Beveridge - access control - planning0.110.100.01July 2001McEwenWestern HighwayShoulder Sealing10.200.070.07CompletedBurke, Ballarat, WannonWidening1.191.000.19CompletedBurke, Ballarat, WannonWidening west of Kaniva2.701.261.42-0.01CompletedMalleeOvertaking lanes between Stawell & Horsham 1.050.69-0.06CompletedBallarat, MalleeMelton to Bacchus Marsh - Planning4.30CompletedBurkeBallarat Bypass49.413.161.540.020.410.21CompletedBallaratBridge Widening at Fiery Creek0.400.40CompletedBallarat, WannonLeigh Creek to Woodmans Hill Planning1.610.89-0.060.25-0.811.33CompletedBallaratRe-alignment of Western Highway to WRR - Planning0.950.220.140.01-0.01CompletedLalor, BurkeOvertaking lanes from Stawell to SA Border3.000.781.051.20-0.03CompletedBallarat, MalleeLeakes Rd Interchange - planning study0.13.080.04July 2001BurkeWidening Lillimur to SA Border3.902.500.22.580.53CompletedMalleeArmstrong rail underpass12.900.152004BallaratDeer Park to Hopkins Rd - grade separation13.103.606.632002BurkeWidening and rehab west of Dimboola22.005.336.62Jan 2002MalleeWidening and rehab Kiata to Nhill19.207.10May 2002MalleeGoulburn Valley HighwayStrathmerton Deviation - Planning0.500.290.211.32CompletedMurrayBroken River Bridge 8.052.065.99-0.18CompletedMurrayOvertaking lanes North of Shepparton3.531.591.48-0.11CompletedMurrayShepparton Bypass - Planning4.960.011.050.91late 2001MurrayMoorilim to Kialla West - Planning0.520.16-0.03CompletedIndi, MurrayHume to Nagambie & Murchison East - Planning4.481.501.68-0.681.17-0.01CompletedMcEwenOvertaking lanes near Strathmerton 1.281.28-0.080.18CompletedMurrayHume to Nagambie duplication52.807.5312.8619.317.91CompletedMcEwenMurchison East deviation94.305.06.322003McEwenBridge strengthening works.2.112.11CompletedVariousSturt HighwayWidening & Shoulder Sealing2.861.231.300.280.05CompletedMalleeWidening Mildura to SA Border1.500.021.2CompletedMalleeMildura development planning study0.100.102002MalleeAsset Preservation37.7034.5340.7318.6922.25OngoingVariousTOTAL VICTORIA104.3879.5782.8257.6560.18QUEENSLANDBruce HighwayPound Creek Bridge0.390.060.04.010.02CompletedKennedyWoolcock Street Duplication16.482.8610.212.49.04-0.09CompletedHerbertTownsville to Cairns - Widen/Rehab25.304.412.080.225.091.03CompletedHerbert, Kennedy, LeichhardtEdmonton duplication22.606.069.096.30-0.990.52CompletedLeichhardtRockhampton to Townsville - Overtaking lanes3.250.33-0.01CompletedDawson, Herbert, CapricorniaRockhampton to Townsville - Widen/Rehab46.904.687.20-0.842.923.02CompletedDawson, Herbert, CapricorniaCollinsons Lagoon - Didgeridoo9.580.140.150.040.495.85Sep 2001Dawson, HerbertWidening & rehab, minor realignment, o/t lanes & flood immunity70.300.818.5824.11Jun 2004VariousYandina Bypass62.0220.246.730.49CompletedFairfaxJackass Ck-Matilda4.433.080.05CompletedWide BayDavid Drive0.150.12-0.14CompletedWide BayGunalda Range Realignment17.000.200.230.5310.365.66CompletedWide BayCooloola-Curra Widening4.680.961.332.27-0.04CompletedFairfax, Wide BayConstruction of Wallaville Bridge28.500.706.4820.340.50-0.09CompletedWide BayGympie to Rockhampton - Widen/Rehab17.592.026.17-0.23CompletedFairfax, Wide Bay, Hinkler, CapricorniaCooroy Bypass8.560.08CompletedFairfaxBruce Hwy - Bororen to Daisy Dell3.301.730.07CompletedHinklerMarlborough to Princhester Deviation5.382.243.140.01CompletedCapricorniaDuckworth Street Duplication6.312.332.121.62-0.03CompletedHerbertDuplication of Ron Camm Bridge25.001.706.0213.77-0.36CompletedDawsonReplacement of Elliott River Bridge4.470.240.213.950.04-0.05CompletedDawsonDalbeg Turnoff-McDesme Duplication1.521.190.110.03-0.02CompletedDawsonCaboolture Motorway 6 laning 220.000.66-0.530.655.0511.36Jun 2004Lilley, Petrie,DicksonUni. Rd/Charles Barton Bridge Townsville4.020.17CompletedHerbertUniversity Road-Melton Black Drive Townsville0.51-0.010.44-0.14CompletedHerbertUni Rd Mark Reid Drive to Flinders H'way9.445.07-0.040.280.980.06CompletedHerbertBuchanans Road interchange8.924.96-0.06CompletedLongmanMaitland Rd-Mackey Ck2.00-0.01CompletedLeichhardtSkyring Creek bridge and Widening/Rehab Cooray and Skyring Creek.9.003.674.370.20CompletedFairfaxYandina - Cooroy duplication110.000.474.537.862.2219.92Sep 2003FairfaxNambour Bypass8.330.66CompletedFairfaxRockhampton to Townsville - Pavement re-surfacing3.96-0.07CompletedDawson, Herbert, CapricorniaRockhampton to Townsville - Intersection and traffic control measures2.65CompletedDawson, Herbert, CapricorniaRockhampton to Townsville bridgeworks2.300.83CompletedDawson, Herbert, CapricorniaPortsmith Rd duplication10.004.755.25CompletedLeichhardtAyr-Home Hill to Brandon bypass - planning10.002.630.10CompletedDawsonHouse Ck bridge and approaches1.800.21Aug 2001HinklerWarrego HighwayBrisbane to Toowoomba - Widen/Rehab4.541.060.02CompletedGroom, Blair, OxleyMarburg Bypass15.451.002.4311.24CompletedBlairToowoomba Bypass planning10.506.004.240.372.00CompletedGroom Oakey Bypass12.001.024.315.110.680.27CompletedGroomYaralla Road - Planning13.550.14-0.020.024.14Jan 2002MaranoaDalby-McAlister2.061.730.19-0.03CompletedMaranoaToowoomba-Roma - Widen/Rehab16.205.161.691.88CompletedGroom, MaranoaAmby - Marbango2.121.210.52CompletedMaranoaRoma to Morven - Widen & rehab13.402.682.870.54.01CompletedMaranoaLandsborough HighwayDouglas Ponds9.50CompletedCapricorniaLongreach Deviation3.650.75CompletedCapricorniaThompson River bridge24.800.130.685.7517.200.30CompletedKennedyMorven to Barcaldine - Pavement re-surfacing1.94CompletedKennedy, CapricorniaMorven to Cloncurry - Widen & rehab28.741.370.10CompletedCapricornia, Maranoa, KennedyNew England HighwayDalveen project6.51-0.540.54CompletedMaranoaWarwick to NSW border - Pavementre-surfacing0.18CompletedMaranoaIpswich to NSW border - Widen/Rehab3.27-0.050.09CompletedMaranoa, Forde, BlairCottonvale -Thulimba4.75-0.02CompletedMaranoaDalveen - The Summit final sealing1.270.73CompletedMaranoaGore HighwayToowoomba to NSW border - Widen/Rehab13.15-0.020.612.523.92Jun 2003Maranoa, GroomWestbrook Creek6.202.383.440.38-0.01CompletedGroomBarkly HighwayWidening & rehab between Cloncurry & Mt Isa60.844.977.561.246.0512.37Aug 2001KennedyPlanning for Georgina River bridge and approaches14.000.180.282.50Jun 2003KennedyInca Creek Bridge18.000.710.23Jun 2004KennedyCunningham HighwayDinmore2.782.200.58CompletedOxleyFreestone Ck to 8 Mile Intersection3.830.552.970.30-0.07CompletedGroomMt Edwards Passing Lanes5.80CompletedFordeRiver Road interchange11.95-0.51CompletedOxleyRipley Road ramps & duplication2.71-0.07CompletedOxleyLogan Motorway to Goodna Ck0.570.04CompletedOxleyIpswich MotorwayMajor upgrade concept planning2.000.390.59Jun 2002Moreton, Oxley, RyanTraffic safety improvements7.000.266.74Jul 2001OxleyBrisbane UrbanNoise Amelioration1.200.690.130.05CompletedLilley, PetrieWiden & rehab between Newnham Rd and Gateway Motorway0.850.64CompletedLilley, PetrieOtherCunningham & New England Hwys, widening & rehab16.352.000.644.507.04Jan 2002Blair, Forde, Maranoa Warrego, Landsborough & Flinders Hwys, widening, rehab & flood immunity50.794.0911.5019.87Jun 2002Capricornia, Groom, Kennedy, MaranoaNational Highway Bridge upgrading - various bridges12.501.926.75Aug 2002VariousAsset Preservation82.5773.7882.1165.4462.69OngoingTOTAL QUEENSLAND181.06161.54178.60159.93218.12WESTERN AUSTRALIAPerth UrbanSwan Vally Bypass Study1.900.280.61-0.080.06Dec 2001PearceGreat Eastern HighwayMundaring to Sawyers Valley3.691.501.310.28-0.01CompletedPearceSawyers Valley-Lakes duplication35.002.420.200.09Jan 2003PearceRoe Highway to Scott Street14.042.602.230.611.185.67Oct 2001PearceLakes to El Caballo Blanco7.302.741.49CompletedPearceNortham Bypass5.000.540.891.051.1412.22Sep 2002PearceBullabrook O/T lanes1.951.380.44-0.080.08CompletedPearceMeenaar to Walgoolan50.7511.9516.591.30CompletedKalgoorlieBaandee Lakes reconstruction works1.310.07Jun 2002O'ConnorGreat Northern HighwayLittle Panton and Spring Ck Bridges6.500.313.731.450.10Jul 2001KalgoorlieJailhouse Ck9.600.460.20CompletedKalgoorlieCamel Ck Bridge12.5210.131.82-0.02CompletedKalgoorlieRoe Hwy to MRB15.351.00-0.465.217.48-0.07Jul 2001PearceWogarno to Munarra11.600.40-0.12CompletedKalgoorlieRoebuck Plains1.601.350.25CompletedKalgoorlieMoorine Rock Bridge2.970.750.370.06CompletedKalgoorlieLaurel Downs - Plum Plains6.001.702.932.38CompletedKalgoorlieKaralundi11.001.379.64CompletedKalgoorlieCue South0.470.470.47CompletedKalgoorlieMacPhee Creek/Card Creek0.770.770.77CompletedKalgoorlieReplace single lane bridges (Ord/Bow/Fitzroy/Dunham)60.000.460.79Jun 2002KalgoorlieWubin to Paynes Find flood mitigation works2.780.77-0.20Jun 2002KalgoorlieMiling to Wubin widening & rehab1.000.14Dec 2004O'ConnorDalwallinu heavy haulage route2.650.02Dec 2002O'ConnorWonjil Section, widen & rehab.1.601.40Oct 2001KalgoorliePilbara & Kimberly regions - flood repairs7.927.74Aug 2001KalgoorlieEyre HighwayJimberlana14.153.060.43CompletedKalgoorlieNorseman - Cocklebiddy50.003.0411.1619.342.296.58Jun 2002KalgoorlieOtherRehab of NH as a result of cyclones Vance & Elaine1.601.58-0.150.18CompletedPearce, KalgoorlieRehab of Great Eastern Hwy & Coolgardie-Esperance Hwy10.003.394.21Oct 2001Kalgoorlie, O'Connor, PearceNational Highway resealing6.105.00-0.54Jun 2002Kalgoorlie, O'Connor, PearceNational Highway Bridge upgrading 6.701.42-0.84Jun 2003Kalgoorlie, O'Connor, PearceAsset Preservation28.5924.8924.5325.1518.65OngoingVariousTOTAL WESTERN AUSTRALIA74.8467.9470.0949.0956.27SOUTH AUSTRALIAAdelaide UrbanPortrush Rd - Magill to Greenhill Rd36.780.040.040.400.858.482003SturtSouth Road Connector44.111.050.010.04CompletedPort AdelaideNorthern Metropolitan Adelaide NHS Study0.300.27CompletedAdelaide, Bonython, Port Adelaide, MakinMain North RoadWidening Hogarth Rd to Grove Way - planning11.001.720.280.540.170.01CompletedBonython, MakinKings Rd to Montague Rd widening - planning1.500.050.020.030.410.18CompletedBonython, MakinPort Wakefield RoadSalisbury Hwy to Virginia access controls3.900.96-0.010.01CompletedBonython, Port Adelaide Planning for further upgrading0.430.200.01CompletedBonython, Port Adelaide, WakefieldPt Wakefield to Wild Horse Plains - Duplication14.000.090.010.04CompletedWakefieldAccess improvements to Pt Wakefield Rd1.751.570.18CompletedBonython, Port Adelaide Port Wakefield - Port AugustaOvertaking lanes6.000.611.490.201.423.11CompletedGrey, Wakefield Sturt HighwayGreenock turn-off to Truro - overtaking lanes at Moppa Rd & Bastion Hill15.700.546.915.171.000.20CompletedWakefieldGawler to Barmera - Widening4.370.590.680.19CompletedWakefieldDaveyston Bypass6.744.151.05CompletedWakefieldBlanchetown Bridge replacement20.904.699.904.710.03CompletedWakefieldShe-oak Log Bypass4.340.010.020.03CompletedWakefieldWalkerie bypass - traffic management improvements0.080.07CompletedDukes HighwayOvertaking lanes between Tailem Bend & Keith10.522.182.230.660.01-0.06CompletedBarkerOvertaking lanes between Keith and Victoria border5.022.682.20CompletedBarkerMt Barker Rd Realignment138.009.1635.6660.8336.92CompletedMayo, SturtEyre HighwayRehabilitation between Ceduna & Lincoln Gap29.855.313.223.171.663.40Oct 2001GreyOtherNational Highway strategic overview0.280.220.06CompletedGreyAsset Preservation28.3025.5624.3019.5722.60OngoingVariousTOTAL SOUTH AUSTRALIA58.4990.07100.4764.9640.25TASMANIABass HighwayVictoria Bridge duplication14.230.37CompletedLyonsOvertaking lanes3.191.28CompletedLyonsHagley to Deloraine.6.111.380.81CompletedLyonsDeloraine to Westbury.22.402.590.270.030.22CompletedLyonsWestbury-Hagley Bypass.36.002.5619.998.54Oct 2001LyonsHeavy Vehicle Overload Strategy1.830.350.090.480.79Jun 2001BraddonOvertaking lanes & stock underpasses3.300.22CompletedBraddon, LyonsPenguin to Chasm Creek65.8619.8816.9318.802.190.04CompletedBraddonDon interchange3.471.36Oct 2001BraddonPort Sorrel Road to Devonport duplication17.130.12Mar 2003BraddonMidland HighwayHobart Northern Approaches Study1.430.430.160.370.07Oct 2001LyonsBridgewater Industrial Estate - service roads2.760.241.35Jul 2001LyonsOvertaking lanes & stock underpasses.5.13.060.38CompletedLyonsSt Peters Pass - safety review & modifications1.650.54Dec 2001LyonsBridgewater bridge - engineering, environmental & geotechnical investigations0.380.03Jan 2002LyonsPowarnna rail crossing0.460.17Dec 2001LyonsOtherNational Highway Planning Projects1.000.330.100.32Jun 2001Braddon, LyonsBass and Midlands safety improvements1.950.39CompletedBraddon, LyonsBass and Midlands Hwy - Improve night time delineation1.170.520.64CompletedBraddon, LyonsBass/Midlands Hwy junction upgrading2.000.100.760.68Jun 2002LyonsNational Highway bridge upgrading4.302.740.67Jun 2003Braddon, LyonsShoulder sealing2.220.43CompletedVariousAsset Preservation8.077.237.318.395.70OngoingVariousTOTAL TASMANIA33.6027.1830.3836.3220.06NORTHERN TERRITORYStuart HighwayDarwin to Katherine alignment improvements0.620.550.010.06CompletedNorthern TerritoryDuplication between Elizabeth River Bridge and the Intersection of the Cox Peninsula Road1.660.521.14CompletedNorthern TerritoryPalmerston Bypass4.240.314.030.11CompletedNorthern TerritoryElizabeth River Bridge.1.701.600.020.08CompletedNorthern TerritoryArnhem Hwy intersection to Elizabeth River bridge duplication4.151.581.602002Northern TerritoryOvertaking lanes between Darwin and Katherine1.621.240.38CompletedNorthern TerritoryLindsay St to Crawford St, Katherine duplication1.800.031.77CompletedNorthern TerritoryHugh, Finke and Palmer River bridges6.200.21Not knownNorthern TerritoryManton River bridge0.930.65CompletedNorthern TerritoryVictoria HighwayWidening and rehabilitation west of Katherine including drainage structures & upgrading of the Lost Creek Bridge7.651.065.220.040.10CompletedNorthern TerritoryOtherStuart and Victoria Hwys - pavement widening and rehabilitation11.054.811.444.483.551.78OngoingNorthern TerritoryFlood repairs7.860.995.021.86CompletedNorthern TerritoryBridge construction - various3.011.97CompletedNorthern TerritoryAsset Preservation17.4616.6316.0517.9415.70OngoingNorthern TerritoryTOTAL NORTHERN TERRITORY26.8530.2125.1527.6722.10AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORYFederal HighwayDuplication Stirling Ave-NSW border38.6711.0123.96CompletedFraserBarton HighwayBellenden St to Northbourne Ave duplication1.500.322003FraserAsset Preservation2.182.191.561.541.38OngoingFraserTOTAL AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY2.182.19012.5725.501.7029223(Question No. 2505)250529223Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4 April 2001:(1) How many kilometres of the Calder Highway between Melbourne and Bendigo (a) have been duplicated to date and (b) remain to be duplicated.(2) Which new construction project does he plan to have (a) started and (b) completed between now and 2006.(3) What sum of Federal funds will be required for each project and over how many kilometres will each project extend.(4) What proportion of the duplication work remaining to be done does each project represent.(5) What date has the Government set of the completion of the duplication of the Calder Highway between Melbourne and Bendigo.(6) What new construction works does the Government plan to undertake on the Calder Highway between Melbourne and Bendigo after 2006.(7) What is the projected cost of each of these projects and over how many kilometres will each project extend. (8) Is he able to say whether the Victorian Government has a commitment to 2006 as the deadline for the completion of the duplication of the Calder Highway between Bendigo and Melbourne in partnership with the Federal Government; if so, why does the Federal Government plan only for a substantial completion of the duplication by 2006.29223Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) 87 km(b) 64 km(2) to (8) The Calder Highway is a state arterial road and responsibility for its upgrading rests with the Victorian Government.To assist Victoria with its upgrading the Federal Government provides additional funds under its Roads of National Importance Program. As part of the 2001/02 roads Budget, $25m has been allocated to commence the Carlsruhe duplication project. This level of funding, when combined with State funds, will see this project completed and opened to traffic by the end of 2002/03.The deadline to duplicate to Bendigo by 2006 was set by the Victorian Government, without any consultation with the Federal Government. Given the Calder Highway is a State road, the Victorian Government is free to commence all other necessary works to meet its set deadline.29223(Question No. 2520)252029223Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 5 April 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to an article titled “Airport still counts cost of Olympics” by Ms Laura Tingle published in The Sydney Morning Herald on 4 April 2001.(2) What is the impact on the Government's proposed sale plans of the multi-million- dollar claim against Sydney Airport Corporation referred to in Ms Tingle's article.29223Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) Given the relative sums of money involved, the matters raised in the article are unlikely to have any impact on the sale plans for Sydney Airports Corporation Limited.29223(Question No. 2531)253129223Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin8I4CunninghamALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) How many sandbags does the Army currently have in stock.(2) How many of these sandbags are treated with the Class 3 chemical copper napthenate. (3) Has his attention been drawn to the detrimental health effects associated with handling products impregnated with copper napthenate and can he advise of current occupational health and safety procedures in place for the handling of these sandbags.(4) Does the current request for tender for the supply of sandbags to the Army contain a specification for the use of copper napthenate.(5) Will he seek registration for the use of copper napthenate for rot proofing sandbags.(6) On how many occasions has the Army sold or given sandbags for use by domestic relief organisations in the last year.(7) When these sandbags are used for flood relief and other related purposes are they retrieved at the end of their usefulness and disposed of in accordance with regulations for prescribed wastes.29224Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Approximately 260,000.(2) All of them.(3) I have been advised that skin and eye irritation can occur following prolonged contact with copper napthenate in its raw form. For the purpose of impregnating hessian sandbags, the chemical is first dissolved and diluted in white spirit and is therefore unlikely to present a hazard. The Class 3 reference relates specifically to the flammability of the white spirit. As an added precaution, Defence has issued instructions that personal protective equipment be worn when handling sandbags treated with copper napthenate. There is no evidence to suggest that there are any additional health risks associated with the storage and handling of these items.(4) A previous request for tender, now terminated, did propose the use of copper naphthenate or an equivalent. A revised request for tender now being developed specifies untreated hessian bags. Defence has decided to discontinue specifying copper napthenate as a rot proofing agent for environmental reasons. Defence is actively investigating alternate rot proofing treatments and materials.(5) No, registration is only necessary for organisations intending to treat materiel with copper napthenate in Australia. Defence has no such intention.(6) The exact number of occasions is unknown, however it is not a common occurrence.(7) Defence has no visibility of how domestic relief organisations have managed the collection and disposal of used sandbags in the past. The change to untreated hessian sandbags will obviate this requirement.29224(Question No. 2532)253229224McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) Is Airservices Australia planning to move its function of air traffic control for Sydney Airport to the air traffic control facility in Melbourne.(2) Have he, his Department or Airservices Australia received representations expressing safety and professional concerns about the proposal: if so, (a) what are the concerns which have been expressed and (b) which professional organisation or organisation have expressed those concerns.(3) What is the operational justification for the Airservices Australia consolidation plan.(4) Does Airservices Australia believe there will be an increase in safety or service levels to the aviation industry by such a consolidation, if so, how.(5) Does Airservices Australia anticipate achieving cost savings by such a consolidation; if so, (a) what are those anticipated cost savings and (b) how have those savings been calculated.(6) Has Airservices Australia considered whether separating the terminal control unit from the associated control tower at Sydney Airport will adversely affect the airport ability to meet the demands of both the aviation industry and the community; if so, how have those considerations been reflected in the decision which has been made.(7) Has Airservices Australia considered whether controlling the busiest airspace in Australia from Melbourne introduces greater potential for a technical failure to jeopardise separation between aircraft over Sydney; if so, how have those considerations been reflected in the decision which has been made. (8) Has Airservices Australia considered the potential for data link and communications failures between the various facilities which will be relocated to Melbourne and those which will remain at Sydney Airport; if so, what would be the safety consequences of such a data link or communication failure.(9) Is it the case that disaster recovery capability will be severely reduced if the terminal control unit is moved from Sydney to Melbourne and in particular have there been instances where it has been necessary for the Sydney Tower to be evacuated to the TCU has been crucial in the establishment of a temporary tower, if so would that ability to establish such a temporary facility be impeded if the TCU is moved to Melbourne.(10) Is it the case that presently the control centres at Cairns, Brisbane, Sydney Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth can operate independently of each other but that they are also able to take over airspace being controlled by adjacent centres if required; if so, if Airservices Australias consolidation plans go ahead will these disaster recovery features be lost or significantly reduced and, in particular, should the Melbourne Centre need to be evacuated will it result in airspace, including that over Sydney, Canberra, Melbourne, Adelaide and Perth being uncontrolled or under controlled.(11) Is it the case that air traffic controllers develop local knowledge during the course of their duties such as local geography, weather patters and terrain; if so, (a) how will that local knowledge possessed by controllers at Sydney airport be replicated if those controllers are moved to Melbourne and (b) is local knowledge of tremendous importance during emergency situations when every piece of available information is needed to resolve the situation.(12) Has Airservices Australia considered additional complications confronting controllers as a result of the planned upgrade of Sydney airport and Bankstown airport.(13) What will be the cost of transferring the control unit including transfer expenses, redundancy payments and retraining costs and how does Airservices Australia anticipate that it will recover these costs.29225Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised by Airservices Australia that:(1) Airservices has only undertaken an initial feasibility study into the consolidation of its TCU facilities at Cairns, Perth, Adelaide and Sydney at this time. No decision has been made on the relocation of the Sydney Terminal Control Unit. Airservices will not be consolidating Cairns facilities.(2) Yes. Concerns were expressed over future employment and to ensure that safety is not compromised in the relocation of the TCU. Representations have been received from unions, individual controllers and state governments. Professional organisations that have made representation have been Civil Air Operations Officers' Association of Australia which is the union that represents air traffic controllers and the Community and Public Sector Union representing technical and clerical staff.(3) The basis upon which the feasibility study has been undertaken is to determine whether Airservices' nationally integrated TAAATS system has the ability to yield further benefits to the Australian aviation industry through consolidating Airservices' TCU facilities to allow improved service delivery and greater integration and standardisation of air navigation services.(4) Airservices advises they expect no adverse impact on safety as a result of its proposed TCU consolidation program. It is expected there will be an increase in service levels to the aviation industry through improved operations because of less fragmentation, increased standardisation and optimisation of operating procedures, more efficient transition between Enroute and TCU and the potential for reductions in air navigation costs.(5) Airservices anticipates there will be cost savings as a result of its proposed TCU consolidation program. Airservices has advised that analysis of the total expected cost savings has not yet been determined but would be achieved through reduced management overheads and infrastructure, reduced maintenance and technical support and spares holding, improved equipment utilisation, optimisation of operational procedures and consistency of service. (6) The Sydney TCU and Tower are currently operated from totally separate (although nearby) locations. Dynamic traffic management and communication between the Tower and TCU is via communication systems provided by the TAAATS environment. The distance between the Tower and TCU controllers is not a factor in meeting the demands of the aviation industry or community or in coordinating traffic management at Sydney Airport. The same level of communications and coordination will exist between the TCU and the Sydney Tower, irrespective of the location of the TCU. Only the Tower controllers need to be physically located at the Airport. (7) The physical location of the Sydney TCU has no bearing on the technical operation or capabilities of the TAAATS air navigation system, the operation of air navigation aids at Sydney Airport, nor the aircraft separation standards and other regulations that apply to aircraft operating into and out of Sydney Airport. Operating the Sydney TCU from Melbourne will not introduce greater potential for technical failure. No decision has been made on the consolidation proposal. Any decision will be subject to the approval by CASA of a safety case, which would examine the matters raised in questions (6), (7) & (8).(8) See answer to questions (6) & (7).(9) Relocation of the TCU will not impact on disaster recovery capabilities. The coordination and communication links between the Tower and TCU necessary for an evacuation of the Tower and establishment of a temporary Tower would remain the same regardless of the location of the TCU facility. Relocation of the Sydney TCU to Melbourne would not impede the establishment of a temporary Tower facility at Sydney Airport should it be necessary.(10) The TAAATS system is such that the radar signal from one centre can be accessed and viewed from a remote location. This is the basis upon which the TCU consolidation study is contemplated. However the crucial element in managing aircraft from a remote location is the availability of appropriately trained staff. Airservices disaster recovery ability will not be compromised under the TCU consolidation proposal because appropriate measures will be put into place, as part of the consolidation plan, to ensure that this is the case.(11) Local knowledge can assist but is not essential to air traffic management within the TCU environment. Local knowledge is of much greater importance to Tower controllers. The current proposal to relocate the Sydney TCU in no way impacts on the Sydney Tower.(a) Should a decision be made to relocate the Sydney TCU, Airservices will encourage as many Sydney controllers as possible to move so that local knowledge is maintained. Local knowledge will still be available to TCU controllers through the Sydney Tower controllers. (b) Local knowledge can be important in an emergency, depending on the actual situation. This local knowledge will be available from the Tower.(12) Yes.(13) Total relocation costs or expected cost savings have not yet been defined apart from indicative costs and savings outlined in the Feasibility Study.29226(Question No. 2533)253329226McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:Is his Department or Airservices Australia currently reviewing the present noise insulation boundary for homes in the vicinity of Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport; if so, what parameters have been set for the review and, in particular, to what extent does the review factor in the inconvenience of the time that over flights occur.29226Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Yes, the noise insulation boundaries are regularly reviewed by my Department based on the Australian Noise Exposure Index (ANEI) prepared by Airservices Australia for the previously completed calendar year.The ANEI includes a weighting for aircraft movements between 7pm and 7am.29226(Question No. 2544)254429226Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Prime Minister, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to page 6 of the 13 to 15 April 2001 edition of The Sydney Morning Herald which reports him as saying that he has signalled the Government is looking at the plight of self-funded retirees on low incomes hit by falling interest rates and that it is a group of people for which the Government would like to provide some help. (2) What help does Government propose to assist self-funded retirees who are hurting because of the Goods and Services Tax and low interest rates.(3) When will the Government announce its policy to assist this group of Australians.29227Howard, John, MPMr HowardZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) to (3) The government announced a range of measures to assist self-funded retirees in the 2001-02 Budget. It increased the low income aged persons rebate to provide an effective tax free threshold of $20,000 for individuals and up to $32,612 for couples. It increased the Medicare levy threshold correspondingly so that older Australians do not incur a Medicare levy until they incur a tax liability. The government extended income limits for the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card (CSHC) to $50,000 for single self-funded retirees and $80,000 for couples. At the same time, it introduced a Telephone Allowance as an additional concession to CSHC holders and has committed to negotiating with State and Territory governments on extending the range of concessions available under the CSHC.29227(Question No. 2548)254829227Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) Is he aware of the plight of veterans who were exposed to British nuclear tests. (2) Is he able to say whether the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency has obtained international research regarding the possible health effects of exposure to ionising radiation and made this information available to those affected by the British nuclear tests; if not, why not.(3) Has the Government compiled a nominal roll of all Australians affected by British nuclear tests; if not, why not.(4) Has the Government appointed a scientific advisory committee to oversee any studies of the effects of nuclear tests on humans; if not, why not.(5) Has this scientific advisory committee reported back to him or the Government; if not, why not.(6) What priority has he and the Government placed on awarding proper compensation to Australians and their descendants whose health has suffered from the effects of radiation as a result of British nuclear tests.29227Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am aware of the claims and concerns of those veterans who were exposed to British Nuclear tests. Compensation, including medical treatment, is available through the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service to veterans for any illness or injury which has resulted from their service. As I have recently announced, the Department of Veterans' Affairs will be conducting a Mortality and Cancer Study of Australian participants of the British Nuclear Tests.(2) The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA) is not within the Veterans' Affairs portfolio and therefore this question should be referred to the Minister for Health and Aged Care, the Hon Dr Michael Wooldridge MP, who has responsibility for ARPANSA.However, the Repatriation Medical Authority (RMA) which is in my Portfolio, has reviewed research into the affects of ionising radiation exposure. I have also had the University of Dundee research reviewed by an independent Australian epidemiologist. This report has been made available to organisations representing the interests of Australian participants in the British Nuclear Tests.(3) The Department of Veterans' Affairs has completed a draft nominal roll of all participants in the British Nuclear tests and this is now available for public comment. The delay in completing the nominal roll was due to the need for a regulation to be made, for the Department to gain access to the lists of participants used in an earlier study, the “Donovan Study” of the early 1980s. The lists subsequently obtained from that study had many gaps and it has been a detailed, exacting task by the Department to check primary records to fill as many of the gaps as possible. The nominal roll has to contain sufficient personal information to enable adequate data matching against the National Death Index and the Cancer Registry. The draft nominal roll includes civilian workers employed in the construction industry, public service and other supporting industries. For some of the civilian participants, basic demographic details such as date of birth and full first names are missing. Now that the draft nominal roll has been released for public comment, it is hoped that civilians with data missing will contact the Department of Veterans' Affairs. It should be possible to include the civilians for whom full details are available, in the data matching for the study. (4) and (5) After release of the draft Nominal Roll the Government's next priority is to establish a Consultative Forum of representatives of the participants in the Atomic Tests. Once this has been established, a Scientific Advisory Committee will be appointed, with the Consultative Forum helping to establish the membership of the Scientific Advisory Committee. I expect to finalise the Scientific Advisory Committee in the next few months.(6) Where any Australian has suffered from an illness or injury related to service during the nuclear testing program, there are a number of avenues available for compensation. These are: (i) under the Safety Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1988. Civilians who are suffering from an illness or injury related to their participation in the nuclear testing program should lodge a claim with COMCARE. Claims from service personnel are now administered by the Department of Veterans' Affairs under the Military Compensation and Rehabilitation Service on behalf of the Department of Defence; or (ii) the Special Administrative Scheme, which is administered by the Department of Industry, Science and Resources. This scheme provides compensation to test participants who have developed multiple myeloma or leukemia, other than chronic lymphatic leukemia. Since 1995 compensation is only provided for leukemia where it had developed within the first 25 years since participation - this follows a similar United Kingdom Scheme; or (iii) common law claims through the courts.29228(Question No. 2551)255129228Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) What sums are available through his Department to organisations who want assistance with establishing Port Welfare Committees in each State and the Northern Territory following the Government's 7 March 2001 announcement to establish such committees.(2) What criteria will apply for approving funding to organisations seeking to establish the committees.(3) For how long will funding be available to establish the committees and can it be extended beyond that period.(4) Will successful applicants be requested to meet performance standards established by his Department; if so, what is the nature of the performance standards.29228Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I announced on 7 March 2001 that the Federal Government would provide funding to assist with the establishment of Port Welfare Committees (PWCs) in each State and the Northern Territory. Following my announcement, funds totalling $100,000 have been made available through the Department to assist with establishing the PWCs. (2) The base criterion that will apply for approving funding to organisations seeking to establish PWCs is that those organisations demonstrate that funds provided will be used by them to employ a person to assist in establishing PWCs. It is envisaged that the person employed would undertake a range of tasks in this role, including research, consultation and administrative tasks.(3) Federal funding assistance towards the establishment of PWCs will be available for two years. Total funds available are $100,000 which will be provided at the maximum rate of $50,000 per year, for two years. It is envisaged that the establishment of PWCs will be a task requiring a maximum period of two years to fully implement. Accordingly, the issue of extended funding beyond this two-year period has not been considered by the Government.(4) Organisations that are successful in obtaining Federal funding assistance towards establishing PWCs will be requested to meet performance standards in relation to the intended use of Federal funds. Since it is envisaged that Federal funds will be used to employ a person to assist in establishing PWCs, these performance standards will relate to demonstrable outcomes and deliverables, measured against reasonable timeframes. 29229(Question No. 2553)255329229Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) Since the introduction of The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS) how many air traffic control incidents have been found to have TAAATS human factors as causal factors in those incidents.(2) Has Airservices Australia conducted, arranged to be conducted or commissioned any studies or research into TAAATS human factors; if so, what were the findings or recommendations and when will each be implemented; if not why not.(3) Will Airservices publish or make available any studies that have been conducted into TAAATS human factors; if so, when and where; if not, why not.29229Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:I am advised by Airservices that:(1) The term `human factors' encompasses all considerations that affect a person at work. Any incident that by definition is a breakdown in procedure, process, and item of equipment or performance necessarily has an element of human factors as a causal factor. This factor could be a result of design, implementation, maintenance or service delivery. With that in mind, Airservices sees little value in identifying the number of incidents that are attributable to the broad term human factors. Instead, Airservices considers its involvement in the incident and the factors relating to that incident. As can be seen by the information below, the Air Traffic Services (ATS) attributed incident rate has reduced since the transition to TAAATS. Airservices has concluded that the TAAATS environment has improved the safety of the system in which Airservices operates. For example, the following graph represents ATS incidents for Terminal Control Area (TMA)/Tower (TWR) services at Sydney Airport (Kingsford-Smith Airport). (2) Extensive research and evaluation of human factors issues were conducted during the design, implementation and operation of TAAATS. These include: Console ergonomicsDisplay colour paletteLightingProceduresHuman Machine Interface Post implementation reviews were undertaken to ensure any deficiencies that had not been identified or issues that had not been completely rectified, were identified and actions taken to address them.Commissioned research in relation to TAAATS human factors include:· A Human factors Evaluation of TAAATS Non radar Air Traffic Control, Unitas Consulting· Human factors review of The Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS), Directorate of Safety and Environment Assurance· The Performance Assessment Model, University of Queensland.The findings and recommendations of these studies have and continue to be evaluated by Airservices with respect to our increasing experience with TAAATS. Many of these recommendations have been implemented becoming an integral part of the system.(3) The research commissioned by Airservices in relation to TAAATS human factors could be made available on request.29230(Question No. 2556)255629230Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:For each of the last ten financial years,(a) how many single and continuous voyage permits have been issued with respect to foreign vessels operating in Australian waters,(b) what has been the gross tonnage carried for each category of continuous and single voyage permit, (c) how much of that cargo has been (i) in containers and (ii) bulk carriage for each category of single and continuous voyage permit and(d) from which ports was the cargo taken and to where was it taken.29230Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) Details are contained in attachment A, that has been provided to the Tabling Officer.(b) Details are contained in attachment A, that has been provided to the Table Office.(c) (i) Containerised cargo details are contained in attachment A, that has been provided to the Table Office.(ii) Bulk Cargo Carried under Permits (in Tonnes) YEAR1991-921992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-20002000-2001SVPs126148381051012522123239488299542035702894351092617475467037406936121CVPs0000000504000 12000 (d) The number of combinations of ports of loading and ports of discharge is considerably large as it involves most of Australia's trading ports. In addition, many permits are issued for multiple ports of loading or discharge making the requested tabulations difficult to interpret. Accordingly, Attachment B is a summary of each permit issued from January 1991 that contains the relevant information and this may be of greater use than the tabulations requested. Attachment B has been provided to the House of Representatives Table Office.29231(Question No. 2557)255729231Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) Did he meet members of the Cunningham Rail Link Committee on the Gold Coast; if so, when did the meeting occur.(2) At the meeting did he give a commitment that the Cunningham Rail Link would be fully investigated as an option linking the Inland Rail line with the Port of Brisbane; if so, what action has he taken to ensure that the Cunningham Rail Link is fully investigated as an option for the Inland Railway from Brisbane to Melbourne.29231Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The meeting was on 14 July 2000.(2) During the meeting I undertook to have the concerns of the Cunningham Rail Link Committee brought to the attention of Australian Transport and Energy Corridor Limited. Subsequently this matter was raised with Australian Transport and Energy Corridor Limited. 29231(Question No. 2563)256329231Hoare, Kelly, MPMs Hoare83YCharltonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) Did the Government publish an advertisement in the March/April 2001 edition of the Age Pension News, encouraging pensioners to insure with the Over 50s Insurance Agency.(2) Is the Minister able to say whether the Over 50s Insurance Agency policies are underwritten by World Marine General Insurance, which is a member of the HIH Insurance Group.(3) Why is the Government advertising HIH insurance six months after the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority (APRA) knew that HIH was in financial trouble, and in the same month that APRA appointed an inspector to HIH.(4) Did the Government receive payment for the advertisement; if so, what sum.29231Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Age Pension News (APN) carries advertising that is seen as relevant to older Australians. The March/April edition APN included advertising for the Over 50s Insurance Agency.(2) The Over 50s Insurance Agency was previously underwritten by HIH and subsequently has been underwritten by Allianz.(3) When the HIH situation became known, immediate action was taken by Centrelink. The March/April APN had already been printed and it was impossible to include an update. When the Over 50s Insurance Agency confirmed that business was now being underwritten by Allianz, Centrelink Customer Service Centres and Call Centres were notified immediately to ensure correct and up to date information was given to customer enquiries.(4) The Over 50s Insurance Agency paid $36,500 for advertising in the March/April edition of APN. These funds were used to offset Centrelink production costs for the publication.29231(Question No. 2566)256629231Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:What sum was approved for each federal electoral division in NSW under the Black Spot Program in 1999-2000 and 2000-2001.29231Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:Federal ElectorateTotal 1999-2000Total 2000-2001Banks$120,000$320,000Barton$180,000$115,000Bennelong$412,000$150,000Berowranil$95,000Blaxlandnil$190,000Bradfield$280,000$100,000Calare$500,000$510,000Charlton$325,000$220,000Chifley$130,000$30,000Cook$220,000$70,000Cowper$610,000$1,383,000Cunningham$350,000$440,000Dobell$660,000$85,000 Eden-Monaro$350,000nilFarrer$250,000$78,000Fowler$12,500$275,000Gilmorenil$610,000Grayndler$40,000$200,000Greenway$60,000$35,000Gwydir$100,000$99,800Hume$475,000$1,201,000Hunternil$830,000Kingsford-Smith$190,000nilLindsay$398,000$135,000Lyne$960,000$967,000Macarthur$12,500$448,000Mackellarnil$95,000Mitchell$550,000nilNew England$85,000$418,000Newcastle$270,000$100,000Pagenil$250,000Parkes$400,000$37,000Parramattanil$570,000Paterson$535,000$1,580,000Prospect$312,000$158,000Reid$80,000$845,000Richmond$220,000$230,000Riverinanil$200,000Robertson$550,000$300,000Shortland$130,000$320,000Sydney$50,000$110,000Throsby$220,000$40,000Watsonnil$195,000Wentworth$20,000$55,000Werriwanil$195,00029232(Question No. 2572)257229232Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) Following the announcement on 26 April 2001 by the Prime Minister that a new medal will be created to mark the 50th anniversary of the introduction of National Service in 1951, on what date will the medals be (a) created and (b) awarded.(2) From what date can servicemen apply for the medal and what is the process through which applications can be obtained.(3) Who will be eligible to receive the medal.(4) Is there an appeals mechanism if an application for the medal is rejected.(5) Where will the medal be struck.29233Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) The medal and ribbon design will be completed by July 2001. The medal Regulations should be completed in September 2001 at which point applications will be accepted for its award. (b) Award of the medal will commence once the Regulations have been approved and applications called for, taking into account existing applications for other medals, and Defence's policy of processing medal applications in order of receipt.(2) Applications will not be accepted until the medal has been formally created. Once the Regulations have been approved, ex-national servicemen may make application on special application forms which will be designed for this purpose. The forms will be available over the internet and copies will be sent to major ex-service groups for distribution. (3) Eligibility for the medal will be dependent on the confirmation of an individual's obligation to serve and that this obligation was fulfilled under the National Service Act, as it applied to the individual at the time of his service. The details of this are being determined with the establishment of the medal Regulations.(4) Yes, to the Interdepartmental Committee on Defence Honours and Awards. However, awards can only be made within the prescribed Regulations.(5) Australia.29233(Question No. 2580)258029233McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 23 May 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the findings of the High Court of Australia in John Pfeiffer v Rogerson (21 June 2000).(2) Does the decision have any ramifications for defamation proceedings concerning a publication throughout Australia, in particular, a necessity for parties in defamation proceedings to address the matters raised by separate State and Territory laws.(3) Has the Government taken any further steps to progress the concept of unified defamation legislation in light of that decision.29233Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The decision in John Pfeiffer v Rogerson [2000] HCA 36 has implications for defamation proceedings as much as it has for any other proceedings. The Court held that—· the development of the common law to reflect the fact of federal jurisdiction and also, the nature of the Australian federation requires that the double actionability rule now be discarded; · the law of the place of the wrong should be applied by courts in Australia as the law governing all questions of substance to be determined in a proceeding arising from an intranational tort; and · laws that bear upon the existence, extent or enforceability of remedies, rights and obligations should be characterised as substantive and not as procedural laws. As was the position before the decision, in so far as publication throughout Australia is concerned, if a party wishes to bring a defamation action in respect of each jurisdiction in which the publication occurred, that party will still need to address the matters raised by the law in each jurisdiction in which the publication took place.(3) The issue of uniform defamation laws was considered for many years by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. Unfortunately the States and Territories were unable to agree on substantive reforms and the issue was taken off the SCAG agenda. I expressed my disappointment with the lack of willingness to reach agreement on the part of States and Territories at that time. Given the continued inability of the States and Territories to reach agreement, the Government is not pursuing the issue at this time. 29234(Question No. 2584)258429234Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 24 May 2001:(1) How many breaches of the cap on aircraft movements at Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport have occurred since the legislation introducing the cap was passed.(2) What were the details of these breaches.(3) What penalties have been imposed for these breaches. 29234Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) and (2) Under the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997, Airservices Australia is required to report to me on the extent of infringements (if any) of the maximum movement scheduling limit in each quarter. I have tabled reports of the hours in which the maximum movement limit was exceeded, including explanations for the events, for the quarters ending 30 June 2000 (4 hours), 30 September 2000 (17), 31 December 2000 (7) and 31 March 2001 (13).Operational factors such as unforeseen delays can cause aircraft movements to `bunch up' and the aircraft movement may not occur in the hour for which it has a slot but move into the next recording hour. This could mean that the actual number of movements in the next hour may exceed 80, even though the number of allocated slots is still 80 or less. The overall number of movements at the airport will not be affected.(3) No fines have been issued under the Act to date. The Sydney Airport Demand Management Act provides that the 80 movement per hour cap is to be the planning basis for the Slot Management Scheme established pursuant to the Act. The Sydney Airport Demand Management Act does not provide for penalties for breaches of the cap as such. Instead, the penalties for which the Act provides relate to breaches of the Slot Management Scheme (ie, aircraft which operate without a slot, or aircraft which operate outside allowed time limits which apply to an allocated slot).29234(Question No. 2586)258629234Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Justice and Customs, upon notice, on 24 May 2001: (1) Did the Australian Customs Service (ACS) conduct an unsuccessful court case against Peter Tomson, an apparel and footwear importer, in the 1990s; if so, what are the details.(2) Was the Tomson case similar to the Midford Paramount affair which occurred during the same period.(3) Were the ACS officers in the Tomson matter the same officers criticised by the Parliamentary Joint Committee of Public Accounts in its report No. 325, “The Midford Paramount Case and Related Matters”.(4) Is the Minister satisfied with the way in which the ACS handled the Tomson case; if not, what action will the Minister take to review the case and reform the ACS.(5) When does the ACS expect to complete its examination of the matters raised in the Tomson case and respond to Mr Tomson's legal representatives.29234Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The Minister for Justice and Customs has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes. In July 1993 a defended Australian Customs Service (Customs) prosecution was commenced against Mr Tomson with respect to the alleged undervaluation of five shipments of imported clothing. During the course of the hearing the Magistrate ruled the prosecution had established a prima facie case for all of the informations laid. In June 1995, following evidence from several defence witnesses, the Magistrate dismissed the case against Mr Tomson.(2) No. This case involved charges under the Customs Act 1901 for under valuation, while Midford Paramount involved charges under the Crimes Act 1914 for fraud. A prima facie case was established as noted above. Any similarity relates to the fact that both matters involved imported clothing. (3) The investigating officer in the Tomson matter was not involved in the investigation of the Midford case. Some officers who provided evidence before the Midford inquiry would have had some involvement with the Tomson case.(4) A detailed review of the matter by Counsel has been commissioned by Customs.(5) On the advice of Counsel, Customs responded to Mr Tomson's legal representatives on 15 June 2001 seeking further and better particulars in relation to their allegations. Counsel had indicated that if such particulars were forthcoming in a timely manner he would be able to finalise his report by 30 July 2001.29235(Question No. 2593)259329235Bevis, Arch, MPMr BevisET4BrisbaneALP00 asked the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, upon notice, on 24 May 2001: (1) How many meetings were held between management and/or representatives of G & K O'Connor meatworks in Pakenham, Vic., and officers of his Department prior to a lockout being instituted in November 1998 and what was the nature of those meetings.(2) What other contact was made between management and/or representatives of G & K O'Connor meatworks in Pakenham and officers of his Department prior to a lock out being instituted in November 1998 and what was the nature of that contact.(3) How many meetings were held between management and/or representatives of G & K O'Connor meatworks in Pakenham and officers of the Office of the Employment Advocate prior to a lockout being instituted in November 1998 and what was the nature of those meetings.(4) What other contact was made between management and/or representatives of G & K O'Connor meatworks in Pakenham and officers of the Office of the Employment Advocate prior to a lockout being instituted in November 1998 and what was the nature of that contact.(5) How many meetings were held between management and/or representatives of G & K O'Connor meatworks in Pakenham and the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business or any staff in the Minister's Office prior to a lockout being instituted in November 1998 and what was the nature of those meetings.(6) What other contact was held between management and/or representatives of G & K O'Connor meatworks in Pakenham and the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business or any staff in the Minister's Office prior to a lockout being instituted in November 1998 and what was the nature of that contact.(7) What was the nature of any material or advice provided by his Department or the Office of the Employment Advocate to the management or representatives of G & K O'Connor's meatworks and on how many occasions did his Department or the Office of the Employment Advocate correspond with the management or representatives of G & K O'Connor's meatworks.(8) What was the nature of any material or advice provided by his Department or the Office of the Employment Advocate to the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business or any staff in the Minister's office and how many briefings were prepared for use by his Department or the Office of the Employment Advocate to the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business or any staff in the Minister's office.(9) When will he release the documents currently held by his Department on this issue.(10) What action has his Department or the Office of the Employment Advocate undertaken to investigate the alleged intimidation and coercion by thugs hired by the management of G & K O'Connor's meatworks as exposed on the Channel 9 Sunday program of 8 April 2001.(11) If no action has been taken with regard to this allegation, who made the decision and on what basis was this decision made.(12) What action has been undertaken to investigate the claims by Mr Darren Wise that Mr Bruce Townsend attempted to induce him to lie to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. (13) If no action has been taken with regard to this allegation, who made the decision and on what basis was this decision made. 29236Abbott, Tony, MPMr AbbottEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The lockout at G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd meatworks in Pakenham commenced in March 1999, not November 1998. One meeting was held between management and/or representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd and an officer of the Department prior to a lockout commencing in March 1999. At this meeting, G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd provided information on developments in an industrial dispute at the meatworks of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd.(2) The lockout at G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd meatworks in Pakenham commenced in March 1999, not November 1998. Prior to a lockout commencing in March 1999, according to the Department's records and to the best of the Department's knowledge, there was telephone contact between management and/or representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd and officers of the Department on four occasions. The nature of the contact was that G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd informed officers of the Department of developments in an industrial dispute at the meatworks of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd.(3) The lockout at G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd meatworks in Pakenham commenced in March 1999, not November 1998. No meetings were held between management and/or representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd and officers of the Office of the Employment Advocate, prior to a lockout commencing in March 1999.(4) The lockout at G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd meatworks in Pakenham commenced in March 1999, not November 1998. No contact was made between management and/or representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd and officers of the Office of the Employment Advocate, prior to a lockout commencing in March 1999.(5) The lockout at G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd meatworks in Pakenham commenced in March 1999, not November 1998. No meetings were held between management and/or representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd and the Minister prior to a lockout commencing in March 1999.One meeting was held between management and/or representatives of G & K O'Connor meatworks in Pakenham and staff in the then Minister's office prior to a lockout commencing in March 1999. At this meeting, G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd provided information on developments in an industrial dispute at the meatworks of G & K O'Connor. (This is the same meeting referred to in the answer to (1).)(6) The lockout at G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd meatworks in Pakenham commenced in March 1999, not November 1998. Prior to a lockout commencing in March 1999, staff in the then Minister's office received a telephone call and then a facsimile from representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd, requesting a meeting. The Ministers office subsequently confirmed a meeting time and date.(7) According to the Department's records and to the best of the Department's knowledge, the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business has provided management or representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd with no written material, no written advice, nor any other form of substantive advice in relation to the dispute at the G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd meat processing plant, or associated Australian Industrial Relations Commission and Federal Court proceedings. The Department consulted management (on one occasion) and representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd as required by section 27 of the Freedom of Information Act 1982 in relation to a freedom of information application by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union (AMIEU).In 1999, the Department received one letter and five facsimiles from representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd. These all comprise covering notes, and copies of Australian Industrial Relations Commission or Federal Court decisions, or documents lodged in relation to Australian Industrial Relations Commission or Federal Court proceedings. In 2000, the Department wrote to representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd on one occasion (and also forwarded the same letter via facsimile) and received one letter from representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd. This correspondence related to a freedom of information application by the AMIEU. In 2001, the Department corresponded with representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd on two occasions. The first occasion involved forwarding by facsimile a letter from the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd, which advised of the Government's having tabled certain documents in the Senate in response to a Senate Return to Order motion. The Department subsequently forwarded by facsimile to G & K O'Connor's legal representatives some of the documents that had been tabled in the Senate. The Office of the Employment Advocate provided management and/or representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd with information on logistical arrangements for the offering, lodgement and processing of Australian workplace agreements (AWAs), and with information about the Freedom of Association provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (the Act). This information was provided in three meetings between staff of the Office of the Employment Advocate and management and/or representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd. (Employers planning to make large numbers of AWAs are encouraged in the Office of the Employment Advocate's A How-to Guide to contact the Office to expedite the processing of the AWAs.)The Office of the Employment Advocate's correspondence with management and/or representatives of G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd comprises filing receipts, approval notices and a refusal notice for AWAs, as required by the Act; other routine correspondence concerning the filing and approval of AWAs; and a letter advising the employer of the Deputy Employment Advocate's intention to refuse an AWA pursuant to s170VPB(4) of the Act.(8) The Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business provided the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business with three briefings related to developments in the dispute at the G & K O'Connor Pty Ltd meat processing plant, as well as briefing for use in Parliament. The Department provided staff of the then Minister's office with one briefing on developments in the dispute, together with updates, either orally or via email. The Office of the Employment Advocate provided the then Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business or his staff with five briefings. The briefings related to proceedings brought by the Australasian Meat Industry Employees' Union against the Employment Advocate concerning the application by the OEA of the no disadvantage test in assessing AWAs. (9) On 28 June 2001, the Government tabled in the Senate the documents on this issue that it intends to release.(10) No action has been taken by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business or the Office of the Employment Advocate to investigate the allegations aired on the Channel 9 Sunday program of 8 April 2001.(11) No complaint regarding the matter was made to either the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business or the Office of the Employment Advocate.(12) No action has been taken by the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business or the Office of the Employment Advocate to investigate the claims by Mr Darren Wise that Mr Bruce Townsend attempted to induce him to lie to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.(13) No complaint regarding the matter was made to either the Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business or the Office of the Employment Advocate. 29237(Question No. 2598)259829237Evans, Martyn, MPMr Martyn EvansN36BonythonALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 24 May 2001:(1) Since the commencement of the Product Stewardship (Oil) Regulations 2000 how many companies have sought and been paid the subsidy specified in Regulation 4 in each of the categories listed and what amount in total has been paid under each category.(2) Are analytical laboratory tests readily available for each of the criteria set out in Schedule 1 in each of the capital cities of the States.(3) Which laboratories have been approved by the relevant authorities and are they able to conduct all of the tests required by the Regulations.(4) What is the estimated cost of having a sample evaluated for the purposes of the maximum payment of 50 cents under Regulation 4.(5) What is the maximum level of polychlorinated biphenyls permitted under clause 3 of Schedule 1 of the Regulations and is this level consistent with other maximum permitted levels of this chemical under other Commonwealth legislation such as food standards and other environmental standards. (6) Was the level required by the US Environment Protection Agency test evaluated for consistency with other Commonwealth and State legislation prior to the adoption of the Regulation; if so, is it consistent.(7) Is there any reason to believe that there are significant levels of dioxins in recycled oil products in Australia; if so, what would be the principal sources of such contamination.(8) Is the maximum level allowed under the Product Stewardship (Oil) Regulations 2000 consistent with the levels specified under the polychlorinated biphenyls management plan.29238Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) As at the end of April 2001 (ie 4 months into the program):· 24 recyclers were registered under the product stewardship arrangements· 15 recyclers had made claims and been paid benefits· total payments under each category were:Category$1021023317,273443,6945509,7546620,700Total1,491,523(2) Tests are readily available in Australia for all the criteria with the exception of the Modified Ames test (clause 1), which is available in the United States. This test was included in the criteria as it is recognised as the only test capable of identifying a particular range of carcinogens that may be present in re-refined waste oil. As there are currently no operations in Australia carrying out full re-refining of waste oils, Australian laboratories haven't yet geared up to do the test. We have had indications from some Australian and New Zealand laboratories that they would be prepared to set up to do the testing, depending on a variety of market considerations (eg if there was going to be sufficient demand). (3) Many Australian environmental laboratories can carry out testing for polyaromatic hydrocarbons (clause 2), polychlorinated biphenyls (clause 3) and dioxins (clause 4). Testing laboratories accredited to do particular tests are identified on the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) Directory, available on the NATA website. The total acid number test (clause 1) and the appearance test (clause 5) are widely available from industry and independent petroleum product testing laboratories in Australia.(4) Proponents should evaluate the market themselves. The modified Ames is by far the most expensive test at approximately $US1500/test which would drop as testing frequency increased. Note that the Regulations require testing of Category 1 oils only every six months.(5) to (8)Clause 3 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations requires that the oil must contain less than 0.1 mg of polychlorinated biphenyls for each kilogram of oil, demonstrated by meeting the criteria mentioned in US-EPA test SW-846 8082. Under the National PCB Management Plan material containing more than 50 mg of PCB per kilogram becomes a Scheduled Waste and cannot be transported without evoking special provisions. This 50mg/kilogram limit is consistent with the level at which a waste becomes Scheduled under the Basel Convention and can only be transported across international borders in controlled circumstances. Under the National Plan, waste containing between 2 and 50 mg of PCBs is non-Scheduled, and must be dealt with appropriately at the end of its useful life. Wastes containing less than 2mg/kg are considered 'PCB free'. Note that the standards are different between the Regulations and the PCB Management Plan as the two standards are aimed at quite different ends. The PCB Management Plan is a waste management plan, focussed on proper disposal routes of known PCB-contaminated wastes. The Regulations on the other hand prescribe high health, safety and environmental compliance levels for a product to allow it to receive government benefits, with a view to preventing PCB contaminated oils entering the environment in the first place.The Australian and New Zealand Food Authority puts PCBs in a category that requires 'no detectable residue' (Food Standards Code Volume 2). Almost all PCBs that impact upon humans are ingested in food. In June 1999, large quantities of chickens and eggs were destroyed in Belgium when they were found to contain high levels of both dioxins and PCBs. The source of this contamination was traced to industrial oils being used as a feedstock to manufacture chicken feed.Where waste oil has a PCB content of less than 2 ppm, most State EPAs allow this oil to be burnt in designated facilities, and if the concentration is over 2ppm but less than 50 ppm it must be diluted until the PCB concentration falls to the 2 ppm level. Note that State requirements may not be uniform in this respect. Note also that in these situations the waste oil is known to be PCB contaminated and is thus treated appropriately. This situation is not analogous to situations where re-refined oil may contain PCBs (in the absence of government requirements) and which is much more likely to come into direct skin contact of mechanics for example.The Regulations require that, to qualify for the top benefit payment, re-refined oil must not contain polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins (`dioxins'), as demonstrated by meeting the criteria mentioned in EPA test SWA-846 8290.While chlorine compounds are not found in virgin base oils, they may be added during either the manufacture or use of the final virgin oil products. The presence of chlorine compounds in oil may also result in some dioxin formation during its use in motor vehicles, hence some potential presence in waste oils. The dioxins in a re-refined waste oil product may therefore be formed during the use of the original product, or through the effects of the re-refining process on chlorine compounds present in the waste oil.There have been several incidents in Australia where dioxin contamination of waste oil has lead to emissions of PCBs. The most recent was in 1999 in Victoria when the EPA discovered dioxin contaminated waste oil at 5 re-use facilities, including a pet-food manufacturer, a cement kiln and a tourist train.29239(Question No. 2599)259929239Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) Further to part (5) of the answer to question No 2305 (Hansard 4, June 2001, page 27227), (a) is Bankstown Airport not Sydney West Airport, (b) does Badgerys Creek remain the site for Sydney West Airport and (c) is the Government's 13 December 2000 announcement to shelve Badgerys Creek factually wrong in light of his answer to question 2305.(2) Further to part (11) of the answer to question No 2305, (a) do the decisions taken by the Government to lease Sydney Airport without embedding terms in the lease constitute a major compromise of the Government's ability to ensure that a second airport is actually built at Badgerys Creek, (b) in light of his reply that the operator of Sydney Airport will be given the first right of refusal to build and operate any such airport, will he clarify whether this right in the hands of the lessee compromises the further review of Sydney's airport needs in 2005, (c) what statutory or contractual provisions, if any, now survive to ensure that an airport can and will be built at Badgerys Creek, (d) is a second airport for Sydney still part of its strategy for solving Sydney's airport noise problems, (e) upon what advice has the Government based its 13 December 2000 decision to shelve Badgerys Creek, expand Sydney Airport and use Bankstown Airport as an overflow airport, (f) how will the Government fulfil its 1996 Election aviation policy in solving Sydney's aircraft noise problems in light of (i) its decision to seek a further review of Sydney's airport needs in 2005 and (ii) failing to fully implement the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP), in light of his answer to part (3) of question No 2307 (Hansard, 23 May 2001, page 25926) advising that the LTOP forecast of 17% movements to the north of Sydney Airport continually fail to be met, with actual aggregate movements at 27.3%. (3) Further to parts (8) and (10) of the answer to question No. 2305, has he taken advice on whether the operation of these sections including their statutory intent as demonstrated in the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services second reading speech, are compromised; if so, (a) on whose advice does he rely and (b) will he furnish copies of this advice in Parliament.29240Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) Bankstown Airport is not Sydney West Airport.(b) The Government announced that it will retain ownership of the Badgerys Creek site and will legislate to protect the site from incompatible development in surrounding areas. The Government has made no decision on the site for a second major airport for Sydney.(c) No.(2) (a) No.(b) The lessee of Sydney Airport will have no power to prevent the Government reviewing Sydney's airport needs in 2005.(c) The sale arrangements for Sydney Airport will not prevent the development of a second major airport for Sydney if a future Federal Government decided that such development should proceed.(d) While concluding that it would be premature to build a second major airport for Sydney, the Government decided to retain the Badgerys Creek site thereby preserving the opportunity for a future Federal Government to decide whether or not airport development on the site should proceed.(e) The Government took account of a range of material including the comprehensive and publicly available Environmental Impact Statement on the second Sydney Airport proposal for Badgerys Creek.(f) The Government has addressed the aircraft noise issue by providing for a substantially more equitable sharing of noise compared with the arrangements in place prior to March 1996 and by continuing the aircraft noise insulation program begun by the previous Government.(3) In the context of the sale of Sydney Kingsford Smith Airport the Commonwealth has sought and received confidential advice in relation to the provisions in the Airports Act 1996 dealing with the issue of Sydney West Airport and this advice will be taken into account in the detailed sale arrangements for the Airport.29240(Question No. 2603)260329240Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) Did US Air Force aircraft use the Salt Ash Weapons Range on or about 23 May 2001; if so, (a) how many aircraft and (b) for what duration.(2) Did former Minister McLachlan ban foreign aircraft from using the Salt Ash Weapons Range; if so, who gave permission for the aircraft to use the field.29240Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No.(2) The Air Force is unaware of any commitment made by Minister McLachlan to ban foreign military aircraft using the Salt Ash Air Weapons Range.In 1998, RAAF Williamtown base management took the initiative to decline requests to use the range from other than Williamtown based aircraft in an effort to reduce the impact of noise on the local community. The last foreign aircraft to use the range were from the Royal New Zealand Air Force, in September 1998. Since then, only aircraft based at Williamtown have used the range.29240(Question No. 2607)260729240O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) How many (a) disability pensioners, (b) aged pensioners and (c) Common Youth Allowance recipients reside in the electoral division of Bass.(2) How many (a) disability pensioners, (b) aged pensioners and (c) Common Youth Allowance recipients reside in each of the postcode areas within the electoral division of Bass. 29241Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:NOTE: The information in the tables below is data by postcode. Due to the placement of Electoral boundaries across postcodes, Centrelink cannot extract figures for Payments in Electoral divisions with any accuracy.(1) Age Pension Post Code72127248724972507252725372547255725772587259No.<201466111052041904994223<20<2060Post Code7260726172627263726472657267726872777290No.354592704673214080255<20(2) Youth Allowance Post Code72127248724972507252725372547255725772587259No.<20964263167842108<20<20<20<2026Post Code7260726172627263726472657267726872777290No.41<20<20<20<20<20<202230<20(3) Disability Support Pension Post Code72127248724972507252725372547255725772587259No.<20838371169785315<20<20<20<2032Post Code7260726172627263726472657267726872777290No.752366<2041<20<203357<20Note: Figures represented with <20 are confidential and therefore not provided.29241(Question No. 2612)261229241Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 2311 (Hansard, 22 May 2001, page 25772), will he table a copy of the risk analysis in the House; if so, when; if not, why not.(2) In light of the finding in that risk analysis, what impact, if any, will the (a) installation and operation of the Precision Runway Monitoring System, (b) proposed changes to the Slots Management Scheme 1998, (c) expansion of Sydney Airport as announced by the Government on 13 December 2000 and (d) change the use of Bankstown Airport as an overflow airport as also announced on 13 December 2000 now have on the probabilities described in his answer.29241Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Environmental Impact Statement for Sydney Airport's Third Runway is a publicly available document.(2) The specific risk analysis data requested by the Honourable Member is not available. The Government is committed to ensuring that the highest priority is placed on aviation safety. No changes will be made to the operating arrangements at Sydney or Bankstown Airports unless all safety standards are fully complied with.29241(Question No. 2614)261429241Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) Further to his answer to question No. 2309 (Hansard, 24 May 2001, page 26023), are significant segments of Bankstown City already subject to Australian Noise Exposure Forecast (ANEF) 25 or higher from aircraft noise emanating from that airport. (2) Is aircraft noise emanating from Bankstown Airport set to worsen from the impact of the Government's announcement on 13 December 2000 to use Bankstown Airport as an overflow airport; if so, over what areas.(3) Is he aware that Bankstown City Council already has affectations on title and noise contour maps indicating the ANEF noise levels of existing residents.(4) Does the Government's announcement on 13 December 2000 in respect of Bankstown Airport mean that those aircraft noise contours are to widen the affectation of aircraft noise affected residents; if so, will he describe the impact.(5) Will he afford the same insulation for those houses that are offered for persons suffering aircraft noise from Sydney (Kingsford-Smith) Airport; if so, when will that noise insulation announcement be made.29242Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1), (2), (4) and (5) It is anticipated that there will be changes to the patterns of noise exposure around Bankstown Airport as a result of it being used as an overflow airport for Sydney Aiport. Any proposal for upgrading the facilities and operational aspects of Bankstown Airport will be considered against the requirements of the Airports Act 1996 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. I will be recommending to the Environment Minister that the private sector lessee should be required to do a full environmental impact statement (EIS) into the upgrading of Bankstown Airport. Any changes to noise exposure patterns around Bankstown Airport resulting from the upgrading and the question of noise insulation would be examined as part of this EIS process.(3) I am advised that Bankstown City Council does include advice about aircraft noise exposure on certificates issued under section 149 of the Environmental Planning And Assessment Act 1979.29242(Question No. 2619)261929242Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) Further to the Minister's answer to question No. 2426 (Hansard, 22 May 2001, page 25808) concerning Sydney West Airport and the Minister's responses referring to the `Second Sydney Airport Proposal', for the purposes of section 6 of the Airports Act, does the `Second Sydney Airport Proposal' and the term `Sydney West Airport' under that Act, mean the same thing; if not, can the term `Sydney West Airport' have any meaning other than the `Second Sydney Airport Proposal'; if so, what other meaning can it have.(2) Is the Second Sydney Airport Proposal for which the Minister conducted an environmental impact statement a proposal to locate the Sydney West Airport at Badgerys Creek.(3) Does the Second Sydney Airport Proposal mean an international airport at Badgerys Creek.(4) Does Sydney West Airport not mean Bankstown Airport.29242Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) Yes. While not specifically defined as Sydney West Airport in the Airports Act 1996 the Sydney West Airport is generally interpreted to be the Second Sydney Airport.(2) Yes. The Second Sydney Airport proposal for which an EIS was conducted was a proposal to locate a second Sydney airport at Badgerys Creek.(3) Yes. The EIS for a Second Sydney Airport included an assessment of the staged development of an international airport at Badgerys Creek. (4) Sydney West Airport does not mean Bankstown Airport.29242(Question No. 2625)262529242Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 4 June 2001:(1) How many surviving members of the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces who served in Japan between 1945 and 1952 are there. (2) What is the annual estimated cost of granting those veterans a Gold Card.(3) How many ADF personnel served at Woomera during atomic testing.(4) How many of those veterans are surviving and what is the estimated annual cost of granting them full veterans' entitlements.29243Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) It is estimated there are 4,300 surviving veterans of the British Commonwealth Occupation Forces (Japan) (BCOF). (2) Many of these surviving veterans have service in WWII or in a later conflict and have a Gold Card and it is estimated that about 1000 of them do not have a Gold Card. The Government has introduced a Charter of Budget Honesty, under which the Opposition can have new policy proposals formally costed by the Department of Finance and Administration. This would be the proper mechanism under which the question on the estimated cost should be submitted.(3) My Department has compiled a draft nominal roll of those who were involved in atomic testing at Maralinga, Emu Field and Monte Bello Island. The roll includes both ADF personnel and civilians. The roll has been compiled for the purpose of a health study into mortality rates and cancer incidence among this group. No atomic testing took place at Woomera, however, personnel based at Woomera may have been at other sites when atomic tests took place. The information sought in the honourable member's question is not readily available because the Department of Defence has no nominal roll of ADF personnel who served at Woomera at this time. To collect and assemble such information solely for the purpose of answering the question would be a major task and I am not prepared to authorise the expenditure and effort that would be required. (4) Only when the roll is complete will it be possible to provide costs for full veterans' entitlements for all those involved in atomic testing.29243(Question No. 2636)263629243Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 5 June 2001:(1) Has the Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) listed any of the former Australian Defence Industries Munitions Factory Site at St Mary's; if so (a) which areas and (b) how many hectares are involved in each area.(2) Is the AHC land high, medium or low value Cumberland Plain.(3) Is the Minister able to say whether all the high and medium value Cumberland Plain is preserved under the State Government regional environment plan.(4) What is the total size of the high and medium value Cumberland Plain being preserved.(5) In making its assessment what were the values and factors that the AHC took into account, and did they include (a) size, (b) representativeness on a regional scale, (c) representativeness on a property (local) scale, (d) rarity (threatened species), (e) rarity (regionally rare), (f) diversity, (g) naturalness, (h) connectivity, (i) fragmentation, (j) ease of management, (k) strategic importance, (l) sustainability, (m) conservation, (n) community services, (o) total water cycle management, (p) transport, (q) waste management, (r) employment and economic development, (s) air quality, (t) heritage (u) open space and recreation, (v) soil and salinity, (w) urban form, (x) housing and land supply and (y) energy efficiency.(6) Given the 1600 hectares of land in question; what were the studies that the AHC undertook in reaching its decisions.29243Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) The Australian Heritage Commission (AHC) listed part of the Australian Defence Industries site at St Mary's on the Register of the National Estate on 26 October 1999; The AHC listed an area of Cumberland Shale Plains Woodland and an area of Shale/Gravel Transition Forest also known as Castlereagh Woodland. Cumberland Shale Plains Woodland is listed as endangered under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999; in total the listing comprises about 800 hectares of the entire site. (2) The AHC believes that its boundary encompasses most of the high and medium value Cumberland Shale Plains Woodland on the site. The AHC commissioned an additional on-ground survey specifically to identify those areas to the west of the site, outside the boundary identified under the State Government regional environment plan, which might contain Cumberland Plain Woodland. (3) The NSW Section 22 Committee, established by the NSW Ministry for Planning to oversight the rezoning of St Mary's, accepted an average of 21% of the 57 “characteristic” species as sufficient to establish the presence of Cumberland Plain Woodland. The AHC areas additional to the NSW regional environment plan boundary contain an average of 33% of the species identified as “characteristic” of Cumberland Shale Plains.(4) The NSW regional environment plan encompasses about 320 hectares of Cumberland Plain Woodland.(5) The AHC, in making a decision to list part of the St Mary's site, conformed to the requirements of the Australian Heritage Commission Act, which focus on the aesthetic, historic, scientific or social significance of the natural and cultural environments of Australia, for future generations as well as the present community (s.4).In considering any objection to inclusion of a place on the Register of the National Estate the Commission is required to give “upmost consideration to the significance, as part of the national estate, of the place”.In listing Cumberland Plains Woodland at St Mary's, the AHC took into account its heritage value (t) as a remnant of an endangered vegetation community with greatly reduced distribution (a) within the shale plains west of Sydney (b, c, d, e). Studies by both New South Wales and the Commonwealth show that the Cumberland Plain Woodland represented at St Mary's demonstrates between 21%-30% of species “characteristic” of the community (f). Although the vegetation communities at St Mary's are almost entirely regrowth since the 1940s they constitute one of the largest, single areas of a robust vegetation type capable of regeneration if managed appropriately (g,h,i). AHC expressed the view that as much as possible should be conserved of a vegetation community of which there is as little as 8% extant (m).Since the remit of the AHC is to consider the presence or absence of a heritage value it did not take into account matters which are properly the province of State and or local governments (j, k, l,n,o,p,q,r,s,u,v,w,x,y).(6) In reaching its decision in regard to the listing of part of the St Mary's site, the AHC had access to the following surveys and reports:Benson DH (1992) The natural vegetation of the Penrith 1:100 000 map sheet. Cunninghamia 2(4). Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney.Benson DH and Howell J (1990) Taken for Granted: the bushland of Sydney and its suburbs. Kangaroo Press, Sydney.Benson DH and Howell J (1991) Rare Bushland Plants of Western Sydney. Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney.Benson JS and Redpath PA (1997) The Nature of pre-European Native Vegetation in South-Eastern Australia: a critique of Ryan DG, Ryan JR and Starr BJ (1995) The Australian Landscape - Observations of Explorers and Early Settlers. Cunninghamia 5(2) Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney.Doherty M (1987) Remnant vegetation of the Cumberland Plain: Conservation and Management Priorities A report to the National Parks Association of NSW.DUAP (1996) Regional Environmental Study, ADI St Mary's. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.DUAP (1997) Report of the Section 22 Advisory Committee for the ADI Site St Mary's. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning, NSW.ERM Mitchell McCotter Pty Ltd (1998) Draft South Creek and Ropes Creek Corridors Conservation and Recreation Strategy. Unpublished draft report for the Joint Steering Committee Members. Fanning FD (1995) ADI St Mary's Facility Flora Survey Bomb and north Bomb Sectors. Unpublished Gunninah Consultants.Fanning FD (1995) ADI St Mary's Facility Distribution of Endangered Flora Pyro Park. Unpublished Gunninah Consultants.Fanning FD (1995) ADI St Mary's Facility Planning Study - Flora and Fauna Issues. Unpublished Gunninah Consultants.Fanning FD (1996) ADI St Mary's Facility Flora Survey Ropes Creek Area. Unpublished Gunninah Consultants.Greenslade P. (1993) Nomination for Register of the National Estate, Australian Heritage Commission: Castlereagh Woodland Corridor for Buprestidae. Unpublished report.Gunninah Consultants (1997) ADI Site St Mary's. Biological Assessment Report. Vol 2. Appendices. March 1997. Unpublished report.Kinhill Engineers (1995) Australian Defence Industries Site - St Mar'ys. Regional Environmental Study Technical Report No.4. Characteristics of the Site. Prepared for Joint Planning Team. Department of Urban Affairs and Planning.Nature Conservation Council of NSW (1991) Western Sydney Urban Bushland Survey . Volume 1. Nature Conservation Council of NSW.NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (1997) Urban Bushland Biodiversity Survey of Western Sydney. Vol 1 and appendices. NSW NPWS.Webb H and Foley A. (1996) Review of Urban Bushland and Recommendations for its Protection. , Volume 1 A report to the Nature Conservation Council and the Total Environment Centre, Sydney.In addition the AHC commissioned the following:Doherty M (1996) Report on One Day Field Inspection of Selected Areas at Australian Defence Industries Site, St Mary's, Sydney. Unpublished Report for the Australian Heritage Commission.Biosis Research Assessment of Objection to Listing of Western Sydney Shale Woodland St Mary's, October 1998.Ian Perkins Consultancy Services Flora Assessment of the Disputed Areas of the of Western Sydney Shale Woodlands Report to the Australian Heritage Commission, February 1999.29245(Question No. 2638)263829245Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 5 June 2001:(1) Did Lord Kitchener visit Australia in 1910.(2) Did Lord Kitchener refuse to unveil a war memorial in Bathurst to those who served in the Boer War unless the name of Lieutenant Handcock was removed.(3) If so, does this accord with current Government policy.(4) What action has been taken to restore Lt Handcock's name to the memorial.29245Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am advised that Field Marshal Lord Kitchener visited Australia from December 1909 to February 1910 to inspect its military force and installations and advise on military reform.(2) Lord Kitchener visited Bathurst on 10 January 1910 to unveil the local Boer War Memorial and present a prize to a local rifle club. Lieutenant Handcock's name was not on the memorial at that time; nor is there any archival evidence that Lieutenant Handcock's name was among the names to be included on the memorial in the first place.(3) Local memorials, such as the Bathurst Boer War Memorial, are the responsibility of local communities and local government authorities. Responsibility for their ongoing maintenance rests with those authorities.(3) I am further advised that Lieutenant Handcock's name was added to the memorial in 1964. 29246(Question No. 2639)263929246Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 5 June 2001:(1) What categories of persons who served in World War II are eligible for a Gold Card.(2) What is the surviving number of persons in each category and what is the estimated per annum cost per category of granting the Gold Card to them.(3) What categories of persons who served in World War II are not eligible for a Gold Card.(4) What is the surviving number of persons in each category and what is the estimated cost per category of extending the Gold Card to them.29246Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) A Gold Card is issued to all World War II veterans of Australia's Defence Force (ADF) and Australia's merchant navy who:· are ex-prisoners of war; or· served in the ADF between 3 September 1939 and 29 October 1945, who have qualifying service from this period of hostilities and who are aged 70 years and over; or· receive a disability pension at or above 100% of the general rate; or· received a disability pension for pulmonary tuberculosis before 2 November 1978.Some veterans of Commonwealth or allied World War II forces are eligible for a Gold Card, if they:· have qualifying service from World War II and lived in Australia immediately prior to enlistment in the Commonwealth or allied force; or· are mariners who served on a Commonwealth or allied ship and if they, or their dependants were residing in Australia for at least 12 months immediately prior to the commencement of their service on that ship.(2) Below are the numbers of veterans from the above categories currently in receipt of Gold Cards:World War II veterans and `other categories', 144,888Commonwealth and allied veterans, 268The estimated average health care cost to the Department of Veterans' Affairs per Gold Card holder in 2000-2001 is $8,200. (3) Persons who served in World War II who are not eligible for a Gold Card are:· Ex-members of the ADF or Australia's merchant navy who:- do not have qualifying service from that conflict, that is did not serve between 3 September 1939 and 29 October 1945, or who did serve during this period but did not incur danger from hostile forces of the enemy during this time;- are not in receipt of disability pension at 100% or more of the general rate.· Commonwealth and allied veterans who are now living in Australia but were not members of the ADF.(4) The Government has introduced a Charter of Budget Honesty, under which the Opposition can have new policy proposals formally costed by the Department of Finance and Administration. This would be the proper mechanism under which the above question should be submitted. 29246(Question No. 2642)264229246Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, on 5 June 2001:What is the range, from the lowest level of school funding to the highest level, of general recurrent funding per student in each State and Territory within (a) government school systems, (b) Catholic school systems and (c) independent schools.29246Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) The Commonwealth provides funds to the States and Territories for government schools on the basis of reported full time equivalent enrolments. Actual disaggregation of Commonwealth, or total funding from the State/Territory to individual schools is not part of the data collected by the Commonwealth. (b) Recurrent funding provided by the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments is given to each State/Territory Catholic system in bulk according to per capita rates. The figures below represent the reported allocation of this money by the system.Sector: Catholic School Systems State Highest/LowestSchool TypeCombinedPrimarySecondaryAll SchoolsACTLowest$4,329$2,898$4,527$2,898Highest$4,402$3,877$4,656$4,656NSWLowest$1,837$944$1,125$944Highest$5,014$11,457$14,109$14,109NTLowest$4,096$2,760$5,241$2,760Highest$4,405$5,043$7,191$7,191QLDLowest$2,152$2,824$3,759$2,152Highest$4,831$8,050$7,477$8,050SALowest$2,968$2,642$4,208$2,642Highest$4,684$8,400$16,920$16,920TASLowest$4,083$2,783$4,709$2,783Highest$5,017$4,615$5,628$5,628VICLowest$2,108$2,148$3,853$2,108Highest$4,597$7,864$6,568$7,864WALowest$3,623$2,507$4,146$2,507Highest$16,248$9,527$13,799$16,248Total Lowest$1,837$944$1,125$944Total Highest$16,248$11,457$16,920$16,920(c) The Independent Schools sector is a mix of both systemic schools and non-systemic schools. The figures below represent the recurrent grants received by the schools from the Commonwealth and States/Territories based either on direct funding or allocation by a system as reported by the individual schools.Sector: Independent Schools State Highest/LowestSchool TypeCombinedPrimarySecondaryAll SchoolsACTLowest$1,746$2,489$3,626$1,746Highest$3,437$4,987$3,626$4,987NSWLowest$1,086$737$561$561Highest$5,114$9,869$5,520$9,869NTLowest$3,967$3,432$6,493$3,432Highest$5,677$9,661$8,555$9,661QLDLowest$362$2,015$2,533$362Highest$7,714$7,706$10,419$10,419SALowest$1,415$1,380$2,361$1,380Highest$5,123$8,812$5,584$8,812TASLowest$2,201$2,064$3,835$2,064Highest$5,117$3,633$3,835$5,117VICLowest$959$735$307$307Highest$5,684$4,048$6,340$6,340WALowest$1,324$2,160$3,520$1,324Highest$12,410$13,878$10,914$13,878Total Lowest$362$735$307$307Total Highest$12,410$13,878$10,914$13,87829248(Question No. 2643)264329248Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 5 June 2001:(1) Is the newly acquired British Aerospace Hawk lead-in fighter now using the Salt Ash Weapons Range.(2) Has an environmental impact statement (EIS) been prepared for the use of the range by these aircraft; if so, has it been released for public perusal and discussion.(3) Can the aircraft use the range if an EIS has not been prepared.29248Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes, but authorisation has not been given to use training weapons.(2) The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator the Hon Robert Hill, has been consulted about the introduction of the Hawk Lead-in-Fighter into service with the RAAF. On 12 June 2001, Senator Hill directed that the Department of Defence submit an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). When it has been developed, the EIS will be released and public comment sought.(3) The legislative process under which this proposal is being considered, the Environment Protection (Impact of Proposals) Act 1974, does provide for matters under consideration to continue pending the outcome of the formal EIS process.29248(Question No. 2647)264729248Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Family and Community Services, upon notice, on 6 June 2001:(1) What total sum of Commonwealth funds were made available in the last funding round of the minor capital upgrading program for child care centres.(2) How many child care centres in NSW made an application for a minor capital upgrading grant.(3) Which child care centres in NSW were successful in their application for a minor capital upgrading grant and what sum was each granted.(4) Did the application for minor capital upgrading of air conditioning, drainage and safety glass from the Fairfield City Council Child Care Centre at Bossley Park meet the eligibility criteria for funding, as outlined in the application guidelines.(5) On what grounds was the application from that child care centre for a minor capital upgrade grant rejected.(6) When will applications be called for future funding rounds of the minorcapital upgrading program.(7) Will child care centres that applied for minor capital upgrade grants in previous funding rounds be eligible to apply for grants in future funding rounds; if not, why not.(8) Will the eligibility criteria for applicants be altered in future funding rounds.(9) Will child care centres whose application met the eligibility criteria but were still unsuccessful in receiving a minor capital upgrade grant be given priority in future funding rounds; if not, why not.29249Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The Minister for Family and Community Services has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) $2.4 Million (2) 301(3) Service NameGrant Padstow Community Child Care Centre6,376Roslyn Hall Children's Centre6,435Macquarie Park Child Care Centre2,306Hornsby Nursery and Preschool1,371Cherrybrook Nursery and Preschool8,364Chester Hill Community Child Care 5,544Greenacre Community Child Care Centre15,226Blinky Bill Portland Child Care Centre13,050Cardiff Early Education & Care Centre Inc6,773Hassall Grove Child Care Centre5,265Keymer Child Care Centre15,613Ridge-Ee-Didge Children's Centre5,060Plumpton Occasional Care Centre2,860Mt Druitt Church of Christ Child Care Centre7,000John Armitage Child Care Centre4,565Nan Moran Child Care Centre19,754Koala Corner Children's Centre4,360Susanna Children's Centre17,303Canberra Road Child Care Centre7,254Dianella St Child Care Centre6,504Gamumbi Child Care Centre6,465Ngaku Aboriginal Corporation Multipurpose Centre16,887Kempsey Pre-School and Nursery School12,852Woolgoolga Child Care Centre8,812Gumnut Cottage Child Care Centre7,929Kenny Street Long Day Care Centre4,114James Mitchell Care and Learning Centre5,815Rainbow Cottage Children's Centre12,863Niagara Park Children's Centre4,012Hinchinbrook Multipurpose Centre2,237Huz `N' Buz Child Care Centre7,900Vattana Neighbourhood Children's Centre18,160Kids Korner Combined Occasional Care 4,004Infants' Home Long Day Care15,200Astral Drive Child Care Centre3,289Blacktown Anglican Child Care Centre5,489Kurung Child Care Centre16,881Bob Sinclair Child Care Centre2,816Kings Langley Child Care Centre8,288Kerry Jones Child Care Centre4,441Lalor Park Child Care Centre2,600Mudgee Child Care Centre6,681Nurruby Child Care Centre & Preschool7,667Bradman Road Child Care Centre9,589Holsworthy Children's Centre9,665Soldiers Road Child Care Centre4,613Colleen Gale Children's Centre8,731Blue Gum Cottage Children's Centre12,034Randwick Open Care for Kids5,126POW (Prince of Wales) Place Community Child Care Centre30,298Blue Emu Children's Centre14,765Euroka Children's Centre 3,520Platypus Playground Children5,470Yoorami Children's Centre18,264Kurralee Children's Centre8,785Ardill House Children's Centre7,980Cuddlepie Pre-School & Day Care Centre4,950Amber Cottage Child Care Centre9,900Bunya Child Care Centre22,587Golden Valley Child Care Centre Inc21,120Hazelwood Child Care Centre9,947Hobartville Long Day Preschool Inc38,843McGrath's Hill Children's Centre21,850Kids of the Castle Occasional Care8,052Awabakal Child Care Centre9,354Hunter Women's Child Care Service5,084Samaritans Community Child Care Centre3,590 Guyra Preschool and Long Day Care Centre10,516Catherine Campbell Long Day Care Centre9,878Kelly's Place Children's Centre9,900Kubby House Cobar Occasional Child Care6,214Allira Multi-Purpose Gathering Association11,408Trundle Multi-Purpose Children's Centre13,805Salamander Child Care Centre5,601Fairfield Nursery School1,276The Parks Occasional Care4,960Smithfield Child Care Centre6,028Wetherill Park Child Care Centre8,679Greystanes Uniting Church Child Care Centre9,100Auburn Long Day Care Centre4,059Holroyd Children's Centre27,793Wenty Children's Centre9,900Frances Fisk Child Care Centre8,600Rainbow Children's Centre1,600Hay Plains Child Care Centre10,340Hampden Bridge Child Care Centre6,542Papalya Children's Centre2,200Woy Woy Peninsula Child Care Centre15,620Mt Hutton Child Care Centre1,170Lance Kindergarten and Child Care Centre5,080SDN Erskineville Nursery School7,546Amigoss Long Day Care Centre14,670Koonawarra Children's Centre11,800Warilla Occasional Child Care Centre9,632Noogaleek Children's Centre7,588Iluka Childcare Centre5,148Wombat Willows Child Care Centre7,932Amarina Child Care Centre4,571Kabbarli Early Learning Centre3,190(4) Yes.(5) Each project in each application was individually assessed and assigned a ranking. As funds were limited, only those projects with the highest ranking were approved to receive funding. Ranking was assigned on the demonstrated urgency of each project as it related to health, safety and/or licensing concerns and in relation to other projects. Each project for the Fairfield City Council Child Care Centre (known as the Janice Crosio Child Care Centre), Bossley Park, met the criteria, however they were not ranked highly enough in comparison to other projects to receive funding.(6) Minor capital upgrading funding rounds are currently conducted once a year. The timing of a future round has not been determined at this stage.(7) Centres which apply for funding in one round are not restricted from applying in later rounds.(8) There are no plans to alter the eligibility guidelines.(9) There is no process for providing priority to previously unsuccessful applicants. Each funding round involves a competitive assessment of applications received in that round, with priority given to those determined to have demonstrated that they have projects in need of urgent attention because of health, safety and licensing issues. 29251(Question No. 2648)264829251Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 6 June 2001:(1) Is the Government to extend the eligibility criteria for the Regional Flood Mitigation Program to include outer metropolitan areas.(2) Does the Minister's Department consider the local government areas of (a) Parramatta, (b) Holroyd, (c) Fairfield and (d) Penrith outer metropolitan areas.(3) Was $40m of Commonwealth funds announced in the 2001-2002 Budget for the extension of the eligibility criteria of the Regional Flood Mitigation Program; if not, what sum has been appropriated.(4) What sum of new Commonwealth money has been allocated to NSW under the extension of the Program.(5) Will the Commonwealth funds announced in the 2001-2002 Budget be matched by the respective State and local governments under the 2:2:1 ratio; if not, what ratio will the Commonwealth, State and local governments contribute to the Program.(6) Will funding from the Program be used for works in the western Sydney suburbs of Toongabbie and Wentworthville.29251Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) As announced in the Federal Budget of 22 May the Regional Flood Mitigation Program has been extended providing $40 million over the next four years and includes as a new measure outer metropolitan areas.(2) The definition of `an outer metropolitan area' has not yet been established. A number of options are being considered to gauge suitability for defining these areas. (3) No, the $40 million announced is for the expansion of the whole of the Flood Mitigation Program.(4) Notional Allocations between State and Territories have not yet been determined as the calculation will be based on previous Regional Flood Mitigation Program uptake amounts and the list of priorities put forward by the States and Territories for 2001/2002. A determination will be made shortly.(5) The funding arrangements under the new Program are the same as the former Regional Flood Mitigation Program, that is the Federal Government will fund no more than one third of the approved project cost. The remaining two thirds of the project costs are to be funded by the State and Local Governments. The Federal Government has made no stipulation as to how the States and Territories and Local Governments divide the funding of their two thirds of the project, beyond requiring that the State at least match the Federal Government funding. This provides scope for State and Territory Governments to increase their contribution.(6) The new Program extends eligibility to outer metropolitan areas. In accordance with the Program guidelines, applications are assessed and prioritised by State and Territory Governments which then make recommendations to the Federal Government.29252(Question No. 2651)265129252O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'Byrne84SBassALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 6 June 2001:(1) When does he expect the decommissioning of HMAS Brisbane to take place.(2) Is there an established process for the gifting of decommissioned navy vessels; if so, what is that process.(3) Are there any plans to gift HMAS Brisbane to any State or organisation.(4) Can he provide a detailed plan for the decommissioning and disposal of HMAS Brisbane.29252Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) It is proposed that the decommissioning of HMAS Brisbane will occur on 19 October 2001. At this stage, the decommissioning ceremony is expected to take place at Fleet Base East, Woolloomooloo.(2) Yes. From a Commonwealth perspective, it is desirable that any business plan or community submission should be negotiated at State Government level, rather than directly between the Commonwealth and the local community or organisation. In this regard, the Western Australian State Government has established a benchmark for dealing with ships of this size and nature, whereby the State protects the interests of the local community or group involved, and accepts all contiguous liabilities.(3) The Western Australian, Queensland and New South Wales Governments have expressed an interest in acquiring HMAS Brisbane, as has the Launceston Chamber of Commerce and various other associations and groups. The Australian War Memorial has also expressed keen interest in securing selected items of equipment and superstructure for public exhibit at the memorial. Gifting the vessel is one option that is currently under consideration.(4) No. Until the Disposal Plan is completed, I am unable to provide these details. However, it is expected that the Disposal Plan will be completed by August 2001.29252(Question No. 2652)265229252McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClellandJK6BartonALP00 asked the Attorney General, upon notice, on 6 June 2001:(1) What is the average length of time that applicants in veterans' affairs' matters are required to wait for reserved judgments of appeals from the Veterans Review Board to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.(2) What steps is he taking to address these delays.29252Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) From 1 June 2000 to 31 May 2001 there were 136 Veterans Division Applications heard and decisions reserved by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The average time from a decision being reserved until its delivery was 68.8 days. The Tribunal's time standard is 60 days. (2) Factors beyond the control of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affected the timeliness of delivery of some reserved decisions in veterans' matters over the relevant period. Applications heard and reserved by the Tribunal affected by the proceedings in Repatriation Commission v Keeley [2000] FCA 532 were delayed pending final determination of those proceedings. An application for special leave to appeal to the High Court from the Full Court of the Federal Court's decision in Keeley was refused on 28 November 2000.There have been a number of further appeals to the Federal Court in veterans' matters raising the issue of accrued rights and which Statement of Principles should be applied by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Those appeals have attempted to distinguish the Keeley decision and have caused a delay in determination of matters before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal expected to be affected by those appeals. On 1 June this year I announced the appointment of 53 members to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, comprising 15 new members and 38 reappointed members. Most appointments took effect on 1 July this year for terms of between 1 and 3 years. I am confident that the quality of the members appointed will ensure that the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will continue to operate effectively, including in the Veterans' Division, pending the establishment of the Administrative Review Tribunal.29253(Question No. 2655)265529253Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 6 June 2001:(1) Is he aware that there have been long delays in the signing of social security agreements between Australia and (a) Croatia, (b) Turkey and (c) Greece. (2) What progress has been made in finalising these agreements and what are the remaining obstacles.(3) When is it expected that these agreements will be finalised.29253Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) I am aware that we do not have social security agreements with Croatia, Turkey or Greece. I am also aware that delays in finalising bilateral agreements are common. For example, negotiations for the agreement signed with Germany last December were begun in 1985.(2) In relation to Croatia, progress has been delayed due to other priorities. Amendments to the text negotiated in December 1998 are now required because of recent changes to Australian social security law, and taxation and welfare reform. It is hoped that the Department will be in a position to give this further consideration next year.An agreement with Turkey is not under active consideration. Negotiations planned in 1995 were postponed by Turkey and a request to resume discussions was only received last year. Turkey has been advised that the Department will review its readiness to resume discussions next year.In the case of Greece, the honourable member will be aware that successive Governments of both political persuasions have made a number of proposals to Greece and none have been accepted. The Government's latest offer of an agreement was also rejected. The previous Minister for Family and Community Services, the Hon. Senator Newman, wrote to Greece in February last year suggesting that officials meet to ensure that Australia's generous offer and the Greek Government's reservations about that offer were clearly understood. There has been no response from Greece. (3) I am not able to advise the honourable member when an agreement will be finalised with each of these countries.29253(Question No. 2666)266629253Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) Does the November 1999 Sydney Airport Environment Strategy state that Sydney Airport acknowledges the need to further address aircraft impacts external to the airport and that this task will be undertaken during the preparation of Sydney Airport Master Plan. (2) Will the Sydney Airport Master Plan contain the Government's strategy for mitigating against airport impacts at ultimate operational capacity and are noise, airport-associated road traffic congestion, air toxic emissions and health risks are covered in the plan.(3) Is critical information being withheld from the public; if so, what is that information.(4) Will he immediately table a copy of the Sydney Airport Master Plan in the House.29254Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Sydney Airport Environment Strategy recognises that noise generated by aircraft in flight, when landing, taking-off or taxiing at an airport are important environmental issues. The Strategy indicates that noise generated by aircraft will be considered as part of the Master Plan.(2) No. The Master Plan is the airport-lessee company's strategic plan for the airport.(3) No.(4) No. There is at present no Master Plan for Sydney Airport, due to the prospective sale of the Airport. However, the company will be required to provide a draft master plan by 31 January 2003. The extended deadline also has regard to the anticipated complexity of a master planning process for Sydney Airport given the range of competing industry and community interests that will need to be balanced.29254(Question No. 2668)266829254Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) Further to his response to question No. 2308 (Hansard, 23 May 2001, page 25927), in light of his reply that there is no information on toxic emissions from road traffic associated with Sydney Airport, (a) can he confirm the validity or otherwise of Sydney Airport Corporation Limiteds (SACL) assertion that there is no significant health risk associated with emissions from Sydney Airports total-airport operations; (b) upon what basis does the SACL reach this conclusion and (c) will he table copies of this probative evidence in the House.(2) Are the bulk of Sydneys most densely populated areas located within a 10km radius of Sydney Airport and the central Sydney industrial area of Port Botany, both of which generate a disproportionate road traffic load and other toxic transport emissions compared to the rest of the Sydney metropolitan area.(3) Do Sydney Airport emissions contribute approximately 40% of the total toxic air emissions load in the 20 square kilometres surrounding Sydney Airport.(4) Which inner city suburbs are downwind of Sydney Airport and Port Botany during typical 24-hour patterns of trapped Sydney basin air re-circulation.(5) Has air pollution generated in the eastern part of the Sydney basin been reported to be transported on a regular basis by afternoon sea breezes as far as the south west part of the basin.29254Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) It has not been possible to find record of the assertion that is ascribed to Sydney Airports Corporation Limited in the Honourable Member's question. (2) (4) and (5) The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA) continuously monitors air quality throughout the Sydney basin. The Honourable Member may wish to examine the EPA's webpage at http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au to gain up to date information on the levels of air pollutants throughout the basin.(3) A 20 square kilometre area centred on the Airport covers parts of Botany Bay and small parts of the surrounding suburbs. A very substantial part of the area is covered by the Airport. Given this, it is not unlikely that a significant proportion of the air emissions in that area are associated with Sydney Airport.29254(Question No. 2669)266929254Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 To ask the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) Further to his response to question No. 2310 (Hansard, 23 May 2001, page 25927), (a) is he able to say whether benzene and 1,3 butadiene are carcinogens and (b) do mobile sources account for the majority of total benzene and 1,3 butadiene pollution in Sydney. (2) Further to his response to part (2) of question No. 2310, did Sydney Airports Corporation Limited claim that the NSW Environment Protection Agencys toxic emissions data supported its claim of no significant health risk given in evidence to the Commission of Inquiry into the Precision Runway Monitor System for Sydney Airport.(3) Further to his response to part (6) of question No. 2310, must these significant airport capacity expansions trigger an environmental impact statement or other environmental assessment under Commonwealth law.(4) Is he able to say whether another area of higher-than-state-average incidence of lung cancer occurs other than in the south west Sydney basin area; if so, where.(5) Is he also able to say whether smokers who are also exposed long-term to toxic transport emissions are likely to be more at risk of contracting lung disease than smokers living in clean air environments.29255Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Second Sydney Airport Proposal indicates that benzene is released to the air from evaporative emissions from petrol and from incomplete combustion of motor vehicle and aircraft fuel. It is classified as a known human carcinogen. 1,3 butadiene is found in aircraft and motor vehicle exhausts. The EIS states that there is insufficient evidence to confirm that it is a human carcinogen.(2) It has not been possible to find any reference to the NSW Environment Protection Agency's toxic emissions data in the published transcript of the Sydney Airport Corporation Limited's evidence to the Commission of Inquiry into the Precision Runway Monitor System for Sydney Airport.(3) Any proposal for upgrading the facilities and operational aspects of Bankstown Airport will need to be considered against the requirements of the Airports Act 1996 and the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. I will be recommending to the Environment Minister that the private sector lessee should be required to do a full environmental impact statement (EIS) into the upgrading of Bankstown Airport.(4) and (5) The Honourable Member may wish to approach the NSW Department of Health to ascertain detailed epidemiological data for the Sydney region.29255(Question No. 2672)267229255Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) Is the Minister able to confirm Environment Australia's reported assertion that it is Government policy to comply with Australian Standard for Aircraft Noise AS2021.(2) Did the Third Runway environmental impact statement (EIS) assess the environmental impact (a) of removing small planes from Sydney Airport and (b) around Sydney Airport of the introduction of one or more reliever airports for Sydney Airport.(3) Did the Badgerys Creek EIS assess the environmental impact for Sydney Airport.(4) Has the Government assessed the environmental impact of expanding Bankstown Airport as an overflow airport for communities impacted by Sydney Airport and Bankstown Airport.(5) Has the Government holistically assessed the total impact of all Sydney's airports on the Sydney metropolitan area and is there a basin-wide environmental assessment of airport impacts.29255Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) No. The Minister is not aware of any such assertion by Environment Australia.(2) No. The Proposed Third Runway EIS primarily assessed the proposal to construct a third runway at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport.(3) No. The Second Sydney Airport EIS assessed the impacts of locating a second domestic/international airport for Sydney at Badgerys Creek. (4) No. Any proposal for upgrading the facilities and operational aspects of Bankstown Airport will need to be considered against the requirements of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 to ascertain whether formal environmental assessment of such a proposal is required.(5) No.29256(Question No. 2673)267329256Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) Is the Minister able to enumerate the percentage change in Sydney Airport's road traffic as a proportion of all traffic on the major roads around Sydney airport since the Third Runway EIS was completed; if so, what is that percentage.(2) Is the Minister able to say (a) which air toxics, also known as hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), have been associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes, including cancer, neurological effects, and reproductive and developmental effects, (b) whether HAPs include such chemicals as benzene, formaldehyde, tetrachloroethylene, and cadmium, and (c) whether HAPs are emitted from cars, trucks, buses and aircraft.(3) During the past five years, has the practice of risk assessment within Environment Australia evolved away from a focus on the potential of a single pollutant in one environmental medium for causing cancer toward integrated assessments involving suites of pollutants in several media that may cause a variety of adverse effects on humans, plants, animals or effects on ecological systems and their processes and functions.(4) Is the Minister able to say whether the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Cumulative Exposure Project has observed associations between increased risk of lung cancer and toxic transport emissions from mobile sources, including road traffic and airports.29256Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) No. Road traffic issues around Sydney are a matter for the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority.(2) (a) The Commonwealth's Living Cities - Air Toxics Program defines air toxics as:gaseous, aerosol or particulate pollutants (other than the six criteria pollutants) which are present in the air in low concentrations with characteristics such as toxicity and persistence so as to be a hazard to human, plant or animal life. The terms `air toxics' and `hazardous air pollutants' (HAPs) are used interchangeably.Consistent with this definition exposure to any air toxic has the potential to cause adverse health effects.(b) Yes, all the substances listed are considered air toxics.(c) Yes, a range of air toxics is emitted from cars, trucks, buses and aircraft. These mobile sources have all been associated with emissions of air toxics including benzene, 1,3-butadiene and formaldehyde.(3) The application of risk assessment is considered on a case by case basis. The consideration of all relevant media does occur in assessing the risk of a pollutant to humans and biota. Chemical mixtures are typically not assessed together unless they are closely chemically related groups of compounds, for example dioxins or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons.(4) I am not aware of the findings of the US EPA's Cumulative Exposure Project. However, the association between toxic transport emissions and an increased risk of cancer is well established.29256(Question No. 2674)267429256Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) At any time before, during or after the assessment of the proposed Badgerys Creek airport, did Environment Australia note that the Minneapolis St Paul airport system provided the closest airport analogy. (2) What are Environment Australia's benchmarks for safe concentrations of toxins in air for benzene, toluene, 1,3 butadiene, formaldehyde and acrolein and how does this compare with actual air levels, if such data exists.(3) Is the Minister able to say whether, following the Commission of Inquiry into the Precision Runway Monitor System, the US EPA Cumulative Exposure project for the Minneapolis St Paul metropolitan area shows that, for the toxins considered, lifetime cancer risk per 100 000 persons in and downwind of the primary airport and two of its reliever airports ranges from 13 to nearly 40 times the health risk level set by the Minnesota Department of Health, or one additional case of cancer per 100 000 people.(4) Is the Minister able to say whether the US EPA Cumulative Exposure Project study of the Seattle metropolitan area shows that the lifetime cancer risk per 100 000 persons exposed to toxic emissions in and around SeaTac airport range from 200 to 400 times EPA's recommended safe level of carcinogens in the air.(5) Is the Minister able to say whether the August 2000 study by the City of Park Ridge Illinois titled “Preliminary Study and Analysis of Toxic Air Pollutant Emissions from O'Hare International Airport and the Resulting Health Risks created by these air toxic emissions in surrounding residential communities” found that toxic emissions exceeding a cancer risk of 1 in 100 000, assuming 70 years of exposure, encompass an area of approximately 1000 square miles around Chicago's O'Hare airport.29257Truss, Warren, MPMr TrussGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10—The Minister for the Environment and Heritage has provided the following answer to the honourable member's question:(1) No.(2) There are currently no national ambient air standards for these pollutants in Australia. However, the Commonwealth's Living Cities - Air Toxics Program has been actively promoting the case for developing a National Environment Protection Measure (NEPM) for Ambient Air Toxics. At its meeting on 29 June 2001, the National Environment Protection Council decided to commence development of the Ambient Air Toxics NEPM. This NEPM will set Australian ambient air standards for priority air toxics. (3) No, the Minister is not aware of the detailed findings of this study.(4) No, the Minister is not aware of the detailed findings of this study.(5) No, the Minister is not aware of the detailed findings of this study.29257(Question No. 2677)267729257Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) What information is provided to the public by Australia Post on the location of its Yellow Express Post Boxes and where can this information be obtained.(2) How many Yellow Express Post Boxes are located within the electoral division of Lowe and where are these locations.(3) Are Yellow Express Post Boxes located in every federal electorate.(4) If a person posts a letter in (a) Sydney or (b) regional or rural Australia in a Yellow Express Post Box before 6 p.m. on a Sunday and that letter is addressed to an address within Australia, will it be delivered to the addressee the following day; if not, why not.(5) If a person posts a letter in an ordinary Red Post Box in Sydney before 6 p.m. on a Sunday, will it be delivered to another address in Sydney the following day; if not, why not.29257McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question based on advice received from Australia Post is as follows:(1) Customers can obtain information about the locations of Express Post gold street posting boxes by calling Australia Post's Customer Call Centre (telephone 131318 all States), or by accessing its website at www.auspost.com.au and clicking on the Post Office Locater Map. Customers in New South Wales and Victoria can also obtain brochures from local postal outlets that list the locations of gold street posting boxes in their State.(2) There are four Express Post gold boxes in the electorate of Lowe. They are located at:· corner Drummoyne and Rosebury Streets, Drummoyne 2047;· corner Burwood Road and Comer Street, Burwood North 2134;· Railway Parade (at Burwood Station), Burwood 2134; and· Shop 45-47 The Boulevarde, Strathfield 2135.(3) No. Express Post gold posting boxes are provided at locations within the defined next-business-day delivery network, the details of which are printed on the back of all Express Post domestic products.(4) No. Express Post is a business-day to business-day product with dedicated processing arrangements in place Monday to Friday to meet the advertised delivery standard.An Express Post letter posted in a gold street posting box on a Sunday would not normally be delivered the following day because the special processing arrangements for Express Post items are not geared for weekend postings.The following instruction appears on the back of all Express Post domestic products - “next business day delivery is guaranteed over the following specified routes, if your envelope/satchel is posted correctly on any business day Monday to Friday”.There is also a notice on all gold street posting boxes explaining the scope of the service (ie that the next-business-day delivery guarantee applies to items posted before the clearance time shown on the box, Monday to Friday).An ordinary letter incorrectly posted in a gold street posting box on a Sunday would also be subject to delay as it would have to be extracted and directed to a separate processing stream.(5) Yes. An ordinary letter posted in a red street posting box in Sydney by 6pm on a Sunday should be delivered to another address in Sydney the following day.An Express Post letter incorrectly posted in a red street posting box on a Sunday would probably not be delivered the following day - it would be subject to delay due to its being automatically diverted to the Express Post processing stream which is not geared for weekend postings.The following instruction appears on the back of all Express Post domestic products - “Do not post in red street posting boxes”.29258(Question No. 2684)268429258Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:(1) When was the agreement signed between the NSW Government and the Federal Government for the construction of the Western Sydney Orbital Road.(2) Did the agreement cover any other roads; if so, (a) which roads, (b) what is the estimated project costs and (c) what is the contribution of each government to the roads.29258Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The agreement to which you refer, known as the “Memorandum of Understanding between the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of New South Wales concerning the Western Sydney Orbital”, was signed on 4 January 2001. (2) (a) The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) covers the Western Sydney Orbital and associated works required for its construction and ongoing operation and maintenance for the duration of the toll concession period. The MOU also states that both Governments agree to carry out a study to identify a route for the National Highway from a point on the WSO to the F3.(b) The cost of the study will be $1.8 million.(c) The study will be fully funded by the Commonwealth.29258(Question No. 2687)268729258Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:Has a senior officer from 3 RAR been charged; if so, (a) when was he charged, (b) what was the charge and (c) when is a trial expected. 29259Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:A former Commanding Officer of 3 RAR has been charged.(a) Charges were preferred on 26 March 2001.(b) The officer was charged with contempt of a service tribunal and an alternative charge of prejudicial behaviour. (c) A Defence Force Magistrate's trial commenced on 4 July 2001 and concluded on 6 July 2001.29259(Question No. 2688)268829259Price, Roger, MPMr PriceQI4ChifleyALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 7 June 2001:Has the investigation into any Command responsibility associated with the 3RAR affair commenced; if so, when (a) did it commence and (b) is it expected to be completed; if not, when (a) will it commence and (b) will it be completed.29259Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:The degree to which the chain of command was aware of matters has been and remains subject to investigation. Action will be taken where evidence supports it. The degree of command responsibility for the incidents as a whole will be determined through an inquiry into the 3RAR command climate. (a) The inquiry will not commence prior to Mr Burchett presenting the findings of the Military Justice Audit. (b) It is anticipated the inquiry into the 3RAR command climate will be completed within 4 months of commencement. 29259(Question No. 2691)269129259Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 18 June 2001:How many Telstra public telephones were located in the local government area of Fairfield (a) in 1996 and (b) on 1 June 2001. 29259McGauran, 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:Telstra advises that it had 175 public payphones in the local government area of Fairfield on 1 June 2001. Whilst the actual number of public payphones in Fairfield in 1996 is not available, Telstra considers that there would have been a slight decrease in payphone numbers for reasons such as the removal of a payphone from sites where there were previously two units. This removal was made necessary by either the decrease in use of the units, or the removal of older generation magnetic stripe card-only phones when that technology ceased to exist.As stated in its Universal Service Marketing Plan, Telstra must consult with the community prior to removing a payphone, unless it is one of multiple phones in a location. To do this Telstra must place a notice in the payphone for 3 months informing users that Telstra is considering removing the payphone and inviting comment from the community on the removal or the need to keep the payphone in its current location. Telstra will then make its decision on the future of the payphone taking into account this community consultation.29259(Question No. 2692)269229259Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, upon notice, on 18 June 2001:(1) How many former prisoners of war and widows of former prisoners of war reside in the electoral division of Prospect.(2) How many of those prisoners of war and widows of former prisoners of war will be entitled to receive the $25 000 compensation announced in the 2001 Budget. 29260Scott, Bruce, MPMr Bruce ScottYT4MaranoaNPMinister for Veterans' Affairs and Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) There are nine former prisoners of war and an estimated eight widows of former prisoners of war residing in the electorate of Prospect.(2) Of those, six former prisoners of war and five known widows of former prisoners of war are entitled to receive the $25,000 payment.29260(Question No. 2694)269429260Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Attorney-General, upon notice, on 18 June 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to an article in Light magazine of May 2001 titled “When Love Is Not Enough”, in which it is alleged that certain rock music bands encourage acts of violence, drug usage, sex, rape, murder and suicide.(2) Has the Office of Film and Literature Classification (OFLC) classified the music of any artist cited in the article; if so, what are those classifications.(3) Are the comments made in the article at page 3 consistent with the OFLC's findings in respect of its review of those artists.(4) In light of the article, will he recommend the reclassification of those artists whose music is consistent with the comments made, as “Refused Classification”; if not, why not.29260Williams, Daryl, MPMr Williams7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes.(2) The Classification Board (the Board) is responsible for classifying publications, films and computer games in accordance with the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (the Classification Act). Under the Classification Act music lyrics in printed form may be classified as a publication and an audio-visual recording of music, such as a music video clip, may be classified as a film. However, the Board does not have power to classify an audio recording unless the recording can be considered to be a film for the purpose of the Classification Act. Audio recordings are regulated under the Record Industry Code of Practice for Labelling Product with Explicit and Potentially Offensive Lyrics (the Audio Code). The Audio Code came into effect in 1996 with the approval of all Commonwealth, State and Territory Censorship Ministers and is administered by the Australian Record Industry Association (ARIA). Censorship Ministers monitor the operation and effectiveness of the Audio Code, and the level of complaint about offensive audio recordings.The article in question lists a number of artists and includes comments about the alleged content of their music. However, the article does not provide information about the specific titles of the recordings being referred to. On the information provided in the article it appears that the recordings are likely to be audio recordings, which are regulated under the Audio Code administered by ARIA, rather than audio-visual recordings which may require classification.The Board has classified 44 audio-visual videotape and CD-ROM recordings of 13 of the 23 artists listed in the article. These recordings include music video clips and films of live performances or tours. The audio-visual recordings were classified by the Board during the period 1988 to 2001 and span the classification categories from `G' to `R' as follows: CLASSIFICATIONNUMBERG6PG9M22MA5R2X0RC0(3) It is not possible to identify whether or not the audio-visual recordings classified by the Board have a similar content to the recordings referred to in the article. Nor is it possible to correlate the comments made in the article with the reasons for the classification decisions made by the Board with any accuracy. It appears likely that the audio recordings referred to in the article may have a different content than the audio-visual recordings classified by the Board. The reasons cited by the Board for the classification decisions are summarised in the following table: REASONNUMBERCoarse Language28Adult Concepts/Themes10Sexual References5Drug Use5Nudity3 (4) The Board does not classify the body of work of an artist, but classifies specific works, being publications, films and computer games, that are submitted to it for the purpose of classification. The article does not provide information about specific recordings or works. There is insufficient information or evidence to suggest that reclassification of the audio-visual recordings classified by the Board is warranted.29261(Question No. 2696)269629261Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 18 June 2001:(1) What is the process for reviewing the Australian Noise Exposure Index (ANEI) for Adelaide Airport and (a) at what stage of this process is the current review and (b) when is it likely to conclude.(2) What individuals or organisations are entitled to make recommendations or changing the current ratings and which organisation is responsible for submitting the final recommendations. (3) Who makes the final decision on those recommendations and what additional factors, if any are able to be considered.(4) When will the findings of the review be made public.(5) Aside from the current ANEI review is there currently any other review being conducted associated with noise measurement, monitoring or mitigation in relation to Adelaide airport or any other airport: if so, what are the details.Type in text of question here reproduced exactly as it appears on Notice Paper.An electronic version of the Notice Paper can be found athttp://search.aph.gov.au/search/ParlInfo.ASP?action=browse&Path=Chamber&Start=2&cfc#top29261Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1-4) Australian Noise Exposure Index maps are contour maps based on historical data which show the average aircraft noise exposure around airports over a given period. They are prepared in accordance with guidelines issued by Airservices Australia. My Department has commissioned consultants to prepare an Australian Noise Exposure Index covering Adelaide Airport's operations for the year 2000. The guidelines provide for Airservices Australia to assess the technical accuracy of ANEIs, and this assessment is currently being undertaken. It is intended that the ANEI will be provided to the Adelaide Airport Environment Committee and other interested parties after it has been finalised. My decision on eligibility for insulation under the Airport Noise Insulation Program will be based on the noise exposure contours shown in the ANEI. (5) Most major airports in Australia are involved in activities associated with aircraft noise measurement, monitoring or mitigation.29261(Question No. 2697)269729261Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 18 June 2001:(1) With respect to the operation of his Department's Aeronautical and Maritime Research Laboratory (AMLR), did the Combatant Protection and Nutrition Board (CPN) breach Government policy by conducting a collaborative project with the CSIRO or any other organisation during 1996-97 on bacteria by reproducing micro-organisms. (2) Was Government policy to allow biological defence work using reproducing micro-organisms not in place until August 1998.(3) Is the AMLR building a class 3 biological containment facility at Fisherman's Bend, Melbourne, in which the CPN Board will work on infectious agents for diseases such as plague and anthrax; if so, will the same managers who may have breached Government policy in conducting research on bacteria referred to in part (1) have control over this facility.(4) Was the AMLR CPN Branch involved in the biological detection aspects of the Sydney Olympics, including participation in the design of a facility for this purpose by Drs Peter Gray and Ralph Leslie.(5) Did the UK provide the technology for this Olympic detection program and due to design faults, did the facility fail to meet UK Occupational Health and Safety Standards for biological containment, resulting in UK experts being unable to alter the facility when it was in use.29262Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. DSTO did not conduct a collaborative project with CSIRO or any other organisation in 1996/97 on reproducing micro-organisms:a. Up until 1994, DSTO had maintained only a watching brief in the field of biological defence research. In 1994, the Government authorised DSTO to commence a modest program of research into defence against biological weapons using toxins. Toxins are derived from living material but are not reproducing micro-organisms. No authority was granted for work using reproducing micro-organisms. After commencing this program, DSTO did not, at any time prior to August 1998, undertake work using reproducing micro-organisms in its research into defence against biological weapons. b. From its inception, DSTO's work on biological defence has been overseen by the Biological Defence Advisory Committee (BDAC). This Committee is composed of representatives from the Departments of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Foreign Affairs and Trade, Attorney General, and an academic proficient in molecular biology. All proposals and research results for work on biological defence research were presented to BDAC. The members of the BDAC found DSTO's work program to comply fully with Government policy.c. In 1996, DSTO, as part of its arms control related work, purchased reference chemicals including phospholipids and fatty acids from CSIRO. These materials, derived from extracts of killed bacteria, were delivered to AMRL as inert organic chemicals.(2) Yes. Prior to 1998, Government policy proscribed the use of reproducing micro-organisms. In August 1998, Government policy was extended to allow work on reproducing micro-organisms up to Risk Level 3. This policy change was made because DSTO was not well placed to advise the Defence Organisation on defence against biological weapons or assist the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in its work to limit and eliminate biological weapons. In addition, DSTO could neither obtain the benefits arising from the exchange of scientific data with our Allies in this area nor develop technologies to protect members of the ADF against the use of biological weapons.(3) DSTO is planning to build a Level 3 containment laboratory at Fishermans Bend as part of the move of the Maribyrnong-based activities to Fishermans Bend under the Melbourne Facilities Rationalisation Program. Facilities designed to this level protect staff against the danger of exposure to micro-organisms such as plague and anthrax. This laboratory will be similar to several laboratories in Melbourne's bioscience research community and teaching hospitals and will be constructed and operated in compliance with the relevant Standards and Codes-of-Practice governing laboratories of this level. The laboratory will be operated and managed by appropriately trained and experienced staff. The laboratory will allow DSTO to conduct research on developing technologies for the rapid detection of and protection against micro-organisms that could be used in biological weapons against members of the Australian Defence Force. There is no evidence that any staff in CPNB, whether they are expected to be managers of the containment laboratory or not, have ever breached Government policy. (4) Yes. CPNB contributed to the biological defence/detection aspects of the security arrangements for the Sydney 2000 Olympics. DSTO's contribution was highly valued and DSTO has been congratulated on its efforts in this regard. All the staff involved were volunteers and displayed the levels of scientific excellence and professionalism that have come to typify Australian Defence Science. Drs Gray and Leslie were responsible for the design of the physical facility used for this purpose. This facility met all relevant Australian standards and OH&S requirements. The prime consideration in the design and operation of the facility was that it would provide a safe work place. DSTO obtained the advice of independent biological safety experts during the design of the facility. Safety guidelines for the facility were developed and reviewed by an independent consultant for microbiological safety. Specifically: a. the scope of the work to be performed in the facility and concept of operation were discussed with CSIRO Division of Animal Health and also with an independent consultant prior to designing the facility;b. the facility complied with AS/ NZ Standard 2243.3 Part 3, Safety in Laboratories; andc. the Biological Safety Cabinets used in the facility are certified as compliant with AS/NZ Standard 2647, Biological Safety Cabinets - Installation and Use. (5) This question refers to classified material.29263(Question No. 2702)270229263Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca6J4BowmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 19 June 2001:(1) How many visitors to Australia in (a) 1999-2000 and (b) 2000-2001 arrived on Electronic Travel Authorities (ETAs).(2) Is a charge applied for tourists who obtain an ETA to travel to Australia using the services of travel agents, airlines or offshore consulates.(3) Is a charge applied to travel agents or airlines who provide this service for customers.(4) When was the decision made to provide potential visitors with an internet service for obtaining ETAs, as announced by him on 28 May.(5) Was the revenue raised by the $20 service charge applicable to travellers who choose to obtain an ETA via the internet included in budget calculations for 2001-2002.(6) Given that around 4 million tourists a year currently travel to Australia on ETAs, what is the estimated revenue from this charge for 2001-2002.(7) Is the program being administered by his Department or have the services been contracted out; if so, (a) when were tenders called for the contract, (b) when was the contract awarded and (c) what is the value of the contract.29263Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (a) In 1999/2000 2.719 million Electronic Travel Authorities (ETAs) were issued to intending travellers to Australia. (b) From 1 July 2000 to 31 May 2001 2.748 million ETAs were issued to intending travellers to Australia.There is no Australian Government charge for the Visitor ETA (subclass 976) or the Business Short Validity ETA (subclass 977). There is an Australian Government charge of $60 for the Business Long Validity ETA (subclass 956).The majority of travel agents and airlines impose a processing fee on their clients seeking an ETA. The amount varies considerably from region to region and within regions. For example, travel agents in the London region charge between $36 and $100 Australian dollars per ETA. This is in addition to the $60 Australian Government charge for the Business Long Validity ETA.(3) No.(4) 6 May 2001.(5) No. The $20 service charge is collected by CPS Systems Pty Ltd, the contractor that administers the ETA system on behalf of the Commonwealth. The level of the fee, which has been set by the Commonwealth for the duration of the trial, announced 28 May 2001, has been calculated to offset the cost to CPS Systems of the trial. (6) See (5) above. (7) The ETA system is operated and maintained by CPS Systems Pty Ltd under contract to the Commonwealth. The trial Internet access to the ETA system is being administered by CPS Systems under this contract. (a) Tenders for the ETA system contract were called in 1995. (b) CPS Systems Pty Ltd was awarded the ETA system contract in September 1996. (c) The value of the contract is commercial-in-confidence.29264(Question No. 2705)270529264Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 19 June 2001:Has his attention been drawn to allegations of administrative failure within the operations of the Migrant Resource Centre (Southern Tasmania) Inc and the Migrant Resource Centre Tasmania Limited; if so, what are the specific details of the matters that have been alleged to him and what steps has he taken by way of a response to those concerns.29264Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:My Department has drawn my attention to allegations in relation to the operations of the Migrant Resource Centre (MRC) (Southern Tasmania) Inc. Former employees of MRC (Southern Tasmania) also drew a number of concerns to my attention.A number of steps have been taken to deal with the allegations in relation to the Centre. In May this year, I asked my Department to engage MRC (Southern Tasmania) in informal dispute resolution processes as provided for in the Service Agreement and, at the same time, to consider the option of ceasing funding to the Centre if this was warranted. My Department has been engaged in ongoing discussion with the MRC Management Committee for some months. That dialogue will continue and the MRC's performance under the Service Agreement will continue to be monitored closely.I have also been informed of concerns raised by the auditor for MRC (Southern Tasmania). These concerns are being actively pursued by my Department. MRC (Southern Tasmania) is due to provide the Department with an audited financial statement at the end of July 2001. In May 2001, my Department provided the MRC with a list of issues the audit is to cover, in order to assess the validity of the allegations.My Department will continue to monitor the performance of the MRC (Southern Tasmania) to ensure that we can confidently continue funding the organisation.The second organisation, Migrant Resource Centre Tasmania Limited, is a newly created entity delivering services contracted by my Department. The allegations relating to this organisation concern personnel practices, and more minor concerns related to financial management practices. My Department is providing support to MRC Tasmania Limited to build its capacity to manage and be accountable for public funding.29264(Question No. 2706)270629264Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KerrRH4DenisonALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 19 June 2001:(1) Has the Migrant Resource Centre (Southern Tasmania) Inc made a number of staff changes recently.(2) Has the centre replaced highly qualified staff in the area of refugee settlement with staff who have no appropriate qualifications to undertake that task.(3) Was a recent staff member appointed to administer the PICC program with no appropriate background.(4) Have a number of staff either been dismissed or forced to leave the employment of the centre in circumstances which have given rise to claims for unfair dismissal. (5) Is his Department committed to ensuring that the Migrant Resource Centre meets minimum standards of employment as prescribed by the agreements that are entered into between his Department and the centre.(6) What is the reason for the centre declining to implement the determination made on 1 June 2001 by Commissioner Abbey for the reinstatement of Ms Maureen Adamson.29265Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Migrant Resource Centre (MRC) (Southern Tasmania) has made a number of staff changes in the past seven months. The MRC:· terminated employment of a Community Settlement Services Scheme (CSSS) worker whose project funding ceased in late 2000;· dismissed an administrative officer in February 2001, who has since been reinstated;· employed a number of temporary staff to cover staff shortages; and· an administration officer resigned in June 2001.(2) MRC (Southern Tasmania) has not replaced highly qualified staff in the area of refugee settlement with staff who have no appropriate qualifications to undertake that task.(3) The PICC program is not funded by my Department. I am, therefore, unable to provide a response to this question.(4) There have been two instances in the past seven months in which claims of unfair dismissal against MRC (Southern Tasmania) have been heard by the Tasmanian Industrial Relations Commission. One case was initially settled outside of the Commission, but has recently been renewed by the complainant. The other case is the subject of an appeal by the MRC (see also the response to question 6 below).(5) My Department is committed to ensuring that this MRC and all core funded MRCs and Migrant Service Agencies (MSAs) meet the minimum standards of employment as prescribed by the agreements that are entered into between my Department and those agencies. The Service Agreement signed between my Department and MRC (Southern Tasmania) requires that workers are employed at a salary commensurate with the skills and qualifications required for the delivery of the work program and in line with relevant legislation. All funded agencies are expected to abide by that requirement. To assist funded organisations to meet these management responsibilities my Department provides training for Management Committees, and in this case is represented on the Management Committee of MRC (Southern Tasmania) in an ex-officio capacity. Ultimate legal responsibility for employment matters rests with the funded organisation.(6) I am advised that the Management Committee of MRC (Southern Tasmania) appealed the decision of Commissioner Abbey of the Industrial Relations Commission because the decision stipulated that the date for Mrs Adamson to return to work should be 12 June 2001. I am advised that the Management Committee believed that this was too soon for an effective reintegration plan to be put in place for her return and that the MRC needed further time to arrange that process. I am also advised that the MRC is nonetheless committed to Mrs Adamson being returned to work at the MRC and is facilitating that process as soon as practicable.29265(Question No. 2707)270729265Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 June 2001:(1) With respect to agreement/s entered into by the Commonwealth Government in relation to the financing of the Alice Springs to Darwin railway, what are the final financial commitments and arrangements for those commitments for the South Australian, Northern Territory and Commonwealth Governments and the private sector.(2) Is this the final financial contribution of the Commonwealth Government to this project.(3) Is there any reference in the final financial agreement that would enable a further call on the Commonwealth for additional funding; if so what is it.(4) Is the Commonwealth committed, or likely to be called to commit, to any other type of contribution to this project; if so, what are the details. 29266Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) (2) and (3)—The agreements entered into by the Commonwealth allow for the provision of Commonwealth funds of up to $191.4m in the form of a grant. $20.05m of this total is being provided on a stand-by basis.The Northern Territory Government has advised that it is providing financial support of $191.4m to the project and the Government of South Australia has advised it is providing $176.4m. The Commonwealth is not party to agreements relating to financing provided by South Australia, the Northern Territory or the private sector.The Northern Territory Government has provided an assurance that there will be no further claims for Commonwealth support for the project and a statement to this effect has been included in the final financial arrangement.(4) The Commonwealth has entered into a long-term peppercorn lease of the existing line between Tarcoola and Alice Springs to the consortium building the railway.29266(Question No. 2708)270829266Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 20 June 2001:(1) How many persons, by country of citizenship, have been (a) granted and (b) refused a (TPV) since their introduction.(2) In considering requests for TPVs, has his Department gathered information on what is the expected number of people who would seek to come to Australia under existing family reunion arrangements if they were extended to TPVs; if so, what are the projections by country of citizenship for those (a) granted and (b) not yet granted TPVs.29266Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Since the introduction of the TPV on 20 October 1999 to 31 May 2001, there have been 5,093 TPV grants and 843 refusals. A summary of TPV grants by nationality is at Table A below and TPV refusals by nationality at Table B below.(2) Information on the number and type of family members offshore for each TPV applicant is captured by the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) at the individual case level. DIMA systems changes to be introduced later this year will enable precise aggregated information to be gathered on the potential family member sponsorship flow-on from TPV holders. Conservative estimates of an average of two family unit members offshore for each TPV holder would lead to a potential exposure of up to 10,186 family sponsorship applications flowing from existing TPV holders, provided that those TPV holders were successful in gaining permanent residence at the end of their TPV period.Each protection visa application is individually assessed on its merits and volumes of TPV decisions will depend on the rate of future unauthorised arrivals. If unauthorised arrivals arrive at a rate of 458 per month in 2001-2002, at historical nationality composition and approval rates, there would be some 4,122 TPV approvals flowing from the unauthorised arrivals in that year.TABLE ATotal TPV Grants - 1 November 1999 to 31 May 2001By Citizenship CitizenshipPersonsAFGHANISTAN2157ALBANIA3ALGERIA6ANGOLA1BAHRAIN2BULGARIA1CANADA2CHINA (SO STATED)1CHINA, PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF1EGYPT, ARAB REPUBLIC OF1INDIA1IRAN207IRAQ2469JORDAN4KOREA, DEM PEOPLES REP OF1KUWAIT13LEBANON4MOROCCO1PAKISTAN9PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY43SAUDI ARABIA1SOMALIA7SRI LANKA64STATELESS52SUDAN1SYRIA18TURKEY23Total5093TABLE BTotal TPV Refusals - 1 November 1999 to 31 May 2001By Citizenship CitizenshipPersonsAFGHANISTAN101ALBANIA5ALGERIA9ARMENIA1BANGLADESH19BRITISH NATIONAL OVERSEAS1BURMA2CAMBODIA, THE KINGDOM OF1CHILE1CHINA (SO STATED)18CHINA, PEOPLES REPUBLIC OF157COMOROS2CONGO1EGYPT, ARAB REPUBLIC OF3ETHIOPIA1FIJI1GHANA3INDIA11INDONESIA1IRAN233IRAQ87JORDAN1KENYA1KOREA, DEM PEOPLES REP OF2KOREA, REPUBLIC OF1KUWAIT3LEBANON6LIBERIA1LIBYA1MALAYSIA2MOLDOVA3MOROCCO5MOZAMBIQUE1NEPAL1NIGERIA14OMAN1PAKISTAN16PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY44PHILIPPINES1ROMANIA4RWANDA4SAUDI ARABIA1SIERRA LEONE3SINGAPORE1SOMALIA7SRI LANKA7STATELESS8SUDAN1SYRIA10TANZANIA1TUNISIA2TURKEY17UGANDA1UNKNOWN4YEMEN3YUGOSLAVIA, FED REPUBLIC OF7Total84329269(Question No. 2709)270929269Melham, Daryl, MPMr Melham4T4BanksALP00 asked the Minister for Sport and Tourism, upon notice, on 20 June 2001:What steps has Australia taken to implement the Declaration on Leisure and Globalisation adopted at the 5th World Leisure Congress in Sao Paulo in October 1998.29269Kelly, Jackie, MPMiss Jackie KellyGK6LindsayLPMinister for Sport and Tourism10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:This Government is encouraging Australians to take advantage of their leisure time and increase their participation in sport or simply take a break.On the 24th April 2001 the Government announced its new policy for Australian sport, `Backing Australia's Sporting Ability - A More Active Australia', which included a package of $82 million over four years - an increase of $32 million - to significantly increase the numbers of Australians playing sport at the local club and school participation level.The Government has also set a new benchmark for industry partnerships through the `See Australia' program which encourages more Australians to take a `home-grown' holiday.This campaign, which is jointly funded by Commonwealth, State and Territory governments and the industry, is based on solid research into what motivates Australians in making their travel choices and serves as a reminder for Australians to take a break.29269(Question No. 2711)271129269Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 June 2001:(1) Has the production commencement date of early 2000 for the Australian Defence Industries (ADI) Bushmaster contract at ADI's Bendigo facility been changed initially to 2001 and then further postponed to 2003. (2) Are job redundancies at the Bendigo plant likely because of the delay in commencing production.(3) What is the reason for the delay.(4) When will production of the Bushmaster armoured personnel carrier commence.29269Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's questions is as follows:(1) The Bushranger contract, signed in May 1999, required ADI to commence delivery of production vehicles in July 2000. However, the Department's evaluation of the prototype Bushmaster vehicle, delivered in April 2000, identified a number of technical shortfalls that require rectification before the design can be finalised. Consequently, approval to commence production has not yet been granted. We expect to agree a revised production schedule by December this year. (2) The Department is not aware of the number of job redundancies, if any, intended at ADI's Bendigo plant and the question should be addressed to the company.(3) The delay in commencing production is due to technical shortfalls in the vehicle prototype. (4) Subject to the successful conclusion of negotiations on the way ahead to rectify the vehicle shortfalls and further evaluation of another prototype, series production is expected to commence in late 2003.29269(Question No. 2714)271429269Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 20 June 2001:(1) Further to part (7) of the reply to question No. 2477, Hansard, 7 June 2001 page 27665, by what criteria has the Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) been very successful in sharing the noise.(2) Is the aggregate movements of aircraft to the north of Sydney Airport still approximately 27.3%.(3) Is the LTOP for Sydney Airport forecast for movements to the north 17%.(4) Are there approximately 60% more movements to the north of Sydney Airport than forecast in the LTOP.(5) Further to part (10) of the reply to question No. 2477, is he aware of the minutes of the Sydney Airport Community Forum, including various resolutions requesting project scheduling for the implementation of the LTOP and requests for discrete start and end dates for the implementation of the LTOP. (6) Has Airservices Australia given him or any other person reasons why the LTOP has not been fully implemented; if so, what are those reasons.(7) Will he table a copy of those reasons in the House.(8) Will he request from Airservices Australia a date when it expects the full implementation of the LTOP to be complete; if so, when will he make this request.(9) Further to part (12) of the reply to question No. 2477, did the environmental impact statement on Sydney West Airport undertaken in 1996, consider the do nothing option of no Sydney West Airport being built.(10) In light of the leasing of Sydney Airport without the existence of Sydney West Airport, has a genuine environmental impact statement considered the foreshadowed environmental impact.(11) Is there is no satisfactory solution to the current aircraft noise problem in Sydney.(12) Further to part (15) of the reply to question No. 2477, does the Governments announcement of 13 December 2000 to use Bankstown Airport as an overflow airport mean that Sydney and Bankstown Airports are too close for their intended use; if not, why not.29270Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) has been very successful in reducing overflights of those areas to the north of the Airport which were the most severely affected communities under the previous Government's operating regime.The Plan has brought about an approximate 40% reduction in the number of landings from the north compared to the arrangements in place under the previous Labor Government. By opening the east-west runway it is now possible to rotate the runways in use so that areas are given a break from aircraft noise for at least some periods on most days. Prior to March 1996 all aircraft taking off to the north had to use the main runway and travel to the Parramatta River before turning towards their destination. Under LTOP departures to the north are shared between the two parallel runways and almost all aircraft taking off from the main north-south runway turn toward the north-west before reaching the Parramatta River so that, as far as possible, areas receiving noise from aircraft arriving from the north gain respite when aircraft are taking off to the north.(2) For the year 2001, the aggregate movements of aircraft to the north of Sydney Airport up until 31 May is 29.4%.(3) and(4) I refer the Honourable Member to my answer to part (1) of question No. 2600.(5) The Chair of the Sydney Airport Community Forum writes to me following every meeting of the Forum to report on the actions and resolutions.(6) and (7) The Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) has been substantially implemented with the exception of a small number of elements. For example, the restructuring of the arrival airspace has yet to be implemented. This includes implementation of the “trident” and “power-off” approaches. A number of complexities associated with safety and operational constraints have impinged on the implementation of this part of the Plan.(8) Airservices Australia has indicated that work on the implementation of LTOP is continuing.(9) and (10) The Supplement to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Second Sydney Airport Proposal, which was released in 1999, addressed the “Do Nothing” option.(11) I refer the Honourable Member to my answer to part (7) of question No. 2477.(12) No. I refer the Honourable Member to my answer to part (16) of question No. 2477.29270(Question No. 2717)271729270Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 20 June 2001:(1) Further to his reply to part (2) of my question No 2545, through what multilateral channels is further humanitarian assistance to North Korea being considered. (2) When will the Government's consideration to provide further humanitarian assistance to North Korea be finalised. 29271Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answers to the honourable member's questions are as follows:(1) Australia will provide humanitarian assistance to North Korea through those multilateral organisations that are operating in DPRK such as the World Food Programme and UNICEF.(2) On the 28th June I announced the provision of further $5 million for the purchase of Australian wheat to be distributed through the World Food Programme's emergency food operation. Australia will also continue to provide training in high priority areas through UNICEF.29271(Question No. 2718)271829271Horne, Bob, MPMr HorneUU5PatersonALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 20 June 2001:(1) Was the expected revenue from the sale of Stockton Rifle Range included in forward asset sales by his Department in the 2001 Budget.(2) What value was attributed to the Stockton Rifle Range.(3) How was the value determined.(4) Are there any conditions related to usage that will apply to a purchase.29271Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The revenue from the sale of the Stockton Rifle Range has been programmed for receipt in the 2001-02 financial year.(2) The value of the Stockton Rifle Range has been ascertained from an independent valuation conducted by the Australian Valuation Office (AVO) in May 1998. The AVO placed a market value of $630,000 at that time.(3) The valuation was determined on the basis of the continued use of the property as a rifle range.(4) The usage of the property would be subject to local planning requirements administered by the Port Stephens Council.29271(Question No. 2720)272029271Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:(1) On what date did the Australian Training Support Team - East Timor (ATST-EM) commence operations.(2) How many service men and women are currently serving with ATST-ET and to whom does the Team report.(3) Do the condition of service for Australian Defence Force (ADF) personnel serving with ATST-EM differ from those applying to all other ADF personnel serving in East Timor; if so, what are the details and the reason for the different treatment.(4) In what sector of East Timor does the Team operate and who is responsible for the provision of security for it.29271Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 7 personnel assigned to the Australian Training Support Team - East Timor (ATST-ET) commenced the provision of training support in Aileu on 26 February 2001.(2) The Team is currently comprised of 24 personnel. The officer commanding the team reports directly to:· the Defence Liaison Officer in Dili for matters concerning the delivery of the defence cooperation program; and · the Commander Australian Contingent - East Timor for matters specific to security, ADF personnel and discipline.(3) The tasks being performed by the members of the ATST-EM are training support activities and are considered `peacetime' in nature. It is not possible to arm members of the ATST-EM because they are not part of the United Nations Peacekeeping operation. Accordingly the `peacetime' long-term conditions of service package applies to the team, as it does to all other ADF personnel serving in East Timor under similar circumstances. ADF members serving with the United Nations Administration in East Timor (UNTAET) are armed and tasked with enforcing peace. Accordingly they have been approved to receive `warlike' conditions of service in recognition of the warlike nature of the tasks on which they are engaged. (4) The Team is located in Sector Central. The Portuguese contingent of the United Nations Peacekeeping Force is responsible for the provision of security in Sector Central.29272(Question No. 2721)272129272Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:(1) When did the bids close for the market testing process for the Australian Defence Force Explosive Ordnance Storage, Maintenance and Distribution Project.(2) Did the Government advise the Parliament at various times that the market testing process would be completed by (a) November 1999, (b) June 2000 and (c) December 2000.(3) On what date was the market testing process actually completed and what was the cause of the delay.(4) How many (a) positions and (b) separate ordnance sites were subject to the market testing process and (c) what was the cost of maintaining the existing system in 2000-2001.(5) How many (a) positions and (b) separate ordnance sites has the successful tenderer agreed to continue to operate and what is the expected cost of the new system in 2000-2002. (6) If any ordnance sites are to be closed, what are the details.29272Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) 26 November 1999.(2) Yes.(3) A submission was forwarded to the Minister for Defence on 19 May 2000 and the Preferred Tenderer was announced on 28 November 2000. There was some delay in the Project due to the need to resolve operational and safety issues. Further delay was caused when project staff were diverted to negotiating an ammunition supply contract linked to the sale of ADI.(4) (a) 98 military and 203 civilian manpower positions. (b) 18 sites were included in the scope of the project. (c) The cost of maintaining the existing system in Financial Year 2000-2001 was $32 million. (5) (a) 150 positions. (b) 16 sites. (c) The contract is $22 million per annum plus one off implementation costs for Financial Year 2001/2002 of $9 million. Total costs for Financial Year 2001/2002 are estimated at $31 million.(6) One site, Somerton Victoria will be closed.29272(Question No. 2725)272529272Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:Does the Government currently have any plans to sell ABC Radio Station JJJ; if so, what are those plans; if not what is the Government's long term position regarding public ownership of Triple J.29272McGauran, 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:Decisions relating to the sale of assets or property of the ABC are a matter for the ABC Board and Executive. The ABC has advised that it has no plans to sell any of its radio networks.29273(Question No. 2726)272629273Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister representing the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:(1) Why has the Government, through the Networking the Nation program, made funds available to the NSW State Library to finance the installation of broadband internet access in up to 90 districts without any consultation with existing commercial internet service providers (ISPs) in those districts.(2) Is the Government concerned that Networking the Nation staff have advised at least one regional ISP not to invest in broadband technology such as duplex satellite and wireless as the State Library of NSW will be providing broadband in direct competition with the local ISP; if so, what action will be taken; if not, why not.(3) Does the Government condone the use of Networking the Nation funding to establish services which directly impact on the future viability and expansion of legitimate regional, commercial operators; if so, why; if not, why not.29273McGauran, 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 independent Board of the Networking the Nation (NTN) program approved $4,990,000 for the NSW State Library's Rural Link project in the November 2000 funding round, on the basis that this would provide broadband access to 90 or so smaller rural communities across NSW considerably sooner and more economically than would be the case if left to normal commercial developments. The NTN approval was subject to the project being tendered out, the bandwidth being made available to other interested service providers, including ISPs, on a reasonable wholesale basis, and that the successful tenderer/s would not provide internet access on a retail basis to the general public, in other words they would not be in competition with commercial service providers. (2) Networking the Nation's advice to the local ISP was that the State Library project provided another option for the ISP to obtain wholesale broadband connectivity and the ISP may wish to consult the State Library directly, to explore the opportunities for economical wholesale access to broadband through the State Library process. The ISP was further advised that the approval of the State Library project was subject to the successful tenderer/s, firstly, not being able to retail internet access beyond a very limited, clearly defined group of potential users and certainly not to the general public and, secondly, that any `excess' bandwidth was to be made available on a reasonable wholesale basis to any interested other service providers, including ISPs, for them to retail to the general community. The ISP should not have gained the impression that the State Library project would directly compete with them in providing ISP or broadband services to the general public.(3) This Networking the Nation project does not adversely affect the viability and expansion of commercial providers. It does not compete in the provision of internet access to the general public. Indeed, it is expected to offer commercial providers significant benefits through provision of access, on reasonable wholesale terms, to enhanced bandwidth that they can then provide to the public on normal commercial terms.29273(Question No. 2729)272929273Andren, Peter, MPMr AndrenKL6CalareIND00 asked the Minister for Community Services, upon notice, on 21 June 2001: (1) How does Centrelink calculate preclusion periods for people in receipt of lump sum compensation payments for workplace or other injuries.(2) Is he aware of the concerns of some compensation recipients that the method of calculating their preclusion periods does not take into account subsequent increases in the `income cut out amount' used to determine the length of their preclusion periods.(3) Does the method of calculating preclusion periods disproportionately disadvantage clients with larger payments; if not why not.(4) Will the Government consider amending the method of calculating compensation preclusion periods to take into account increases in the income cut out amounts occurring after the award of a lump sum compensation payment; if not, why not. 29274Anthony, Larry, MPMr AnthonyXJ6RichmondNPMinister for Community Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) A preclusion period is calculated using one of the following methods:· Settlements - When a matter settles by consent, 50 per cent of the gross settlement amount is taken to be in respect of economic loss. This amount is divided by the single person income cut off amount for pensions applying at the time the lump sum is received and the resultant number is the number of weeks in the preclusion period; or· Judgements - When a matter is finalised after a contested hearing, the judgement is examined to determine the total amount awarded to economic loss. The economic loss component is divided by the single person income cut off amount for pensions applying at the time the lump sum is received. The resultant number is the number of weeks in the preclusion period. (2) Yes, this matter has been considered. However, it has been the view of successive Commonwealth governments that the primary responsibility for the support of people who are injured because of a compensable injury lies with the relevant State or Territory compensation scheme, and not with taxpayer funded social security programs. As such, it is the responsibility of compensation schemes to ensure that compensation recipients are adequately compensated for increases in the cost of living. It should also be noted that the divisor applying as at 30 June 2001 assumes that a person affected by a preclusion period would be able to support themselves on around $29 000 per annum. This is approximately three times the amount a person in receipt of Newstart Allowance would be entitled to. (3) No, the formula used by Centrelink to calculate the preclusion period takes into account the compensation recipient's economic loss and so proportionally, all lump sum compensation payments are treated equally.It should also be noted that the vast majority of compensation recipients serve relatively short preclusion periods. 80 per cent of the lump sum compensation recipients who commenced a social security payment in May 2001 served a preclusion period of less than two years (50 per cent less than one year).(4) No, refer (2) above.If people receiving compensation are in financial hardship, the Social Security Act provides for some or all of a compensation payment to be disregarded. This means that preclusion periods can be reduced or negated where special circumstances exist.29274(Question No. 2732)273229274Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:What was the total number of employees at Australian Defence Industries (ADI) Bendigo and what total amount in salaries and wages was paid to them (a) when the Government gained office in 1996 and (b) immediately prior to ADI Bendigo and ADI Australia being sold.29274Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) and (b) Although ADI was Commonwealth owned, the company was operated by an independent Board of Directors. Shareholder Ministers, including the Minister for Defence, were not involved in the day to day running of the company. There were no legal policy or administrative requirements for ADI to provide detailed information of this kind to the Government and it is not available in the department. This information should be sought directly from ADI.29274(Question No. 2733)273329274Gibbons, Steve, MPMr Gibbons83XBendigoALP00 asked the Minister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:(1) In what amounts, on what dates, and from what sources did the Government forward funds to the City of Greater Bendigo pursuant to the promise made by the Coalition parties during the 1996 election to pay $2 million towards the cost of redeveloping the Bendigo Art Gallery. (2) Did the then Minister for the Arts, Senator Alston, state before the 1998 election that a cheque for $2 million was as good as in the post.(3) In what amounts and at what dates has the Government forwarded funds to the City of Greater Bendigo pursuant to its decision to redirect the $2 million to the further development of the Bendigo Regional Arts Centre.(4) By what date does it plan to have paid the final payment for this purpose to the City of Greater Bendigo.29275McGauran, Peter, MPMr McGauranXH4GippslandNPMinister for the Arts and the Centenary of Federation10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1)-(4) The Government was to provide $2 million to the Bendigo Art Gallery but when it became clear that the money was not required for the Art Gallery it was directed to the Bendigo Regional Arts Centre. A Deed of Grant for the Bendigo Regional Arts Centre was executed and signed on 29 May 2001. An initial payment of $200,000 was released within 28 days of signing. Gradual payments will be made on achievement of key milestones. In accordance with the Deed of Grant and agreed milestones advised by the Council, the final grant instalment of $200,000 should be made by 30 September 2002. 29275(Question No. 2738)273829275Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:(1) Is he aware of the existence of an isolation cell at Port Hedland Immigration Detention Centre.(2) Is this cell used for all new asylum-seekers that have arrived by boat, who are forced to stay there until their first interview with immigration officials.(3) Is he aware that one detainee had to wait for 16 months in isolation before his first interview, and several detainees had to wait for 7 months.(4) What is the reason for these long periods of isolation before even the first interview is granted to asylum-seekers.(5) Will he abolish this practice of isolation immediately.29275Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No, there is no isolation cell at Port Hedland Immigration Reception and Processing Centre (IRPC), or any immigration detention facility. However, there are three observation rooms at Port Hedland IRPC. These are not used for recent arrivals, but to monitor detainees who require close supervision for medical reasons or who are at risk of self-harm.(2) No, as I have just stated, isolation cells do not exist at Port Hedland IRPC, or any other immigration detention facility. However, all new unauthorised arrivals at Port Hedland IRPC are placed in accommodation that is separate from the established detention population. This is known as separation detention. At Port Hedland IRPC detainees in separation are accommodated in standard accommodation blocks which are in a separate area of the detention centre. The accommodation in these blocks is the same as in the rest of the centre i.e: small dormitory style accommodation. Detainees in separation detention are able to mix with the group with which they arrived, but not with the established detainee population in the main compound. Separation detention is maintained throughout initial entry processing.(3) All persons taken into detention are interviewed. These interviews are usually conducted within 2-14 days of arrival. I am not aware that any detainee had to wait up to 7 or 16 months for an initial interview. Detainees may continue in separation detention after their initial interview if they have not made claims, which prima facie, may engage Australia's protection obligations. They are therefore available for removal.(4) As stated earlier, all new arrivals to Port Hedland IRPC, or any other IRPC, have an initial entry interview with my Departmental officers soon after their arrival. This usually takes place between 2-14 days after arrival at the immigration detention facility. Detainees are in separation detention, not isolation during initial entry processing. (5) As previously stated, isolation cells do not exist. There is also no plan to abolish the current practice of separation detention. To do so would compromise the integrity of the protection visa process. Separation detention ensures that Australia's resources are directed at those with genuine claims for protection and not those who would use the protection process in an attempt to achieve migration outcomes.29276(Question No. 2739)273929276Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:(1) Have a detainee and his wife been removed from Port Hedland Immigration Detention Centre and held in custody while their two young children remain at Port Hedland.(2) Does he support such separation of family units.(3) Will he ensure that the two young children are immediately released into the care of relevant child welfare bodies until the future of their parents is determined.29276Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) A married couple who had been detained at Port Hedland Immigration Reception and Processing Centre (IRPC) has been removed from the detention facility and placed in custody. The father is facing a charge of `threatening a Commonwealth Officer' and is currently being held at Hakea Prison. He is also facing a prior charge of people smuggling. The mother is facing charges of `threatening a Commonwealth officer' and `inciting', and is currently being held at Bandyup Women's Prison. Two of their sons, aged 15 and 17 years were also charged with `threatening a Commonwealth officer' and were dealt with by the Perth Children's Court. They were subsequently bailed to the Perth Immigration Detention Centre (IDC) pending the outcome of their parents' matters. Two younger children, aged 6 and 10 years, remain in the care of Port Hedland IRPC. (2) As a general policy my Department tries to keep families together, however, given the seriousness of the charges against the parents it was not possible in this case. Appropriate care arrangements have been in place for the two younger children being held at Port Hedland IRPC. Australasian Correctional Management's (ACM) child protection officer, in consultation with the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS), arranged and monitored their care with female ACM officers and a female counsellor. Arrangements included placement of the two children with appropriate adult detainees willing to take a care and custody role in relation to the children.Contact visits with their parents have been facilitated for all four children.(3) The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs has been liaising with FACS regarding the management of this family. All decisions have been and will continue to be made in consultation with FACS and ACM. At this point it has not been deemed necessary to place the two younger children into the care of child welfare agencies.29276(Question No. 2740)274029276Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 21 June 2001:(1) Will he investigate allegations relating to Port Hedland Immigration Detention Centre that (a) many detainees, upon visiting the medical centre to receive relief from various afflictions, are told to drink ten or twenty glasses of water instead of receiving any reasonable medical attention, (b) during the police raid on Port Hedland on 26 May, several ACM staff destroyed artwork produced by women and children detainees by painting large swastikas over their artwork, (c) an entire family was locked for 50 days in Juliet Block with 15 others, and given only a plastic bag to tie around their waists, as there was no toilet, (d) a particular ACM guard at the Centre has been continually responsible for flagrant abuses of the basic rights of detainees, including racist taunts, bashings and constant torments and (e) two detainees have complained three times about the abuse they receive by this guard, but no action has taken place. (2) Is he aware that many detainees from Port Hedland now being held in Hakea Prison showed physical evidence of inhumane treatment against them, including scars and bruises from bashings and handcuffs being put on so tight as to cut through the skin.29277Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) An established complaints mechanism exists at each centre which allows detainees to make formal and informal complaints to detention centre management, to officers of my Department as well as to independent investigative bodies such as the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and the Commonwealth Ombudsman's Office.Please be assured that both myself and my Department take seriously all allegations of mistreatment towards immigration detainees. All allegations are fully investigated. If they are substantiated then appropriate action is taken.(a) Any person who presents themselves to medical staff with a complaint or condition is fully investigated and appropriate treatment is prescribed.Dehydration is a common condition suffered by people in the detention community at the Port Hedland Immigration Reception and Processing Centre (IRPC). If not addressed serious health problems can occur. Maintaining high water consumption can help to prevent these conditions. Therefore, as part of an education and management program, detainees are always encouraged to maintain a high level of fluid intake.(b) I have been advised by Australasian Correctional Management (ACM) that an internal investigation into this matter has been completed. This investigation was based on allegations raised against two Detention Officers. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated.(c) In late July 2000, Juliet Block was used to accommodate three families who were transferred from the Villawood Immigration Detention Centre. The longest time spent in this accommodation block by any of these families was 33 days. Functioning toilet and ablution facilities were present in Juliet Block when it was used to accommodate detainees. Juliet Block has not been used to accommodate detainees since early February 2001, because it is being refurbished as part of an ongoing program.(d) Without specific information my Department is unable to check these allegations. Neither the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (DIMA) nor ACM is aware of the allegations referred to in this part of the question.(e) As mentioned earlier allegations without adequate detail are difficult to respond to. However, I have been advised that on 1 June 2001, ACM received a complaint from a detainee alleging improper behaviour of a Detention Officer during the operation on 26 May 2001. ACM's internal investigation into the matter, which concluded on 4 June 2001, found that the specific allegations could not be substantiated.(2) I have received advice from Hakea Prison which indicates that no detainees exhibited any evidence of being bashed, bruised or scarred as a result of treatment received prior to their arrival at Hakea Prison.I am advised that handcuffs were applied to the detainees by the Australian Federal Police in preparation for their transfer to Hakea Prison. This was carried out in accordance with standard police procedure which stipulates that handcuffs be applied in order to allow a space of one finger width between cuff and wrist.29277(Question No. 2750)275029277Hollis, Colin, MPMr HollisDH4ThrosbyALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 26 June 2001:Further to the Summary of Facilities, Services and Activities Available to Detainees, dated 14 June 2001 and distributed to all Federal Members of Parliament, (a) is he able to say what Afghani cricket is and how it is played and (b) what is Aussie dingo - bazey dabelna.29277Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(a) “Afghani” cricket is a game played by detainees last summer at Woomera Immigration Reception and Processing Centre and is a combination of cricket and baseball. The object of the game is to score as many runs as possible. A tennis ball is pitched as in baseball, to the person batting; the bat is approximately the same size and shape as a cricket bat. When the batter hits the ball he is to run around the outside of the field, touching at least one of several bases as he goes, if necessary the runner can wait on one of the bases until the next person bats. One person at a time is permitted on the bases; once another batter hits the ball and runs, the previous runner must run for home base. The fielders can get a runner out by throwing the tennis ball at him; the ball must make contact with the runner for him to be out. (b) Aussie dingo is, in fact, Australian slang for bingo. Bazey dabelna is the Arabic translation. Bingo is very popular in the centre and is played for soft drinks, chips and the like.29278(Question No. 2752)275229278Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs, upon notice, 26 June 2001:(1) Are there a number of student vacancies at the various Colleges of Nursing throughout Australia; if so, (a) what is the number of those vacancies and (b) where are those vacancies located.(2) Would the abolition of the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) for student nurses increase the number of enrolments of student nurses at the Australian Colleges of Nursing; if not, why not.(3) Will he consider abolishing HECS payments for student nurses.29278Kemp, Dr David, MPDr KempBT4GoldsteinLPMinister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Colleges of Nursing are not in receipt of Commonwealth operating grants under the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 and do not offer HECS liable courses. Since 1994 pre-registration nursing training has been provided by universities. Universities themselves are responsible for deciding the number of places offered in each discipline each year. The Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs (DETYA) does not have data on the number of offers made by individual universities nor the number of places universities set aside for nursing in any given year. However, through Profiles discussions, the Department is aware that some institutions are having difficulty attracting students who meet the necessary academic standards into nursing courses.(2) Previous studies on the impact of HECS have concluded that the Scheme does not appear to have had a significant effect on applications, particularly from school leavers, or on choice of discipline. However, these studies have not focussed on nursing students specifically.(3) The National Review of Nursing Education, announced in April 2001, will make recommendations on mechanisms for both attracting new recruits to nursing including those from different age groups (both male and female), and encouraging a commitment to life-long learning by those already engaged in nursing. The Review will report in early 2002. The Government will consider the recommendations from the Review, including any it may make about the impact of HECS on nursing.29278(Question No. 2768)276829278Albanese, Anthony, MPMr AlbaneseR36GrayndlerALP00 asked the Minister for Transport and Regional Services, upon notice, on 27 June 2001:(1) Has he replied to correspondence sent to him on 25 February from Michael McGuirk, Chair of Fort Street High School Council, regarding insulation for Fort Street High School: if not, why not?(2) Will the Government agree to insulate Fort Street High School from aircraft noise?29278Anderson, John, MPMr Anderson4K4GwydirNPMinister for Transport and Regional Services10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. The reply from my Office was signed on 19 March 2001.(2) No. Fort Street High School does not qualify for insulation under long standing eligibility criteria for the insulation program set by the previous Labor Government.29279(Question No. 2771)277129279Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 June 2001:(1) Further to the answer to question No. 2413 (Hansard 27 November 1997, page 11589), did the then Minister for Defence expect the Heritage Assessment of Ingleburn Army Camp to be completed by December 1997.(2) When was the Heritage Assessment completed.(3) What do the results of the Heritage Assessment show.(4) What caused the long delay in the completion of the Assessment.(5) What items of heritage significance have been lost due to neglect and vandalism during the period of delay in completing the Heritage Assessment.(6) What action will he and his Department take in implementing the results of the Heritage Assessment.(7) Will he now review the process of heritage assessment by his Department to avoid circumstances, in which (a) his Department is planning to develop one of its sites, such as Ingleburn, for commercial purposes, (b) the elimination of heritage items on the site potentially increases the commercial development value of the site and (c) as a consequence, his Department has a conflict of interest between its commercial objectives and its heritage responsibilities.29279Reith, Peter, MPMr ReithWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Yes. (2) June 2001.(3) The Heritage Assessment provides a definitive understanding of the heritage values of the site concluding with recommendations for effective heritage management during disposal planning process. The Assessment analyses the activities of the former Camp concluding that, in many areas, the social and cultural history is of more importance than the architectural values. Existing significant items of heritage include the Cumberland Plain vegetation, the Bardia entry gates and associated guardhouse, memorials, the Mont St Quentin oval and adjacent trees along Campbelltown Road. The Assessment recommends these and some other items be nominated for inclusion on the Register of the National Estate. (4) The delay in completing the Assessment resulted from the need to undertake additional complementary studies including a social values assessment, economic and re-use options assessment of existing dwellings to determine feasible and prudent alternatives. These studies continued through until 2001 and their outcomes are incorporated into the Heritage Assessment. Some of the delay was also attributable to the detailed planning of the Military Heritage Precinct in consultation with the ex-service community. (5) The former Theatre building, identified as having heritage value, was burnt down by vandals in December 1999 after additional fencing had been installed to deter unauthorised access.(6) The Assessment will guide future land use planning and management with the Department of Defence recently initiating steps to implement all of the recommendations of the Heritage Assessment. It is also proposed that large areas of Cumberland Plain Woodland will be nominated for listing on the Register of the National Estate as well as that discrete portion of the site, which now accommodates the Military Heritage Precinct. The Precinct will include items of built heritage significance and a representative selection of standard military buildings. (7) Like all landowners, Defence does have to address a range of issues regarding its surplus properties. The Department is also required to comply with legislation and Government policies protecting the heritage and environmental qualities of all of its properties. Qualified consultants undertake any necessary studies. Furthermore, Defence does not act unilaterally in relation to future land use and works closely with State and local planning authorities. 29279(Question No. 2775)277529279McFarlane, Jann, MPMs Jann McFarlane83CStirlingALP00 asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, upon notice, on 27 June 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the plight of the communities in Southern Sudan and an innovative program devised by and for the people of that war zone to rebuild their communities, which includes a wish to establish an AM broadcasting services to transmit in 16 main languages programs dealing with sanitation and sterilisation of drinking water, AIDS, family planning, primary health care, peace and reconciliation, education and self-reliance through income generating activities. (2) Has his attention also been drawn to the alleged manipulation of the Operation Life Line Sudan aid by the Khartoum regime.(3) Has he or his Department been approached to join with the US in providing independent aid to Southern Sudan.(4) What measures is the Government willing to take to assist with this example of an abused community developing practical strategies to solve social and economic problems.29280Downer, Alexander, MPMr Downer4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) AusAID and Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade officers have been made aware of the proposal by communities in Southern Sudan to establish an AM broadcasting service. This proposal mirrors a number of similar initiatives already underway by the international community. The National Sudan Council of Churches is being funded by Pax Christi (a group of Churches from the Netherlands in collaboration with a Dutch broadcasting organisation). To date 2000 radios have been provided in Southern Sudan through their “Radio Voice for Hope Project”. UNICEF are also proposing a similar project using satellite links to broadcast radio messages and in southern Sudan.(2) Although allegations of manipulation of OLS by all of the parties to the conflict emerge from time to time, the international community is maintaining the integrity of Operation Lifeline Sudan (OLS). The Government of Sudan and the rebel Sudan People's Liberation Movement are both signatories to the OLS agreements on access to beneficiary civilian populations, along with the United Nations as the third party. OLS provides aid on a purely humanitarian basis. There have been no proven allegations of manipulation by the Government of Sudan. We will continue to work to ensure the effective delivery of humanitarian assistance. (3) All Australian assistance to southern Sudan is given on humanitarian grounds. All aid has either been channelled through Australian NGOs operating in the region or United Nations agencies such as UNICEF and the World Food Programme. Australia has not been approached to join with the US in providing humanitarian aid to southern Sudan.(4) Sudan has consistently been one of the largest recipients of Australian humanitarian relief. Since March 1996, Australia has provided over $17 million in humanitarian assistance to Sudan through Australian non-government organisations, international agencies and the World Food Programme. While Australia recognises the needs created by this ongoing complex emergency, there are many calls on Australia's funds. Due to the pressing humanitarian needs in our own region as a result of the crises in East Timor and the Solomon Islands, as well as the continuing humanitarian impacts of the Asian economic crisis, the focus of Australian aid is necessarily on priorities in the Asia Pacific region. Australia, will however, continue to monitor the situation in Sudan and respond accordingly. 29280(Question No. 2788)278829280Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin FergusonLS4BatmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 28 June 2001: (1) What are the employer's obligations when sponsoring off-shore temporary skilled labour on 457 visas relating to employee rights on (a) workers' compensation policy, (b) superannuation registration, (c) long service leave and (d) wage and tax recognition.(2) Do these temporary visa holders have medical health cover; if so, what are the details; if not, what is available.29280Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) All Australian employers sponsoring offshore employees are required to abide by Australian laws applicable to Australian employees. Conditions of employment are set out in the relevant state or federal legislation, state or federal award, Industry Sector award, collective agreement or Australian Workplace Agreement under which an employee is covered. Temporary residents employed under an award or an agreement are subject to the conditions of that award or agreement. (a) Overseas employees are covered by Australian state or federal workers' compensation legislation. Compensation entitlements may vary from state to state. All persons who work under a contract of service, regardless of their taxpaying or residency status, are eligible for coverage under workers' compensation legislation.(b) Australian sponsors are required to register all overseas employees sponsored under the 457 visa subclass in accordance with Australian superannuation laws and make the appropriate superannuation deductions and payments.(c) Long service leave entitlements set out in relevant legislation, awards or agreements are applicable to all employees covered by the legislation, award or agreement.(d) Sponsors must sign an undertaking to comply with Australian industrial laws and Australian levels of remuneration and conditions of employment, commensurate with any relevant awards and standards. All employees in Australia are subject to Australian taxation legislation. An assessment of the tax status of temporary residents is made by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) under their Residency Tests.The agencies responsible for particular legislation are responsible for investigations and detection of possible breaches and enforcement of their legislation.(2) Temporary Business (Long Stay) visa holders are not entitled to access Medicare. The business sponsor is required to accept financial responsibility for medical and hospital costs incurred in Australia by sponsored persons and their dependents. The sponsor may do this directly, or through medical insurance arrangements.