2001-08-2339110REPS3008702001-08-23—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 9.30 a.m., and read prayers.Bills30087R136430087Bill presented by Mr SPEAKER, and read a first time.3008709:31:0030087SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The bill I have just presented amends the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 in relation to two matters. First, it clarifies mobility arrangements for employees moving between the Parliamentary Service and the Australian Public Service. Second, it corrects drafting omissions to provide for simple transitional arrangements should a parliamentary department be renamed or abolished.The mobility provisions of this bill clarify those in the Parliamentary Service Act which came into effect on 5 December 1999, the same day as the Public Service Act 1999. The amendments proposed have been developed in the light of the operation of both those acts.The key change is to specify that the mobility arrangements apply only to ongoing employees of the Parliamentary Service and the Australian Public Service, and not to non-ongoing employees. This was the original intent of both the parliament and the government when the Parliamentary Service Bill was developed between 1997 and 1999 but was not fully reflected in the ensuing act.I turn now to the detail of the mobility arrangements proposed by this bill.This bill repeals section 26 of the Parliamentary Service Act, and replaces it with new sections 26 and 26A.The new section 26 deals with movement of ongoing employees from one service—the Parliamentary Service or the Australian Public Service—to the other service. The new subsections 26(1) and 26(2) provide that an ongoing employee in one service is eligible for engagement as an ongoing employee in the other service and that engagement decisions are subject to review in accordance with the Public Service Act and the Parliamentary Service Determinations. The new subsection 26(3) provides that a person moving from one service to the other as an ongoing employee retains his or her existing or accrued entitlements relating to annual leave and personal or carer's leave— however that is defined—given that individual agencies no longer have uniform provisions for what were previously identified as sick leave, bereavement leave and special leave.The new subsection 26(4) provides that when an ongoing employee moves from one service to the other, he or she ceases to be an employee of their former service without a requirement for formal resignation.These provisions will be supported by determinations under the Parliamentary Service Act and regulations under the Public Service Act.I take this opportunity to restate the vital importance of unfettered mobility between the two services. Mobility does not mean a right of return to either service; nor does it mean a special treatment for members of either service. Rather it means that ongoing employees of one service can apply and be considered for jobs in the other service as if they were employees of that second service. Such arrangements are of benefit to both services and to their employees. They allow for invigoration of each service and enhanced career paths for employees.From the parliament's perspective, the ability to attract and retain Australian Public Service employees is essential. The work of both houses and of committees would be the poorer without the contribution of Australian Public Service staff who make long-term or short-term moves to work for the parliament. Equally, the experience and skills Parliamentary Service staff take when they move to the Australian Public Service are of significant benefit to that service and to the Australian community.The second area of amendment in this bill deals with the transitional arrangements should a joint parliamentary department be renamed or abolished with its functions conferred on another parliamentary department. These arrangements apply only to the joint parliamentary departments, not to the Department of the House of Representatives or the Department of the Senate, which are created in section 54 of the act and can be abolished or retitled only by an amending act of the parliament. The arrangements proposed by this bill are set out in the proposed sections 54A and 54B.The new subsection 54A(1) provides that the name of a department—other than the Department of the Senate and the Department of the House of Representatives—in the Parliamentary Service can be altered by a resolution passed by each house of Parliament. This process is identical to the process in subsections 54(2) and 54(4) for the creation and abolition of joint departments.The new subsection 54A(2) provides that where the name of a department is so changed, a reference to the former departmental name in a law of the Commonwealth, a contract to which the Commonwealth is a party or in some other instrument of the Commonwealth will be taken as a reference to the new departmental name. This will allow the new department to carry on the business of the formerly named department.The new subsections 54A(3) and 54A(4) provide that, where the name of a department is so changed, employees of the formerly named department (including the secretary) remain employees of the newly named department.The new subsection 54A(5) provides that the terms and conditions of employment of employees (including the secretary) continue unchanged if a department in the Parliamentary Service is renamed.The new subsection 54A(6) provides that, where the name of a department is changed by the resolution of each house of parliament, the functions of the department are not altered unless that resolution specifically so provides.The new section 54B provides that if a department—other than the Department of the Senate and the Department of the House of Representatives—in the Parliamentary Service is abolished and its functions transferred to another department in the Parliamentary Service, a reference to the abolished department in a law of the Commonwealth, a contract to which the Commonwealth is a party or in some other instrument of the Commonwealth will be taken as a reference to the department to which those functions were transferred. This will allow the continuing department to carry on the business of the abolished department.This bill proposes amendments to the Parliamentary Service Act 1999 in the light of experience of the first 18 months of its operation. Members will recall that the Parliamentary Service Act created, for the first time, a parliamentary administration legislatively separate from the Australian Public Service. This was a fundamental milestone for the parliament.This bill builds on that achievement in relation to the parliament's ability to attract suitable employees, to provide them with better career paths and to adjust its own administrative arrangements in an orderly manner.I present the explanatory memorandum and commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Fitzgibbon) adjourned.Bills30088R138930088Bill presented by Mr Reith, and read a first time.3008809:40:0030088Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The object of this bill is to promote the smooth and efficient operation of Commonwealth royal commissions by improving their capacity to provide information to, and obtain information from, other agencies.The Prime Minister recently announced two royal commissions.The royal commission into the failure of the HIH Insurance Group will inquire into the reasons for and circumstances surrounding the failure of HIH. The failure of HIH is believed to be one of the largest corporate collapses in Australia's history. The government has committed $640 million to assist former HIH policyholders who are suffering hardship, and will be introducing legislative amendments to strengthen prudential arrangements for the insurance industry. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission is also investigating whether criminal or civil proceedings should be brought against any person as a result of the failure. The terms of reference for the royal commission require it to cooperate with ASIC's investigation. The royal commission into the building and construction industry will inquire into possible unlawful or otherwise inappropriate practices and conduct in the building and construction industry. The Employment Advocate recently reported significant corrupt conduct and widespread coercive and collusive practices in this industry. Only a royal commission can provide the full and open public inquiry necessary to tackle this culture of intimidation.These are issues of national importance, and the government is committed to ensuring that both royal commissions are able to conduct their inquiries in a timely and effective manner.This bill will contribute to this goal in three ways.Firstly, it will amend section 6P of the Royal Commissions Act 1902 to give royal commissions the power to report information about possible contraventions of the law to the responsible authorities. As currently drafted, the act may only give royal commissions the power to report information regarding possible criminal offences. There are many contraventions of the law, including taxation and corporations laws, which give rise to civil and administrative penalties instead. These contraventions can have a serious impact on the community, and the government believes that royal commissions should be able to report information about them to the responsible authorities. In particular, the royal commission into the failure of the HIH Insurance Group should be able to provide this type of information to ASIC to assist it with its investigation. The bill will give royal commissions this power.Secondly, the bill will amend section 127 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 to allow ASIC to provide confidential and protected information to royal commissions voluntarily. The act already allows ASIC to provide information to various agencies, including state and territory royal commissions. However, it does not allow ASIC to provide information to Commonwealth royal commissions. The government is concerned that this will hinder the royal commission into the failure of HIH in particular, and the bill will remedy this problem.Thirdly, the bill will amend section 27 of the Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 to give royal commissions whose terms of reference involve an inquiry into unlawful conduct access to financial transaction reports information reported to Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre, AUSTRAC. The amendment will allow those commissions to follow the money trail associated with unlawful activities in a similar way to police investigation of unlawful activity. Bodies such as the royal commission into the New South Wales Police Service are already able to access this information, and the government believes that certain Commonwealth royal commissions should be able to access it too. Access by these commissions will be regulated by a memorandum of understanding between the Director of AUSTRAC and the relevant royal commissioner.Finally, the bill will also make a further amendment to section 6P of the Royal Commissions Act to ensure that royal commissions are able to provide information to the Attorney-General of the Australian Capital Territory, along with other Attorneys-General around Australia. This amendment will take account of the fact that the ACT is now a self-governing territory.The government expects that each of these amendments will improve the capacity of royal commissions to discharge the important roles assigned to them, both now and in the future. I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Fitzgibbon) adjourned.Bills30090R138330090Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time.3009009:45:0030090Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001 amends the Migration Act 1958 to allow private sector organisations to provide the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs with information regarding a person's actual or proposed travel to or from Australia.The Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs currently receives travel information from airlines, shipping operators and travel agents.This information is provided to facilitate speedy immigration clearance.This information usually includes a traveller's name, nationality, date of birth, sex, country of birth and flight details.If this information is not provided, there may be significant delays at airport immigration points.Information may also be provided about travel already commenced or completed by the person, including the route taken.The purpose of these amendments is to ensure that private sector organisations can continue to provide this information voluntarily without being in breach of the Privacy Act 1988, once amendments to that act covering private organisations commence on 21 December 2001.From this date, private sector organisations covered by the privacy act will be required to comply with the national privacy principles. These principles include a prohibition on the disclosure of personal information for purposes other than the purpose for which the information was given, unless each person consents to disclosure of their details.Due to the automated information systems used, it is unlikely that every person would be able to give consent to providing DIMA with their travel details. The only viable alternative is to amend the Migration Act to authorise such disclosures.The amendments contained in this bill will expressly authorise the disclosure of travel information to officers under the Migration Act.This will enable private sector organisations to continue to provide this valuable information without breaching the requirements of the Privacy Act.I should like to point out that, while authorising disclosure of travel information, the amendment does not compel organisations to provide this information.In addition to airlines, shipping operators and travel agents, the authorisation will extend to other prescribed organisations.This will allow the flexibility to add other organisations should the need arise.The Attorney-General will be consulted about any proposal to prescribe additional organisations.I emphasise that this bill is intended to facilitate speedier immigration processing at air and sea ports to the benefit of carriers and their passengers.I commend the bill to the House and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Fitzgibbon) adjourned.Bills30090R138130090Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time.3009109:48:0030091Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of the Australian Citizenship Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 is to update a number of aspects of Australian citizenship law.The bill flows from the government response to the report of the Australian Citizenship Council, Australian citizenship for a new century.The Australian Citizenship Council reported in February 2000. I released the government response, Australian citizenship... a common bond, in May 2001.The government response is designed to encourage all Australians to value their citizenship and contains a commitment to update and strengthen aspects of citizenship law.The government agreed with the Australian Citizenship Council that, in its relatively short 52 years of existence, Australian citizenship has been a major success story.Apart from giving a new and unique legal status to those in Australia at the time of its introduction, Australian citizenship law has evolved to become one of the most welcoming and inclusive in the world and has been the basis for over three million migrants becoming full participants in our society.The government believes that the overall inclusive and non-discriminatory approach to Australian citizenship, which is premised on welcoming without undue barriers migrants and humanitarian entrants who come to Australia as part of the planned migration and humanitarian programs, should continue as the basis for future Australian citizenship law and policy.Accordingly, there will be no change to the basic criteria for grant of Australian citizenship, which, in general, are working well.Clearly, some aspects of citizenship legislation need, over time, to evolve to reflect the changing realities of the Australian community.This bill updates aspects of citizenship law, refines and enhances provisions relating to children and young adults and strengthens existing integrity measures.Turning firstly to the need to update the law on loss of citizenship, this bill will repeal section 17 of the Australian Citizenship Act 1948 so that adult Australian citizens in future do not lose their Australian citizenship if they acquire another citizenship.The government's decision to proceed with this change follows widespread community consultation over the last few years, undertaken initially by the Australian Citizenship Council and, more recently, by the government through the release of a discussion paper.Submissions to the government strongly supported repeal of section 17: we have received over 800 submissions since the release of the discussion paper in June this year; almost all supported repeal of section 17.This change will allow the growing numbers of internationally mobile Australians to take advantage of opportunities overseas while maintaining their links with Australia and bringing back to the Australian community their valuable expertise and knowledge.It will also bring Australia into line with the citizenship law of many other comparable countries, including the United Kingdom, Canada, New Zealand, the United States of America, France and Italy, to name a few.The changes will benefit those adult Australian citizens who acquire another citizenship after the new law is passed and comes into effect.This bill also introduces a number of enhancements to citizenship legislation in the interests of young Australians.The bill extends the citizenship by descent provisions to allow children born overseas to an Australian citizen parent to be eligible for registration as an Australian citizen by descent until they turn 25 years of age. Currently the age limit is set at 18 years of age.Similarly, the bill extends the resumption provisions to allow young persons who renounce their Australian citizenship in order to retain another citizenship, to be eligible to resume their Australian citizenship until they turn 25 years of age. Many young people re-examine their identity and future around the ages of 18 to 25. These changes will give young people more opportunities to acquire or resume Australian citizenship.The bill will also provide for children under 16 who acquire Australian citizenship by grant with their parent, or at a later date, to be given their own citizenship certificate.Currently the law requires children under 16 to have their names endorsed on the back of their parent's certificate.Provision of individual citizenship certificates to these children is an appropriate way to recognise their individual citizenship status and will facilitate their having appropriate citizenship documentation upon reaching adulthood.Turning to integrity issues, this bill strengthens the integrity of the citizenship process in a number of ways.Firstly, the bill requires persons aged 18 years and over who seek either to be registered as Australian citizens by descent or to resume Australian citizenship to be of good character.It is important that these people of adult age be of good character to access Australian citizenship.Secondly, the bill extends the ban on the grant of Australian citizenship from two years after release from prison to 10 years for a person who is a serious repeat offender.The government agrees with the Australian Citizenship Council that a period of 10 years represents a more appropriate length of time for any such applicants for citizenship to demonstrate that they are of good character. It also ensures that, if they are going to offend again, they are not able to avoid the possibility of criminal deportation by having obtained citizenship in those circumstances.Thirdly, the bill introduces powers for the minister to revoke in certain circumstances the grant of a certificate of citizenship before actual conferral of citizenship and also to defer conferral of citizenship for a 12-month period in certain circumstances.These changes will ensure that a person does not automatically proceed to become an Australian citizen if, in the period between a decision to grant and actual conferral of citizenship, it becomes evident that the person does not, or may not, meet the requirements for grant of Australian citizenship. That is particularly important if those issues relate to character.Fourthly, the bill provides the minister with a power to revoke the grant of a certificate of Australian citizenship before conferral of citizenship where the person has failed to make the pledge of commitment within 12 months after being notified of the decision to grant citizenship, without an `acceptable reason'.Acceptable reasons will be prescribed in regulations. Currently the Citizenship Act leaves open indefinitely the time a person, approved for Australian citizenship, has to make the pledge of commitment.I believe that, in their totality, these initiatives will significantly enhance the integrity of the citizenship process.This bill also extends concessions in relation to meeting the residence in Australia requirement for grant of Australian citizenship, which have been available for many years to people who have served in the permanent Defence Force, to people who have served as full-time members of an Australian reserve force for at least six months.Although Australian citizenship is now a requirement for service in the reserve forces, this has not always been the case.There may, therefore, be some people who have spent substantial periods of time in the reserve forces who have not yet acquired Australian citizenship, and such people will benefit from this change.This change recognises the significant contribution of our reserve forces.This bill also inserts a note referring to `people smuggling' offences in the provision relating to deprivation of Australian citizenship. This amendment will not change the existing policy settings for deprivation of Australian citizenship.Rather, it will highlight that a person who committed a `people smuggling' offence before a decision to grant a citizenship certificate, and is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of not less than 12 months, after lodging the application for the citizenship certificate, may be deprived of Australian citizenship.The government considers it is important to draw attention to the potential for the existing citizenship deprivation provisions to be used in this way as we wish to highlight the seriousness that we attach to people smuggling crimes.Finally, the bill makes merit review available for decisions on revocation of the grant of a certificate of citizenship before conferral of citizenship; decisions on resumption of Australian citizenship by young people; and decisions on good character in applications for registration of Australian citizenship by descent.In summary, this bill will update and enhance citizenship law to improve its operation in some important areas.This is a very important bill and one which will help create an even more robust Australian citizenship for the 21st century. For that reason I do, with a great deal of pleasure, commend the bill to the chamber and table the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Fitzgibbon) adjourned.Bills30093R138630093Bill presented by Mr Ruddock, and read a first time.3009309:59:0030093Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The billamends the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Act 1997 to increase the amount of the charge limit for registration applications by migration agents.A migration agent is someone who uses or purports to use his or her knowledge or experience in migration procedure to give immigration assistance to a visa applicant.Under the Migration Act 1958, such a person must be registered with the Migration Agents Registration Authority.The Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Act 1997 imposes a charge on an individual who makes a registration application.However, the amount of charge that is actually payable is set out in the Migration Agents Registration Application Charge Regulations 1998.The regulations prescribe different charge amounts, depending on whether an individual acts on a commercial or a non-commercial basis and whether the individual is applying for initial or repeat registration.At present, some of the charges set out in the regulations are close to the maximum charge limit permitted by the act.The new charge limit included in the bill will provide a clearer indication that the charges payable, as set by the regulations, are within the charge limit authorised by the act.The amendments in the bill will not increase the charge payable—this is done by regulation.The charges in the regulations are set at a level appropriate to provide adequate resources to the Migration Agents Registration Authority to carry out its statutory responsibilities.The Migration Agents Registration Authority is funded by an appropriation equivalent to the sum of registration application fees that have been collected under the charge act and regulations.I commend the bill to the chamber and present an explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Fitzgibbon) adjourned. Bills30094R138230094Bill presented by Mr Abbott, and read a first time.3009410:01:0030094Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.The purpose of the Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 is to apply the Criminal Code to offence-creating and related provisions in legislation administered by the Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business portfolio, and to make all necessary amendments to these provisions to ensure compliance and consistency with the Criminal Code's general principles.This bill is one of a series designed to apply the Criminal Code on a portfolio-by-portfolio basis.The amendments are all technical in nature. In general, the purpose of the amendments is merely to ensure that existing criminal offence-creating and related provisions continue to operate in the same manner as at present, after the application of the Criminal Code.The bill `harmonises' portfolio legislation, including bills currently before the parliament, in a number of ways.First, the bill makes it clear that chapter 2 of the Criminal Code will apply to all offence provisions in portfolio legislation. This chapter establishes the general principles of criminal responsibility and provides for a standard approach to the formulation of Commonwealth criminal offences.Second, the bill will amend certain provisions to expressly provide that they are offences that attract strict liability—in other words, offences where the prosecution does not have to establish fault on the part of the defendant. Under the Criminal Code, where it is intended that a strict liability standard apply to a particular offence or to an element of an offence, this must be expressly stated in the relevant provision. In all other cases, the prosecution will be required to prove fault in relation to each element of the offence. These amendments are necessary to ensure that the strict liability nature of some provisions is not lost in the transition to the application of the Criminal Code's general principles. Without these amendments, offences that would have been interpreted as offences attracting strict liability prior to introduction of the code would become more difficult for the prosecution to prove and perhaps even unenforceable.Third, the bill amends my portfolio legislation to remove unnecessary duplication of the general offence provisions in the Criminal Code.The bill will also improve the efficient and fair prosecution of offences by clarifying the physical elements of offences—that is, the precise conduct that is proscribed by an offence—and amending inappropriate fault elements—that is, the type of mental state required for a defendant to be found criminally liable.These are a few examples of the changes to be implemented by the bill.Overall the bill will bring greater consistency and clarity to Commonwealth criminal law and engender greater confidence in the criminal law.It is important that these amendments are made prior to the application on 15 December 2001 of the Criminal Code's general principles of criminal responsibility to all offences against Commonwealth legislation. I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill.Debate (on motion by Mr Fitzgibbon) adjourned.Bills30094R138730094Bill presented by Mr Abbott, for Mr Hockey, and read a first time.3009510:06:0030095Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.Today I introduce a bill to modernise the conduct of the Commonwealth government securities market.The bill will remove regulatory barriers to the electronic issue and transfer of Commonwealth government securities, including treasury bonds and treasury notes.The bill will put in place reforms to the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act 1911 to enable Commonwealth government securities to be cleared and settled electronically alongside a range of financial products under the Corporations Act 2001, as amended by the proposed Financial Services Reform Act 2001.The Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Amendment Bill will provide a legal framework for the electronic transfer of Commonwealth government securities that is flexible and that promotes an efficient and innovative market.The bill will create a more efficient business environment for market participants by opening up the conduct of the Commonwealth government securities market to clearing and settlement facilities involved in the broader operation of the financial markets.The bill will make clear that non-government clearing and settlement facilities regulated under the Corporations Act may be appointed as registrars under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act in addition to, or instead of, the Reserve Bank.However, the bill will not preclude the Reserve Bank from continuing to have a role as a registrar, in providing for the electronic recording and transfer of the ownership of Commonwealth government securities, in addition to its role in the recording of transfers of ownership of Commonwealth government securities in paper form.The bill will enable the Commonwealth to create equitable interests in Commonwealth government securities. The Treasurer will be able to enter into contracts or arrangements or execute deeds of trust for the purpose of issuing Commonwealth government securities to a person, including to a clearing and settlement facility, on trust for other persons. This will include where the clearing and settlement facility is acting in the capacity of a registrar under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act.The bill will also provide for regulations to be made under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act providing for the transfer of legal or equitable interests in Commonwealth government securities in accordance with the provisions of the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act, or by applying provisions of the Corporations Act, with or without modifications, to the transfer of interests in Commonwealth government securities under the Commonwealth Inscribed Stock Act.These reforms will increase business confidence in the effectiveness and reliability of electronic transfers of Commonwealth government securities by providing a certain and secure framework for electronic transactions in the Commonwealth government securities market.By underpinning electronic transfers of Commonwealth government securities, the bill will increase community confidence in the effectiveness and reliability of such transactions.In particular, the bill will encourage international confidence in the effectiveness of the legislative framework supporting the Commonwealth government securities market.I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I commend the bill to the House.Debate (on motion by Mr Fitzgibbon) adjourned.Bills30095R138830095Bill presented by Mr Slipper, and read a first time.3009610:10:0030096Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—I move:That the bill be now read a second time.This bill makes amendments to the income tax law and fringe benefits tax law to give effect to the following measures.Firstly, taxation treatment of religious practitioners under the new tax system will be clarified. Under the existing law, the tax treatment of religious practitioners has been unclear because the courts have reached different conclusions about whether different religious practitioners are common law employees or not.To remove this uncertainty, religious practitioners who are performing activities in pursuit of a vocation as a religious practitioner, and as a member of a religious institution, will not need to apply for an Australian business number or to register for GST for these activities. They will not be subject to withholding for failure to provide an ABN. The normal PAYG withholding arrangements that apply to employees and office holders will apply to religious practitioners.Benefits provided to religious practitioners by a religious institution for the performance of pastoral or related duties will continue to be exempt from fringe benefits tax.Secondly, this bill amends the income tax law and the superannuation surcharge legislation to facilitate the change in status of constitutionally protected superannuation funds that elect to become taxed superannuation funds. The amendments will ensure that members of constitutionally protected superannuation funds which have changed status are treated similarly for income tax and superannuation surcharge purposes with members who roll over benefits from an untaxed source to a taxed source.The third measure amends the income tax law to provide broadly comparable capital gains tax outcomes for investors in managed funds to that given to investors who choose to invest directly when it comes to the treatment of the capital gains tax discount under the capital gains tax law. The government is introducing this measure to remove a tax distortion in investment choices for investors, and to allow these investors to receive the full benefits of the capital gains tax discount.The amendments include a transitional measure to ensure that the capital gains tax provisions do not adversely affect investments through a chain of trusts. The amendments apply to payments made on or after 1 July 2001, with the transitional measures applying from the commencement of the capital gains tax discount rules, 21 September 1999.Similarly, direct investors who receive building allowance deductions will be subject to the same capital gains tax rules as beneficiaries who receive building allowance deductions via a trust.The bill will ensure that non-profit societies and associations established to develop Australian information and communications technology resources are exempt from income tax and also qualify for a fringe benefits tax rebate.A rebate from fringe benefits tax will also be provided to employers who are non-profit societies or associations established to develop Australian aquaculture and fishing resources.The bill will also give deductible gift recipient status to a number of organisations. This will ensure that an income tax deduction is allowed to the donor for certain gifts to the value of $2 or more.Full details of the measures in the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum.I commend the bill and present the explanatory memorandum.Debate (on motion by Mr Fitzgibbon) adjourned.Bills30096R133630096Consideration resumed from 22 August.Senate's requested amendment—(1) Clause 6, page 4 (after line 18), at the end of the clause, add:Interest on uninvested money (2) There must be credited to the Account by 1 July 2004 an interest amount in respect of each of the financial years commencing on 1 July 2001, 2002 and 2003. (3) The interest amount for a financial year is worked out using the formula:[$115 million - Sum of amounts credited] x Fixed-income percentagewhere:fixed-income percentage, for a financial year, is: (a) the percentage equal to the rate of interest earned by the Commonwealth, as at the end of the financial year, on deposits held with the Reserve Bank of Australia; or (b) if the Minister for Finance, by written instrument made within 28 days after the end of the financial year, determines a higher percentage— that higher percentage.sum of amounts credited, for a financial year, means the sum of all amounts credited to the Account in that financial year or an earlier financial year.10:14:0030097Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr TUCKEYSJ4O'ConnorLPMinister for Forestry and Conservation and Minister Assisting the Prime Minister10—I move:That the requested amendment be made. The Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Account Bill 2001 establishes an account to which Commonwealth funding will be paid for the important work of the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation. The legislation arises from the agreement between the Prime Minister and Senator Meg Lees to make commitments regarding an amount equivalent to the difference between the excise collected on draught beer and the amount that would have been collected using the new rates prescribed under a new tax system. The overall goal of the foundation is to provide support for community based programs that aim to reduce alcohol related harm in our communities. The foundation will also have a charter to target other illicit substances that are subject to abuse and cause harm such as petrol and other inhalants. We know that the abuse of alcohol and other inhalants leads to physical ill-effects in those abusing and can be associated with suicide attempts, antisocial behaviour and crime. I thank Senator Lees for her role in bringing this initiative to fruition and I welcome the amendment moved by the Democrats in the Senate that will ensure the foundation receives the interest on moneys collected at the end of four years. The government supports this amendment. I thank all members and senators for the support they have expressed for the important objective and goals of this foundation. I am sure we all look forward to seeing the success and outcomes of the foundation's work in the coming years. I commend the bill to the House.10:16:0030097Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFINVU5BruceALP00—The Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Account Bill 2001 is a landmark in forcing the Prime Minister to keep his broken promises. Twice he has been forced to back down by the opposition campaigning to keep him to his word. The first time was his very public promise that the price of ordinary beer would not increase as a result of the GST. Labor demonstrated that ordinary beer served across the bar would actually suffer a large increase in price and the government was forced to backflip by reducing the level of beer excise. The Prime Minister then promised that all the money collected during the period when beer prices had risen would go into a foundation, the Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation, to reduce the impact of excessive use of alcohol and other legal drugs. He signed a memorandum of understanding with the Democrats setting out this commitment. The legislation he brought forward short-changed the foundation financially and short-changed the public because the foundation has not been set up as a properly accountable body. The promise the Prime Minister made in writing to the Democrats was that the legislation would ensure that the `full equivalent of the increase in excise collected on draught beer since 1 July 2001 less $5 million allocated to the Historic Hotels Initiative is appropriated and allocated to the foundation'. It is there in black and white with the Prime Minister's signature at the bottom. In fact, the government is only appropriating $115 million which, with the $5 million for historic hotels money, makes a total of $120 million. The brewers have actually paid $145 million and they have provided a letter to this effect. I seek leave to table the letter. 10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is leave granted?SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—I suggest that it should be shown to me prior to the request being made.VU5Griffin, Alan, MPMr GRIFFIN—I will address it at the end of my speech. The government has refused to release the basis for its original estimate and, more importantly, has refused to release the details of the excise that it actually overcollected during the period from 1 July last year to 3 April 2001. This is nothing short of a cover-up and this issue will have to be further investigated through the estimates process.On top of this, the government also short-changed the foundation by the tricky mechanism of spreading the payments over four years instead of paying the money over in the first year as promised. This effectively denies the foundation the full value of the money and prevents them earning an estimated $30 million in interest over the next four years. Labor refused to accept this and moved a request in the Senate to restore the full value by including an interest provision similar to one that exists for the payments equivalent to interest to the National Heritage Trust. The Democrats supported Labor's position and did a further deal with the government to amend our request into the current form, which denies the foundation the full amount of interest and sees it paid over only in the year 2004.The passage of this bill is the conclusion of a sorry saga of deception and broken promises by the Howard government. Labor supports the concept of a properly accountable foundation working to reduce the harm caused by alcohol, and in government we will act to ensure this work extends to include programs to reduce domestic violence—something that the Democrats refused to support. I will take the opportunity to read the letter into the record given the concerns around the question of tabling. The letter is addressed to the Secretary of the Australian Senate Community Affairs Legislation Committee, Mr Elton Humphery. It states:During the Senate committee hearing on the above Bill last Monday, a query was raised regarding the AAB submission which suggested that disputed excise was in the region of $180 million for the period July 1 2000 - April 4 2001. I am advised that the disputed excise number quoted was a conservative estimate based on both packaged and draught beer consumed on-premise, which rose in price by at least 7 per cent on July 1, despite the Government saying that ordinary beer would rise by no more than 1.9 % as a consequence of tax reform.The brewers' solution was to introduce different excise rates for draught versus packaged beer. In other words, the brewers conceded that the Government could not reduce the price of packaged beer on-premise without a significant flow on effect of a price fall off-premise.When on-premise packaged beer is removed from the calculation, the brewers' modelling shows that the disputed excise relating to draught beer specifically is approximately $145 million from period July 1, 2000 - April 4, 2001.The figure $145 million is still some $25 million higher than the $120 million that the Government and the Democrats agreed to assign to the proposed Alcohol Education and Rehabilitation Foundation.The Australian Associated Brewers understands that the difference of some $25 million appears to be due to different assumptions in the brewers' modelling and that which the Democrats agreed in their negotiations with the Government. Yours sincerelyIt is signed by Terry Mott on behalf of the AAB. I welcome the backdown by the government on the question of interest and I welcome the passage of the bill. (Time expired)Question resolved in the affirmative. Bills30099R133930099Debate resumed from 22 August, on motion by Mr Ruddock:That the bill be now read a second time.10:22:0030099Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I am very pleased to continue my remarks on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill (No. 2) 2001 from where I left off last night. The bill has a number of measures in it, and I was speaking last night about an incident that has occurred in Queensland, which currently has measures to implement strip search procedures both on persons in prisons and visitors to prisons, and that includes children.In the last financial year, 2,703 illegal immigrants were removed from Australia. Our detention centres provide people who arrived illegally with food, clothing, shelter and medical care that more than complies with UN standards. However, over the past year there has been an increasing number of incidents of violent and antisocial behaviour at detention centres across Australia. There have been disturbances at Curtin, Woomera and Port Hedland and, recently, breakouts at Villawood. The transcripts of what occurs in some of these places show it is absolutely horrifying. Officers are being attacked by detainees with glass. In some cases, damage of up to $300,000 has occurred. There have been fires and all sorts of things. I will read from one of the transcripts:The defendant was in the front line and had a piece of glass in his left hand and pointed it to the officer and threatened to kill him.I agree with some of the comments made by the shadow minister for immigration that we need to ensure there is safety in these centres for the detainees as well as for the correctional officers, but these outbreaks have occurred far too frequently. We need to look at increasing the security, and some of these measures will ensure that that will take place. The disturbances that occurred in particular at Woomera and Port Hedland and recently at Villawood have presented some very disturbing images to the greater community and also to detainees. The weapons are sometimes concealed in clothing and sometimes on a person's body. They can cause injury to other people; they can be used in many cases for self-mutilation, which is very sad indeed; and they can endanger the lives of women, children, families, visitors and staff in immigration detention centres. The legislation I am speaking to today will assist in providing a much safer environment for all the people in a detention centre.At present, the Migration Act permits only a `pat down' search of a particular detainee. The existing frisk search power does not always result in finding very small and discreet items. They can be effectively hidden in a person's clothing or on their body. There is no power under this act to require a detainee to reveal the contents of his or her pockets or clothing or an item in his or her possession. Metal detectors are not always successful in revealing weapons, particularly if they are very small. The big problem with metal detectors, of course, is that they cannot reveal items that are made of glass, wood or plastic. This is a real problem because, as the transcript I just read shows, glass can be used in a fatal or lethal way. Weapons made out of these substances can be no less lethal or fatal than those made out of metal.The nature of the detention population is changing and those changes are impacting on the safety and wellbeing of immigration detainees, visitors and staff at these centres. The legislation recognises those changes and includes measures that provide for a much safer environment, while ensuring that controls preserve what is very important—the detainee's dignity and right to privacy. While the legislation includes a power to conduct a strip search, it does not include examination of a detainee's body cavities. For a strip search to be initiated, an officer must have suspicion, based on reasonable grounds, that something is hidden on the detainee—either in clothing, on the person or contained in something in his or her possession.An officer is defined as a person who is a Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs officer, a Customs or Australian Protective Service officer, a police officer or a person authorised by the minister under the act. The search will proceed following authorisation by the secretary or an employee at the Senior Executive Service band 3 level. This is one of two new measures incorporated into this bill. The authorising officer must be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for an officer's suspicions. They have a power to conduct a strip search, and that cannot be delegated to another party or person. Authorisation is given by telephone, fax or electronic means and must be recorded in writing within one business day of it being issued. The second new measure in this bill grants the detainee privacy during the search procedure. A strip search of a detainee must not subject the detainee to greater indignity than is reasonably necessary to conduct the search. It must be conducted in a private area and by an authorised officer of the same sex as the detainee. It cannot be conducted in the presence or view of a person of the opposite sex unless that person is a medical practitioner and a medical practitioner of the same sex is not available within a reasonable period of time. A strip search cannot be conducted in the presence or view of a person whose presence is not necessary for the purposes of the strip search. However, if the authorised officer conducting the strip search considers it necessary to have another authorised person present, that is permitted. But, again, the rule of persons of the same sex attending the strip search remains. These mechanisms ensure that the strip search process provides protection for the detainee while ensuring a high level of privacy.A detainee who is to be strip searched will be able, under this bill, to nominate another person to attend the strip search procedure. I emphasise that children under 10 will not be strip searched, while detainees aged between 10 and 18 and those incapable of managing their own affairs must have a parent or guardian present or someone who is acceptable to the detainee. If a detainee fails to nominate a person, declines to nominate a person or is unable to nominate an appropriate person to attend the strip search within a reasonable time, the search is not prevented from proceeding. During the search, more clothes must not be removed than is absolutely necessary. However, if a piece of clothing is damaged or destroyed, sufficient clothing must be provided to the detainee.If during the search a suspect item is found on a person, the authorised officer can take possession of the item, which provides evidence of an offence against the Migration Act or, if it is forfeitable, it goes to the Commonwealth. Forfeited items include those which have been used to assist in areas of escape and, once confiscated, they must be given to a police officer. If that item is not used in evidence within a 60-day period, it must be returned to the detainee. An officer can apply to a magistrate to retain an item seized during a strip search; however, the magistrate must specify a period for retaining this item.An important feature of this legislation is that the strip search of detainees is seen as a measure of last resort and should be used only in the rarest of circumstances. Strip searches will not be conducted as a matter of routine. It is important to emphasise that. This legislation will ensure that state and territory search powers can be consistently applied to all persons being held in an immigration detention centre. A clause in the bill provides immunity against civil or criminal liability for a person assisting a strip search who does it in good faith and within the parameters of the bill.The measures included in the bill are very extensive. They provide for the safety of all persons at a detention centre. It is fair to conclude that they will ensure that all people will be protected, including detainees. The government believes it is very important that detention centres are effectively managed and that they provide a safe and secure environment for detainees, visitors and staff. Therefore, I confirm my support for this bill here today.10:32:0030100Plibersek, Tanya, MPMs PLIBERSEK83MSydneyALP00— The Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill (No. 2) 2001 is designed to protect detainees and guards. The strip searching provisions are said to be designed to find weapons before they can be used on other detainees or on guards. In debating this legislation, we really need to ask ourselves some very important questions. Of course the safety of any worker at detention facilities is important, as is the safety of people who are detained in such facilities, but the reality is that in most cases the violence which occurs in these centres is actual or threatened self-harm. We need to ask ourselves the following questions: why is self-harm occurring? Why did the suicide occur? Why did the detainees at Woomera sew their lips together? Why has violence occurred? What can we do to make the detention regime more humane? First of all, we face an enormous problem because detainees are not appropriately separated. Recent arrivals are put into detention with people who have gone completely through the refugee determination process and have been rejected. So a lot of people who are likely to be found to be genuine refugees are put into detention centres side by side with people who have been found not to be genuine refugees, who have been in detention for many years and often have nothing to lose. Asylum seekers who are likely to be found to be genuine refugees are also sharing facilities with people who have committed crimes on Australian soil or overseas and are awaiting deportation. It is very important that, when we talk about the safety of guards and the safety of people in detention centres and when we suggest that guards need extra powers, we keep in mind that the vast majority of people in detention pose no threat to guards or to other detainees but they are being inappropriately kept with people who are perhaps a potential threat.It is worth noting that genuine refugees do very little to avoid detection. Many of them arrive at Kingsford Smith airport and apply for asylum, or they arrive on Christmas Island or on Ashmore Reef. They certainly do not try to sneak in. Most of them are happy to meet Australian authorities because they want to put in an application for asylum. It is in their interests to make contact with Australian authorities, if they are going to be granted refugee status. They can begin the process of actually becoming legitimate Australian citizens.Also, it is very important to differentiate between the detainees. One of the very first things we can do to reduce the threat of violence against women and children is to take them out of the camps. I am very pleased that the minister has engaged in this three- to six-month trial to have women and children living in the community. If the minister believes that some detainees are potentially violent and that they are manufacturing weapons and need to be strip searched, what on earth are we doing keeping children in detention with these people? Last year about 900 children passed through detention centres and of those children 30 were detained for more than one year. In fact, at the moment there are 39 unaccompanied minors in detention centres. If the minister believes that some detainees are manufacturing weapons with which they may harm guards or other detainees, it is absolutely unconscionable that these children, in particular unaccompanied minors, should be kept in the same facilities as these potentially violent people, as the minister would have it.The other step we need to take to ensure that self-harm and violence are minimised is to make sure that detainees are released as soon as possible. After identity, character and health checks, we need to release people as quickly as possible into the community. Australia has, as every other country has, an absolute right to make sure that people who are coming into the country are no threat to the community: that they pose no health risks and that their character is good. But once these things have been established we need to process people as quickly as possible and have them living in the community where they can start to be productive members of the Australian community.It is worth remembering that between 75 and 90 per cent of asylum seekers are found to be genuine refugees and in some groups it is higher. If you look at Iraqi boat people, 97 per cent are found to be genuine refugees; of Afghani boat people, 92 per cent are found to be genuine refugees. What is the point of having these people locked up in detention centres, costing Australian taxpayers $105 a day and losing their sense of self so that when they are finally released they find it very difficult to fit back into the community? What is the point, when they are going to be found to be genuine refugees, of keeping them locked up for years at a time? Learning English and finding work are the things that will help these people eventually become good Australian citizens. Certainly, getting an education for their children is the first step to making sure that these families effectively integrate into the Australian community. As I said earlier, 900 children passed through detention centres last year. I am particularly concerned about the provisions for strip searching children as young as 10. In my view, there should not be children in detention centres, and if there were no children in detention centres there would be no need to strip search 10-year-olds.It is worth noting that people who overstay visas who come as tourists or students or businesspeople and for some reason overstay or make an application onshore for asylum get bridging visas and they are allowed to remain in the community until the matter is determined—whether they are able to stay or not. Certainly, we do not have the minister or anybody else arguing that these people, who are by and large British or American overstayers, are a serious threat to the Australian community.The actual running of the detention centres in Australia has been a matter that has concerned me for some time. In the discussion over whether we should strip search people and extend the powers to strip search, I think that one of my great concerns has been that Australasian Correctional Management has not run these centres in the way that I think they should be run. The two Ombudsman's reports, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade report in June this year and the Joint Standing Committee on Migration report last year all raised serious issues about the way detention centres are run. They raised all sorts of issues about the way that staff have dealt with people in the detention centres.These staff are basically prison guards and they should not be: they should be people who are experienced in dealing with traumatised human beings. Prison guards have been involved in incidences of violence such as the one in Port Hedland where the Port Hedland operations manager pleaded guilty to twice assaulting a teenager, once when the teenager was held by other guards and once when the teenager was handcuffed to his bed. This happened just days before the Port Hedland riot on 21 January, and you have to ask yourself whether perhaps this beating had something to do with the riot.There is a situation in Villawood at the moment where, on 27 April, 10 detainees allege that they were assaulted by guards when being moved from one section of Villawood to another. There is a videotape of part of the incident; part of that videotape seems not to be there. There is apparently a Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs employee who says that she saw at least two detainees assaulted. You have to ask yourself why those detainees have been so expeditiously deported—many of them have been deported since that incident took place. The guards have been sent to Western Australia, so the police cannot question them. There are some very serious questions being raised in the detention centres. There is another reported case of a Somalian woman beaten unconscious by ACM guards, and the case was taken up by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre.When we are talking about the need to search detainees and their being a threat to guards, I think we also have to consider that, whilst many of the guards, I am sure, are fine, there are reported incidences that have gone before the courts where the guards have been accused of and have pleaded guilty to violence. We need to remember that inmates are much more likely to harm themselves than to be a threat to other inmates or to guards. I believe that these reports of violence on the part of the guards mean that it is imperative that we have a judicial commission into the running of the detention centres. My own personal view is that I see nothing that suggests that Australasian Correctional Management are doing a good job of running the centres.I think that the experience of the Wackenhut corporation overseas—the corporation that makes $400 million a year out of jailing Americans—is such that it is perhaps not the best parent company to be dealing with traumatised, recently arriving asylum seekers. Wackenhut has a bad reputation in countries such as Belgium, and even in the United States, where they have had contracts cancelled. In one juvenile centre, for example, guards were accused of beating quite young teenagers. I do not think this is a terrific organisation to be dealing with recently arrived, traumatised people. We need to think about alternative detention models and, having read about the way that other countries deal with recently arrived asylum seekers, I think you would have to say that Australia is unique in the way that we deal with asylum seekers. There have been many alternative suggestions of ways that we could perhaps deal with asylum seekers differently, including releasing people on cash bonds to Australian citizens and electronic monitoring, which was raised by one of the church groups. Certainly the experiment in Woomera, which has released women and children into the community, is well worth watching. The model that is most often brought up as an alternative model for Australia is the reception centre model run in Sweden. Sweden has more than twice the number of asylum seekers that Australia has per capita but many fewer are detained, and it is against the law in Sweden to detain children for more than a few days.When discussing this issue, we must remember the international context of our asylum seeker problem. There are an estimated 21 million refugees worldwide. It is worth saying that Australia needs to continue to do its fair share. Twelve thousand a year is a drop in the bucket in terms of our total immigration intake of 85,000. When you think about poor countries like Iran and Pakistan, which each deal with two million refugees, that shows that what is required of Australia is really pretty modest.We need to act on the international stage to ensure that the underlying problems of the refugee crisis are dealt with. We spend about $120 million a year on detention, but we spend only $14 million a year on helping the UNHCR in its international refugee resettlement effort. It is worth remembering that $14 million is much less than this government spends each month on publicly paid political advertising. While $14 million sounds like a lot of money to the average Australian, when we think about the sort of money that this government wastes on political advertising, it is a tiny amount of money.We need to remember that the idea of queue jumping is absurd in countries where every social relationship is breaking down, where any person thinking about the refugee question knows that if the lives of their children were threatened in a war zone or after a revolution, they would do anything they could to get their children out of the country and away from such a threat. It does not take a vast stretch of empathy to understand that families are often selling everything they possess—every piece of land—to get one child away from a war zone. Often they are young men, because young men are often pressed into military service. For example, the Taliban are pressing young men into walking through minefields to make sure that the minefields are safe for soldiers to cross. It is not surprising that families turn to people smugglers who are criminals. I do not resile from the fact that organised crime is involved in getting people from one country to another, but it is not surprising that parents are prepared to deal with criminals to save the life of a son who is about to be pressed into military service.Even if these people are found not to be genuine refugees in Australia, we face a very real problem because we do not have diplomatic relations with, or direct flights to, many of the countries these people have left. That means that if these people are found not to be genuine refugees—the small proportion who are not genuine refugees—they may wait indefinitely in a detention centre in Australia because we cannot send them home to their country of origin.We need to play a role in addressing the international issues which have created refugees. In the past, Australia played a very positive role in countries such as Cambodia in helping to bring peace to that country, and in rebuilding East Timor. We are doing an excellent job in helping East Timor re-establish itself. We also need to talk to other international organisations about debt forgiveness. Those are the sorts of things that will keep people in place and stop them having to leave their countries. We need to send home non-genuine people as quickly as possible, work with source countries where people are leaving and deal with and support international efforts to deal with the problem in an orderly way. It is fair to say that our detention regime is no deterrent. If the choice is to be shot, you would probably prefer to end up in a camp in Australia. The temporary protection visa regime has proved to be no deterrent and neither has Mr Ruddock's nasty video which I believe has become a bit of a laughing stock amongst international diplomatic circles. Labor have committed themselves to re-establishing basic service delivery for people who are found to be genuine refugees. That is vital because integrating people into the Australian community and making sure that they learn English and get a job as soon as possible is the best way of ensuring that there is no ongoing conflict within the Australian community.The really disgraceful thing about Minister Ruddock's position throughout this debate, not in particular on this legislation, but over the last few years, is that his position has been so much about domestic politics and so little about the lives of the people in detention and how to integrate people into the Australian community. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees called on Australia in June to stop demonising refugees just to score political points. The sort of pamphlet that we have seen in Dickson criticising Labor for being soft on refugees is absolutely aimed at clawing back One Nation voters to the Liberal Party. The minister should be absolutely ashamed of himself for allowing that sort of demonising of refugees for crass political purposes.The Ombudsman has said that these detainees have fewer rights than jail inmates. It is worth remembering that, when the minister wanted to, he was able to find room for 200 South Lebanese Army soldiers very quickly. It is amazing that we can so quickly find room for an extra 200 SLA soldiers but there is no room for people who have been waiting in camps in Ethiopia, Iran or Afghanistan, who have been living in camps for years, or who have escaped in the most dangerous ways to come to Australia. There is no room for them, but there is room for the SLA. (Time expired)10:52:0030104Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I rise to speak on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill (No. 2) 2001. I am appalled at what I have heard, because it seems that the Australian Labor Party is advancing the argument that we will accept anybody who hits our shores as a refugee.83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPSD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—You called them refugees. The honourable member called them refugees in the generic sense. They are not refugees; they are illegal immigrants until their refugee status is established. The only logical way to deal with the vast, difficult, worldwide problem of refugees, of whom there are 100 million, is to systematically approach the process through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and to have an orderly program. If you give comfort to people who jump on a boat and hit Australia's shores and who throw away their documentation before they arrive so that their status cannot be established, you are asking for problems. I would like to hear compassion from the Australian Labor Party, but with some rigour in the way in which they intend to administer the programs. There appears to be a willingness to give comfort to those who have arrived. I will give comfort to the circumstances of those who are living in conditions similar to those from which they have fled, but I cannot give comfort to some of the actions or processes that so-called refugees have adopted in seeking to gain entry into Australia. The member for Sydney used the plural term `guards' who had been charged while looking after illegal immigrants waiting to be assessed. There was one case only. There are no allegations. Only one case has hit the court.83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPMs Plibersek—Who held him down when he was assaulted?SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—If there are allegations, take them to court. Tell your friends to go to court, and the court will hear the case in detail. I know of people who have been convicted of all sorts of activities, including incitement to kill guards, to destroy property and to riot. The court transcripts and the judges' and magistrates' decisions, which are available to the honourable member, show the conduct of some of the people in the camps. We cannot condone strongarm tactics being adopted by people who are trying to use the processes of Australian law to stay here, whether or not they are eligible. There was a recent case—I have read the transcript—involving a person from Jordan, who was rejected as a refugee not on one occasion but on three occasions. He has gone through all the forums and tribunals that we have established to impartially assess situations. In court, he acknowledged that he had taken a piece of glass from a window that he had broken and held it through the wire at one of the guards and said, `I will kill you.' Those are desperate efforts and they should be dealt with firmly. The member for Sydney nods her head, but she gave no indication that there should be a process to deal with such conduct. Instead, she said that we should release people into the streets because 98 per cent of them are found to be refugees. The honourable member knows that to conduct any sensible refugee program we need a case by case assessment of whether they are genuine refugees. The honourable member should have gone on some committee investigations of detainee centres, as her colleague Senator McKiernan did. Many members who present reports in this place and who claim to have an expert point of view have never visited the centres to interview personnel or to see conditions for themselves. Senator McKiernan did—he went to every one of them. He visited refugee camps overseas. The honourable member and the Australian Labor Party, including the shadow minister, should read Senator McKiernan's report. He has fairly established what the accurate situation is. But no, they choose to ignore that process and the facts of the matter and choose to give comfort to people who must be classified as illegal immigrants or illegal non-citizens until their refugee status is established.The process of establishing refugee status can be long and complex, but, typically, Australia—generous and almost soft-hearted and soft-headed—gives open access to court appeal after court appeal and tribunal after tribunal. The Jordanian whom I mentioned, who was charged with threats and damage to property and who first entered Australia in December 2000, had his case heard within 64 days and was ready to leave. Most of them, if you can establish whether they are genuine, can have their cases heard quickly. The generosity of the Australian legal system gives them opportunities for appeal after appeal if they feel aggrieved. That Jordanian was found to be a non-refugee, and that is the case with many people who have lingered here. They think that by force, disruption and even the abuse of their families and the people around them, they can convince the Australian authorities and the minister that they should stay. That is inappropriate and it needs to be dealt with. It would be no different if the Australian Labor Party were in government. They would take decisions similar to those being taken by Philip Ruddock. I commend the minister. He is one of the most compassionate people in this parliament. He knows what is going on in the camps. The honourable member may be on committees and she may have visited the centres, but I doubt it. She did not say that she had visited the centres. I have visited the centres, both here and overseas. As Senator McKiernan has indicated, the centres are operated in a way that is appropriate for the conduct of the people within them.We have moved past the time when we could have open gates and people could come and go as they want and have somewhere to sleep. If you are going to use threats, intimidation and destruction of property as one of the arguments for refugee status, that is not an argument that many courts will hear, and that is not an argument this parliament should listen to. It is not an argument any democracy should stand for, because the result is that the one who shouts the loudest and has the greatest number of weapons wins their case. The poor, the disregarded and the derelict are the ones who lose out. The ones with the loudest voices and the physically strongest will win the argument— not the women and children that you appealed for.Let us get to the facts on refugees. Any member of this House who has talked to a refugee will know that one of the most valued assets a refugee has is their identification. Any refugee out of Europe, southern Europe, Asia or the Middle East has identification. They have identification to establish their circumstances, who their family is, their station in life, their professional status, and whether or not their refugee status can be traced to country of origin. Any refugee would rather perish than let go their identification. That is their only link with a legitimate escape from a regime that is seeking to destroy them. In so many cases of people who have hit Australian shores, they have thrown away their ID before they got here, to try to make it harder for the Australian authorities to establish who they are and where they have come from. The honourable member for Sydney shakes her head, but those are the facts. If she wants to argue about these things, she needs to investigate whether people are throwing away their ID before they get to Australia and whether they are seeking to convince the Australian authorities, by invention rather than fact, that they are refugees. Let me assure you: Australia's compassionate acceptance of refugees, proudly established by this party against the wishes of the Australian Labor Party— 83MPlibersek, Tanya, MPSD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—You were not in this parliament; you did not understand the processes. It was Malcolm Fraser and the Liberal Party who said, `We will take Vietnamese refugees.' We took refugees from South America and everywhere else. The honourable member really does not understand the compassion exercised by coalition governments over a long period of time, despite the opposition of people like Bob Hawke in the ACTU, and others. Let us get to the facts that are being ignored. A refugee's most valuable possession when fleeing a country is their ID. If they throw away their ID, they are seeking to mislead Australian authorities. Under those circumstances, I do not believe they can be considered as refugees. Why should we spend endless hours and legal expense trying to establish for a person whether they are a refugee or not? If they have chosen to get rid of their identification—the single most important thing a refugee can keep; even more important than clothing and food—I believe they are seeking to falsify their entry and they should be rejected on those grounds. The minister has found it necessary to introduce this bill because of the riots in detention centres, the hidden weapons, and because of the way people who were being given the hospitality of Australia have conducted themselves to make a political point. It has nothing to do with refugee status; it is purely about making a political point. They want to appeal to people and to have Australia condemned for providing humane conditions. Australia is one of the few refugee countries in the world. This bill will introduce powers to strip search immigration detainees, and it will introduce search powers in state and territory legislation for immigration detainees held in state or territory prisons or on remand. In his speech, the minister says: There is no power to require a detainee to reveal the contents of their pockets or to present a piece of clothing for examination, where an officer believes that there may be a weapon concealed in that clothing.So an officer can have a suspicion that weapons are concealed but they cannot ask a person to reveal what is in their hand, a pocket, a piece of clothing, or something else they may be carrying. There are serious repercussions for officers of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and for those responsible for the care of detainees. I referred briefly to the case of one man, but I have also looked at reports provided by magistrates about cases that they have heard after riots in detention centres. In one instance, I believe in Curtin, the magistrate commented that the nature and circumstances of the riot were frightening and at the high end of the scale, and it lasted for 30 minutes. ACM officers were subjected to a violent barrage of projectiles, they were injured, and $180,000 worth of damage was done to property. The magistrate said it was only fair to conclude that, should an officer have been felled, they would have been seriously injured or killed. Only six kits were available for protection of the officers, and they were not equipped. That is the nature of Australia: we are not equipped to deal with that ferocity, and neither were the people at the detention centre. They were not equipped to handle the ferocity of the riots. 2K6Brough, Mal, MPMr Brough—They should not have to be.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMAN—My colleague is right: they should not have to be. There was also a case of a woman who entered a not guilty plea. In the magistrate's findings on her conduct, he said that she was worse than either of the other two rioters he had previously sentenced in that, in addition to committing violence, she had encouraged others to violence. This encouragement was continuous. It was not one-off or isolated. He believed that she was culpable and that she was heard many times by several witnesses to shout `ACM Mafia' and `ACM Nazi', and had participated with several other residents who had teamed together to break up concrete and throw it at officers. There was nothing mitigating in these circumstances, which the magistrate said were `grave and of the worst type' and for which sentences near or at the maximum were imposed by the magistrate. The lady in question showed no remorse or contrition. The magistrate found that this woman in particular hates ACM staff. He said that her intention was clearly to injure officers, at the very least. She and others needed to be deterred from such actions. The deterrent aspects of the sentence were particularly important. She needed to be adequately punished and, in addition, he had to consider what was in the best interests of the community.Mr Deputy Speaker, I know that you would be concerned about the sentencing of this woman and about her conduct in claiming to be a refugee. This was pure political thuggery, incitement to riot and a willingness to conduct damage to property or individuals. It was purely to make a political point. That is not the way the Australian refugee processes operate. We cannot accept a process where people adopt that sort of action to prove their point. I understand that four children were presented by defence lawyers and a psychologist as evidence of how badly this family had been treated. In an examination in the court the magistrate found that, in fact, it was the woman's neglect of her children and the fact that she put a 17-year-old in charge of the rest of the kids and spent her whole time abusing the circumstances in which she found herself that were the cause for the poor condition of the kids, their not feeling confident and their not being well looked after. It was the mother's conduct, not the conditions of the detention centre, that created this situation.I think it is appalling that we saw a misrepresentation of that process on television and that we have a misunderstanding of it in this place. We need to understand that people in very difficult and desperate circumstances will take desperate steps to present their case. They will use their children, they will use their family, in order to convince the Australian authorities that they should be allowed to stay here and that they are suffering because they are not allowed to stay. These are desperate actions and the court found them to be desperate actions, but they are self-inflicted. If people have a genuine belief that they are refugees, Australia has one of the best systems in the world. There is not another country on earth that takes, proportionally, more refugees than Australia does. I am proud of that record, and I really must say that I reject completely the arguments of the Australian Labor Party, which has not come forward with any plan whatsoever for the attention that claimed refugees or people in detention should receive. I think most Aussies know that we have a fair system. They think we are overgenerous in the way in which we provide legal aid to so-called refugees. I think there needs to be more factual information out there, and I really do believe that we have a minister who is working between the compassion and the strength needed to make sure that this matter remains under control.I commend those who are responsible for the care of refugees and, further, I encourage consideration to be given to the fact that, if a person has no identity, if they have destroyed their identity, their refugee applications should be rejected. It is only through the positive identification of an individual that they can claim refugee status. Anybody who destroys their identity should be seen as a person wanting to abuse the Australian legal system. (Time expired)11:12:0030108O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00— The Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill (No. 2) 2001 enshrines the government's response to recent incidents at immigration centres. According to the government, the bill will introduce the power to strip search detainees and it will apply search powers that apply under state and territory legislation to immigration detainees held in a state or territory remand centre. According to the government, this bill is motivated by the increasing incidence of antisocial behaviour at detention centres, with major disturbances occurring at Woomera, Curtin and Port Hedland centres in recent times. As we know, these disturbances led to serious assaults on detention centre staff and extensive damage to property.Many in the community are asking how we have got to this particular situation in our detention centres and in the administration of this very contentious area of public policy, and I will speak a little more about that as this debate progresses. During these disturbances, we have seen increasing incidence of the use of weapons that have been fashioned from nonmetallic materials such as glass and hardened plastic or wood, and items such as razor blades. The existing frisk search powers in the migration act are obviously insufficient for the purposes of providing a safe and secure environment for detainees and staff. Currently, the Migration Act permits only a pat down search of detainees. In the government's view, this has serious consequences for the department's ability to manage immigration detainees in a lawful, responsible and effective way, and it potentially places detainees and staff in harm's way.The government claims—and many would take the government to task on this—that the provisions in this bill will strike a reasonable balance between preserving a detainee's dignity and privacy and providing a safe environment in the detention centres for all. If the government is claiming that these particular provisions strike a reasonable balance, it is due to the activities of the opposition in this regard. We have succeeded in negotiating with the government some amendments that make the legislation more palatable to those elements in our community who are very concerned about what has gone on in the detention centres and about the reputation of this great nation, which has suffered as a result of the administration of this contentious area of policy by this government.The first two measures that have been incorporated into the bill came about as a result of discussions between the shadow minister for immigration and multicultural affairs and Minister Ruddock. What has come out of those discussions is a much tighter application of this strip search power. A search can now be authorised only by a very senior officer in the central office of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, namely, the secretary or a Senior Executive Service band 3 employee such as the deputy secretary. Also, a detainee who is to be searched will be able to nominate another person to attend the strip search.To allay some of the fears of the community about this legislation, it is important to note that the search of a detainee or of his or her clothing will not be conducted as a matter of routine. It will be conducted as a matter of last resort, to be used only in determined exceptional circumstances. A draft protocol has been prepared on the exercise of the new search powers, and that has been settled in conjunction with the Attorney-General. This draft protocol will be incorporated into written directions, pursuant to section 499 of the Migration Act. It will provide operational guidelines for the power and will be binding on all officers.I want to put on the public record that Labor did not support this legislation when it was first presented to the parliament but, as a good opposition does—a good opposition that is preparing for government and will be in government in three months time, when the Prime Minister calls the election on 17 November—we have forced the government to negotiate a number of substantial amendments to the original bill. They have now been incorporated in the bill before the House. Let me refer to Labor's amendments and the logic behind them. Our amendments reflect a priority to put in place safeguards to prevent any abuse of the power that has been conferred under this legislation. A strip search can be conducted only on the basis of a reasonable suspicion that a weapon is being hidden on the person, based on the outcome of pat-down search or metal detector scan. We are concerned to ensure that a strip search can be authorised only by a senior officer of the department, which is a measure I referred to earlier. Detainees being searched have the right to have a witness of their own choosing present during the search. That is a very important amendment that the opposition have been able to achieve. In the case of minors, the strip search must be authorised by a magistrate in addition to the senior department official.These are safeguards that should have been in the legislation in the first place if the government had done its job, but we know the propensity of this government to latch onto particular issues of concern in the community and to play them out in a political sense rather than seeking to do the right thing from the start of the process. It is very clear that we have a defensive minister who has lost control of this particular area of his portfolio responsibility. In response to that, the easy way out is to bring into this parliament what could be termed quite draconian legislation that would appeal to those elements in our community that do not have a finer sense of what Australia stands for and its reputation in the international community.Unfortunately, the government, in preparing this legislation, fell foul of that particular sentiment. It sought to pander to the more redneck elements in our community that are very unsympathetic to the plight of genuine refugees who are currently incarcerated in our detention centres. It is a source of some concern to those in our community with sensitivity on these issues that Australia has jettisoned some of the cherished values that have motivated our attitude to refugees in the past and which have been such an integral part of the process of establishing Australia's very high reputation in the international community as a compassionate country.The measures here will ensure to a greater degree safeguards both for detainees and employees in our detention centres, but the real issue for public policy is how to prevent the ever increasing number of unauthorised boat arrivals to our shores. The arrival on Monday night, 20 August, of yet another boatload of asylum seekers on Ashmore Reef brings the number to 451 people in the last five days. It clearly shows that the Howard government has no real answer to unauthorised boat arrivals and has lost control of this area of policy. In the last 10 years there have been some 12,700 unauthorised arrivals, but I am sad to say that the vast majority of them—over 10,000—have arrived since the Howard government came to power in March 1996. The government's response over the last five years has been largely limited to introducing domestic legislative changes that were supposed to slow the number of unauthorised arrivals. But, for all their bravado and all their breast beating, the Prime Minister and the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs have failed miserably to stem the number of unauthorised asylum seekers arriving on our coastline.Labor has put into the public arena a policy position to create an Australian coastguard. This was one of the first policy initiatives announced by the Beazley opposition, and it was a detailed policy. We have been accused by the government of having no policy at all, but when we do put policy into the ring the government does one of two things: it is highly critical of it and does not even seek to extract the best features of the policy, or it goes to the other extreme and tries to pinch every idea that we put into the public arena. That occurred previously with regard to Kim Beazley's knowledge nation, which Labor will create when it is elected at the next election. For several years, Kim Beazley as opposition leader has put this particular concept into the public arena and he has drawn the attention of the Australian public to the great damage that the Howard government has done to the research, development innovation and skill infrastructure of this nation. I guess it is a sad reflection for members on the government backbench— indeed, some members of the executive whom we intend to retire at the next election—that, after being in government for five years, the one great thing that they can hang their hat on, their great visionary initiative, is the introduction of an outdated tax. What a sad indictment of a government which is bereft of ideas and which, in this very contentious area of public policy, has really let Australia down. It has let this issue run out of control. This is a contentious issue in community. In my electorate of Corio, I receive as the federal member calls from both sides of the fence with respect to this particular issue. We in Geelong are blessed with a large ethnic community that goes back to migration before the war. Modern Geelong has been built on postwar immigration and migrants have contributed much to the development of Geelong in an economic and cultural sense. But I know that in Geelong's ethnic community there are significant divisions of opinion on this particular issue. There are former refugees who have settled in the Geelong area who hold a very compassionate view with regard to those people who have made their way to Australia—the land of plenty, that land down under that offers security to them and their families and the opportunity of a new life and a decent standard of living. There are other migrants who are waiting for parents to join them. Their parents are on long waiting lists, and they are very impatient with that particular process. That has generated a very strong feeling against those people who have arrived on our shores in an unauthorised way, who seek to jump queues and who seek by illegal and unauthorised means to take advantage of Australia's great compassionate values.That division is also reflected generally in the Geelong community in that there are those who believe that Australia is devoting too much in the way of resources to the particular task of housing refugees and people who arrive here in an unauthorised manner. In a society where there are competing claims for government resources, it is always difficult to argue that Australia should be devoting significant resources to determining who is a genuine refugee and who is not and making sure that, in the process of establishing that, we treat in a humane way those who come to our shores in this manner. There are others in my electorate who have contacted me who are absolutely appalled at the current treatment afforded to refugees by the system that we have in place. I do not think we should mince words about this, dodge the issue or gild the lily. These divisions of opinion exist in Australian society today. It is my view that Australia needs to strike a balance by taking a compassionate but firm stance on this particular issue. We have a great international reputation that has been built up since Federation as a place where people can come and settle as refugees. Indeed, I am proud of my own community in that regard. When in the wake of some difficult times that were being experienced by people in the Balkans the minister requested that the Geelong community take some of those refugees, we have responded magnificently. We have not trumpeted the fact, because we know how this particular issue can excite sentiment and division in our community. But I am proud of the way in which the Geelong community and those people on the Geelong Ethnic Communities Council and the workers at the Geelong Migrant Resource Centre have accommodated the demands that have been put on them by the government—and this is a government that is not wont to resource these very important areas of social activity.We do have a deep-seated value in our society that we ought to give a fair go to all. But those who seek to come here need to be fair about this also. We are not a soft touch, and we do not intend to be. We must insist on appropriate processes and procedures in the resolution of these individual cases. The Australian community is demanding that the great values that have motivated our refugee policies in the past be maintained; but they are also demanding that the community be protected from illegal activities by people smugglers and others who seek to undermine those compassionate values that we have displayed in the past. I think one of the great features of Australian democracy and the processes of this parliament is that, when a government that politically has its back to the wall seeks to exploit a contentious community issue, the parliament then goes to work, the opposition goes to work, the Senate goes to work as well as the minor parties. We have been able to corral the government and its potential excesses—and might I add that politically this is an increasingly desperate government that would seek to exploit this particular issue—with the great values that have motivated us in the past. We always come back to the central core values of Australian society and Australian democracy. With the amendments that we have been able to achieve to this piece of legislation, I think we have done that.I congratulate the shadow minister for immigration for his persistence in this matter. He has quite an awesome reputation not only in the immigration community but also in the veterans' community of this nation. I congratulate him and this parliament for the amendments that we have succeeded in making to this legislation in this very contentious area of public policy.11:32:0030111Vale, Danna, MPMrs VALEVK6HughesLP10—I rise to support the Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill (No. 2) 2001 because it contains measures that are necessary in order to protect the principle of providing refugee asylum in Australia from those who are intent upon abusing the system. I want to make it clear that I fully support the longstanding Australian consensus that has led to Australia being today, as it has been in the past, one of the great safe havens in the world for refugees.One has only to recall the Dunnera Boys who escaped to Australia from Nazi Germany, or the boatloads of refugees who arrived following the Communist takeover of Eastern Europe in the late 1940s. Then in the late 1970s there were the boatloads of persecuted Vietnamese who fled Vietnam following the fall of Saigon. Our intake of Vietnam refugees gave us the highest per capita intake of refugees in the world at that time. Then there were the 19,000 Chinese students and Chinese nationals in Australia who sought refuge and were given asylum following the crushing of democracy by the People's Liberation Army in Tiananmen Square in 1989. Amid the confusion, the panic and the human suffering over more than half a century, Australia has had a long history of welcoming and settling refugees from all over the world through an orderly program and process.Today, just to put the record straight, our overall refugee intake of 12,000 per year on a per capita basis puts Australia at the top of the international league, ranking us at No. 2 after Canada and probably ahead of the United States at No. 3. The point I want to emphasise is that this great humanitarian record of our nation was achieved through an orderly process, determined by this parliament. It was achieved without widespread intimidation and violence by illegal arrivals in reception and holding centres. It is this new phenomenon of intimidation and violence by people arriving illegally that has brought about this bill.Today, the number of refugees globally— that is, people uprooted and forced from their homes—is estimated to be about 35 million. Of these, 21 million are internally displaced. The human suffering is enormous. It is generally agreed internationally that the best humanitarian solution, given the numbers, is to improve the situation in the homelands from which they are fleeing so that most can be safely and voluntarily returned to resume their lives in safety and security. It is also agreed internationally that the answer to the problem will not be found in people smugglers, nor will it be found in abuse of the legal system in the country where the refugees are seeking permanent asylum. To those in the people smuggling industry who trade and significantly profit from human misery, it also needs to be made clear over and over again that they do not make the refugee policy of Australia, nor do they decide the due process that implements that policy.I support this bill and I support the minister. I defend the government from the unrelenting attacks upon its efforts to conduct an orderly refugee policy and program, which balances the protection of the present population of Australia and the needs of those people who are in genuine need. I believe that the propaganda that has been promoted by political attack against the federal government is being swallowed all too readily by some groups. The Four Corners television program last Monday week was a classic illustration of this. The minister had to issue a six-page document to answer just some of the substantive errors in that program. Unfortunately, some reputable agencies took the program at its face value and issued media releases on the basis of what was contained in that program. They just multiplied the spread of errors and distortions and, consequently, public misconceptions. It is Orwellian when a national broadcaster on another program repeatedly refers to illegal arrivals who commit arson and other violent acts as `informal immigrants'. We either uphold the rule of law in Australia—and that is the rule of law for everyone—or we do not. We should all be very much aware that the alternative to an orderly immigration process is immigration that is out of control—and that would be the triumph of chaos over order. An immigration program that is out of control is a program that is a danger to the health and security of the Australian people. Some of the attacks upon such an orderly program come from outside Australia and some come from within; at times one could be excused from gaining the distinct impression that it appears to be a coordinated attack.We live in one of the most open and easygoing nations in the world. In a way, we are a rainbow nation that has been built upon the many colours of the many national identities that make up our multicultural population. We have a strong reputation as a country that welcomes refugees and provides them with a safe and comfortable haven. Unfortunately, our easygoing approach to the exercise of authority, to our high standard of human rights, and to the rule of law in our country is being abused. It is being abused by people smugglers, some of whom are considered to be among the world's most organised criminals, who make ill-gained billions of dollars from people-smuggling. It is also being abused by other individuals who attempt to lie, cheat, and physically intimidate their way to permanent residency in our country, either by the use of violence to persons or by the destruction of property.Many of those who arrive illegally have been able to afford to pay large sums of money for their passage to Australia. Many of these illegal persons arrive with false or inadequate documentation or no documentation whatsoever. There are known cases where many illegal immigrants have apparently destroyed their documentation after they leave their last port of embarkation or just before they set foot on Australian territory. The only conclusion that a reasonable person can draw from this is that such persons want to conceal who they really are for, if that were known, it would disqualify them from asylum in Australia.Of course, there are many people who have fled their homeland without the opportunity to obtain correct documentation that would confirm their identity, and there are some who cannot reveal themselves to international refugee agencies, for fears about the safety of their families left behind. They have to be patient, as the necessary checks do take time. But this is a reasonable delay, and it is a delay which has, as its ultimate objective, the protection of the wider Australian community.Let me make it clear that, according to the principles of the 1951 United Nations convention to which Australia is a signatory, it is legal to travel to another country to request asylum. But it is not legal to assault people, to cause riot and affray and to destroy property while your are waiting for a decision to be made on your request. The behaviour of some detainees in Australia, since 1999 in particular, would never have been on the minds of representatives when the United Nations convention was framed and adopted in 1951. In other words, the problems that are being faced by the Australian government today are unprecedented in their frequency and scale.As Minister Ruddock has pointed out time and time again, many illegal arrivals who have documents proving who they are can be out and about legally in the community in about four weeks. Many of those who try to conceal their identity, or whose identity is not clear, can be out and about within three months of their arrival—that is, in about 80 per cent of cases. But those who are detained for longer periods are mostly those who do not accept the umpire's decision about their status. They choose to remain in detention and to appeal to a higher authority or court, or even to stage media stunts, rather than to leave the country. And they do not have to stay in the detention centres. They can leave to return to their own country at any time, and the Australian government will provide their air transport. As the minister has pointed out in this House, there have been many incidents where some detainees have sought to intimidate other detainees, or to incite detainees to damage property or to escape. More disturbing still, there have been numerous incidents where detainees have fashioned weapons from materials obtained within the detention centres. Examples include razor blades melted into toothbrushes, a shard of mirror attached to a piece of wood to make a knife, or a ballpoint pen with a needle fastened into its centre. To go to so much trouble to fashion weapons of these types indicates certainly perseverance, but also at least some degree of malevolent intent to use them.We have all seen on television graphic scenes this year of riots and violent behaviour at reception and processing centres as far apart as Woomera, Curtin and Port Hedland. These centres are not prisons, and they are not run like prisons. They are certainly not concentration camps, such as described on the television program mentioned earlier. Nor are they places where people with choices would choose to stay. But they are certainly far better facilities than the facilities that many present Australian citizens stayed in when they first arrived in Australia as refugees in the fifties, and there are plenty of Australians living in pre-World War II housing today.It may come as a surprise to most Australians to learn that this bill is required to provide Australian authorities with the power, if necessary, to properly search illegal detainees. Surprised Australians may ask, somewhat incredulously, `Why on earth have we not had this kind of legislation from the beginning?' Many Australians may be even more surprised to learn that this bill is necessary to provide state and territory legislation to apply search powers to illegal detainees held in a state or territory prison or remand centres. It appears that, up to the present time, Australian citizens detained in state or territory correctional facilities are more rigorously searched than are illegal arrivals whose violent behaviour leads to them being detained in such facilities.The need for this bill demonstrates just how easygoing our laws are, particularly when compared with the laws in the countries of origin of many of those who try to enter Australia illegally. Anyone with just a passing knowledge of some of these countries of origin knows that they have reputations that deny even the most basic human rights and that apply the most draconian enforcement of the ruling authority. Some detainees, rather than trying to uphold the easygoing nature of Australia, which is part of the attraction of Australia to them, instead take advantage of our obliging process and attempt to frustrate it and abuse it.Australia has a responsibility to provide detention facilities that are a safe environment for all who are within them, be they the detainees, the staff or visitors. Such centres facilitate the many services that must be provided to the detainees, such as immigration assessment and legal and health services, and such services must be able to be provided with an assurance of safety and security for all those in the centres. As events have shown, such safety and security cannot be assured with the limited search powers that presently exist. This bill provides for adequate powers to search, and it contains more than adequate checks on the exercise of that power. The sooner this bill goes into effect, the safer the detention centres will be for all those in detention, and the safer the wider community will be.Finally, 1 would like to record my support for the compassionate, diligent and rational manner in which the Minister for Immigration and Aboriginal Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock, deals with this difficult area. He works hard and with admirable sensitivity, and this to uphold an orderly and generous refugee intake, balancing the genuine cries for help with the interests of the wider Australian community, and he deserves commendation for doing so. In recent weeks I have had many calls to my office from residents within my electorate, many of whom have clearly identified themselves as Labor supporters but who want me to convey to the minister their support for his work and for doing a fine job. I record their appreciation to encourage the minister in this difficult, complex task—perhaps one of the most vexed portfolios in the cabinet. I support the bill and commend it to the House.11:45:0030114Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—This piece of legislation before us, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill (No. 2) 2001, is a very shameful exercise. For both the major political parties to agree to legislation of such a draconian nature will in fact impose further burdens on already burdened and oppressed people. I am referring to the detainees. I suppose one might have had some sympathy for some of the speakers if in fact this bill, or the previous bill, detainees bill No. 1, had some provisions in it to guarantee the basic human rights and entitlements of detainees—there may have been some balance created—or if they had taken into account the recommendations of the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade's Human Rights Subcommittee or even talked about in some way—in the bill or in its discussion—the conditions in the detention centres and the need to provide for the basic entitlements of detainees.It is shameful because in fact the Labor Party, having initially indicated that it would oppose these provisions, has now effectively agreed to go ahead with them. This would not have been done easily, because we know many people, many members of the ALP, were opposed to these provisions and argued against these provisions in the caucus committees and so forth. There are clearly divisions within the ALP on this issue. Nevertheless, the view of the shadow minister has prevailed, and we have a situation where the Labor Party is now supporting these provisions without putting forward any kinds of issues in either this bill, the immigration detainees bill, or the previous bill—there are no provisions whatever from either party—to protect the rights and entitlements of detainees. This is shameful in the context of what has been going on with detainees and what continues to be revealed about the situation of detainees. If there was ever any testament to indicate the need for independence and third views in this parliament, this bill is one.I feel very passionate about this because I have actually visited Port Hedland. I have seen the situation in Port Hedland. I have spoken to the people who were charged for supposedly initiating a riot. There has been an attempt by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, right from the beginning, to pretend that it was all the fault of the refugee claimants and had nothing to do with the behaviour of the ACM people. When the first incident occurred in Port Hedland, that is what he said, unfortunately for him; he said it was all the fault of the refugee claimants. But three months later, in a quiet little assessment, one of the top people in ACM was charged and convicted of bashing a refugee claimant. You do not hear the media screaming out about that. No, that was not covered; that was not given prominence. And when we do get a situation where the circumstances of refugee claimants and detainees are explained, such as in the recent Four Corners program, what happens? The minister issues several pages of an attempted rebuttal. `Everything is wrong,' says the minister.After my visit to Port Hedland I wrote to the minister specifying the allegations of brutality by ACM guards and asking him to take action. This is what he replied in a letter to me on 9 August:With respect to the alleged brutality by ACM staff, I am advised that this matter has been investigated by ACM.Oh, really, ACM investigating itself!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 went to Hakea prison. I saw these people a few days after these incidents. They had bruises, not merely on their hands. Some have said, `You have to put handcuffs on people.' But these people had bruises on their heads and backs, and I have photographs of those bruises. And what do we get in this parliament? All we get is a continuous attack on asylum seekers and refugee claimants. What do we get in this parliament? We get no attempt at consideration of an objective assessment of what is going on, and when there is an objective assessment— when the Ombudsman says something—the minister gets up and says, `I disagree. This must be false.' When the human rights commissioner says something, the minister says, `I disagree. This must be false.' The minister says that everybody has rights, yet the other day the Human Rights Commissioner issued a statement saying that, contrary to assurances by the department, most detainees are not aware of their rights in terms of the human rights commission.It is not just a question of Hakea prison. The minister knows—the minister is aware—that these people have complained. I sent him a letter signed by 116 detainees from Port Hedland. It was only when I sent him that letter signed by those people that he finally considered this to be a problem. He said:It would generally not be considered appropriate for my office to refer allegations to another organisation without the express permission of those concerned. However, given the serious nature of the allegations made in the letter, your correspondence was referred to Dr Sev Ozdowski, Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commissioner, prior to his visit to the Port Hedland IRPC on 28 June 2001.So even the minister recognises that there are massive complaints about the treatment of people in detention centres. And what do we do? We have legislation in this House that is directed entirely towards punishment, entirely towards things like strip searching— which I will get to later—and is not directed towards anything to do with the protection of the rights of these people. How such a bill could go through without even an attempt, from either side of this parliament, to amend it to add such provisions is an indication of where we have reached in terms of human rights provisions.Yesterday the shadow minister in his speech attacked the minister. What was the basis of his attack? It was: how dare you, Minister, say that we are not tough enough, that we are soft, on `illegal immigrants'? So we have in this House a competition between the two major political parties as to who is going to appear most tough, most punitive, against the so-called illegal immigrants. I point out that the United Nations has said these people are not illegal immigrants, they are asylum seekers. What is the definition of an illegal immigrant? An illegal immigrant is a person who has arrived here and overstayed their visa or the provisions of their visa. A person who arrives here and honestly claims refugee status is not an illegal immigrant. Yet we keep hearing, day after day, references to asylum seekers as if they are illegal immigrants.This House and the major parties of this House have lost all perspective of what a refugee is and what refugee issues are in the modern world. There are hundreds of thousands of refugees, there are millions of refugee claimants. These people are in very dire straits and very serious situations. Every country that has a reasonable standard of living has some obligation to these people. The minister gets up and says, `We are bearing a disproportionate burden.' What disproportionate burden? How do our numbers compare with the 70,000 per annum that enter Germany, the 30,000 per annum that enter Italy, or the numbers that enter other countries of Europe, or the United States or even Canada? We are trying to claim that we have some kind of massive refugee problem when in fact, in proportionate terms, this is not the case.There are more issues here about human rights. Let us go back to the Four Corners program. A person quoted in the program called Stefan said this:Sometimes, in my room alone, with nothing to do—only to see the wall, and the mattress, that's it. Sometimes, when you see yourself a long time—two years for nothing—Sometimes I get depression. Sometimes, I tell you, I wanted to kill myself. That's it, to finish problem. People are being forced into depression. These are people who have escaped persecution, who are in very difficult circumstances, and we are treating them like this. Dr Zachary Steel, a clinical psychologist, said on the program:Well, every indication that we have, looking at the population from the detention centres, actually suggests that within our detention centres are probably the most traumatised people on the face of the planet.What is the government's response to this situation? What is the response of the opposition? It is: let us get tougher on them. The shadow minister yesterday said to the minister, `We've agreed to every tough measure that you have brought in. We are just as tough as you on these people. But your measures aren't working.' That is what he said, that the tough measures are not working—`working' meaning here, of course, that refugees still come. The whole idea behind this punishment regime and publicising all the very serious detriments to human rights that exist in the detention centres is to achieve a situation where we somehow send the message overseas to certain people that, `If you arrive in Australia you are going to be treated so tough in these detention centres that, therefore, you should not come here at all.' The whole basis of this claim is the idea that a person escapes from a difficult circumstance, from persecution, because somehow they feel that they can get a better life elsewhere, and that is it. People escape because they have to escape.Last night we had a meeting here of the Jewish community. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition got up and talked about how much they loved the Jewish community and how sad they are about the Holocaust. Imagine if these provisions were applied to Jewish refugees escaping from Nazi Germany. Where would we be? Imagine that! How can we be blind to this moment of history and talk about the past in noble terms? The situation in Afghanistan is outrageous. Everyone accepts that. Why can't we show some compassion to these people? The situation in Iraq is unacceptable. We sent forces to deal with Saddam Hussein. Yet what do we say about the people escaping from the regime of Saddam Hussein? We say we have to teach them a lesson; we are going to put them in detention for many months, years if necessary. Dr Steel said on Four Corners that three separate studies have shown that Australia's so-called illegal refugees are more traumatised than those who come here through official refugee programs. In other words, they are the ones who have suffered the most. And yet we treat them in this way.As I said, I will be moving a second reading amendment and the honourable member for Calare will be seconding that amendment. That amendment seeks to put some balance into this issue. It seeks to raise questions. It seeks to demand that provisions be put in place to deal with the refugee claimant in a more reasonable way. I have already referred to these issues. If we had a more balanced amendment, we would be able to deal with this issue of strip searching in a way which would reflect that balance. Instead, what happens? We have a situation where both the government and the opposition have agreed to certain provisions. We are told that these provisions are an improvement on the previous situation, but how much of an improvement are they?The only improvement of any substance is that they cannot strip search minors without an order from a magistrate. If you read the legislation closely, you will see that under these provisions they will still be able to strip search people with an authority from somebody from the department of immigration. There is no need for a magistrate, except in the case of a child. There is no provision for a lawyer. There is no provision for someone from the human rights commission. You might say that they have added a provision that it is to be done in the presence of another detainee. So, if they are going to strip search someone, another detainee will be present, but is there any provision which deals with the issue of what happens if that particular detainee, the witness, supports the claims of the detainee who is being searched rather than the claims of the ACM person? Of course there is not.What are we talking about here? We are talking about people being strip searched by the ACM or a similar authority. These are the very same people who have been involved in gross abuses of human rights against detainees. Not only have some of these people been convicted and some been moved out, but that culture continues to exist in Port Hedland and elsewhere. I have complained about this to the minister. For example, on 26 May the ACM, together with police, raided Port Hedland and took away some people. It has been alleged that several ACM staff destroyed artwork produced by women and children detainees by painting large swastikas over the artwork. The minister has said that this is not true. I have actually been there and I saw at least one such swastika. This represents the mentality of some of the staff there. I do not say that they are all like that, but privately I have identified at least one individual who should be removed from that place immediately. He has been guilty of bashing asylum seekers. Another example of human rights abuses involved an entire family that was locked for 50 days in the Juliet Block—the famous isolation centre—with 15 others and given only plastic bags to tie around their waists, and there was no toilet. Or there is the example of a particular ACM guard who has been continually responsible for flagrant abuses, which I have already mentioned. Two detainees have complained three times about the abuse they received from this guard, but no action has been taken.I could go on about the situation in Port Hedland. I could go on about what is happening there and about the numerous complaints that I received when I was there from representatives of the refugee claimants. They came to see me as a group when I was leaving and the expression on their faces was of angst, of being lost, of being unjustly done by. None of this is dealt with in this legislation. All we have is more punishment, more tough provisions and provisions which do not guarantee their rights in any way.Let us talk about this issue of strip searching. Under the Crimes Act, in this country a person who has been charged with a crime or is in the context of being charged with a crime cannot be strip searched without the authority of a magistrate. Yet under this legislation people who are not criminals are going to be strip searched merely with the authority of some person from the department of immigration.10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—Order! The member for Calwell's time has all but expired. He should move his amendment now.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—I move:That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words:“whilst not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House expresses its concern:(1) at the absence in the bill of important provisions to guarantee the basic human rights and entitlements of detainees;(2) that the bill fails to recognise the criticisms of the conditions of detention centres provided in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, Human Rights Sub-Committee: A report on visits to immigration detention centres;(3) at the failure of the bill to adopt key recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee's report to improve the conditions in the detention centres, and ensure that the basic entitlements of detainees are provided for;(4) that the bill fails to take account of the numerous allegations of maltreatment of detainees, and consequently fails to put into place provisions to ensure that their rights to officially complain about such maltreatment are enshrined in legislation; and(5) that the bill, and the second reading speech of the Minister, seek to portray asylum-seekers in a completely negative way, and do not give any recognition for the difficult circumstances which they have endured”.KL6Andren, Peter, MPMr Andren—I second the amendment and reserve my right to speak later.12:06:0030117Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLYFK6DawsonNP10—The Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill (No. 2) 2001 is part of a range of measures to ensure that immigration detention centres are safe, not only for illegal entrants to Australia but also for the staff and visitors. I am of course referring to the original bill rather than amendments that have been moved.Since 1999, Australia has witnessed an unprecedented increase in the number of unauthorised arrivals in Australia, particularly by boat. Through the efforts of Minister Ruddock, in recent times the flow of illegal immigrants arriving by boat has been stemmed somewhat. In 1999-2000 we saw 74 boats arrive on Australia shores; in 2000-01 that number was reduced to 54. This is directly linked to the severe penalties now imposed on people smugglers and powers to seize vessels involved in bringing people to Australia. Because of these penalties, it is likely that these people smugglers are starting to find it more difficult to attract crews and to arrange boats. We are also receiving, again as a result of the efforts of Minister Ruddock, more cooperation from some countries in the Middle East and Asia in disrupting the activities of people smugglers. However, the latest arrivals of close to 1,000 people on Christmas Island show that it remains a major problem. People smuggling rackets remain rampant and it is clear that Australia remains an extremely desirable and targeted destination. The abuse of Australia's asylum systems was clearly demonstrated by the interception of a boat in Cambodia which was on its way to Australia with 242 people on board. A large number of those people on the boat said that on arrival in Australia they were going to claim to be fleeing Afghanistan. Notwithstanding that they were carrying Afghan passports, they were subsequently found not to be Afghan citizens. Half of them came from Pakistan, Iran and the Gulf states and all but four had return tickets to Pakistan or the United Arab Emirates, which suggests to a thoughtful observer that they had the right to re-enter those countries. These are plainly people not fleeing persecution; they are simply trying to migrate to Australia by queue jumping and taking an illegal course. These people must be returned home. If they want to migrate to Australia, then let them go through our proper, legal migration channels.However, for those who do take the illegal course, the laws in Australia require that those illegal entrants are detained, and that has been the case since 1992. Mandatory detention may be considered by some to be tough public policy, but I can assure the House that in my electorate it is a policy which is widely supported. There is a view that illegal immigrants, boat people or unlawful non-citizens—however one wishes to describe them—regardless of their title, should not be allowed to queue jump and deny people who are applying to enter Australia through legitimate channels access to immigration places in Australia. Many other countries which have had somewhat more lax policies in relation to illegal immigrants are now strengthening their rules, particularly in Europe. It is essential in Australia that we find out who these people are, where they originated from and why they cannot return to their country of origin, and we need to carry out health and character checks. It is not unreasonable for an Australian citizen to ask whether these illegal entrants have criminal backgrounds. They simply cannot be granted visas and released into the community, where they potentially present a real danger.Increased arrivals have meant that the detainee population has grown in number and has changed in nature. The disturbance incidents at the Woomera, Curtin and Port Hedland detention centres are testimony to this. We now have an increasing number of long-term detainees in detention, generally caused by the seemingly never-ending appeal process which some embark upon having been denied residency. This of course has the capacity to increase tension within our detention centres.For those who question the necessity for this bill, I think it would be very enlightening to read the transcript of the remarks made by the presiding magistrate at the trial of the detainees charged over the riot at Port Hedland detention centre. The judge, in his summing up before sentencing, said:The riots on the 4th and 5th April 2001 must be one of the most serious that one can visualise. I am extremely surprised that there were no injured people or for that matter, no deaths.This is a presiding magistrate, someone used to having a calm and balanced view of events, saying that he was surprised there were no deaths. He went on to say:I'm of the opinion that the officers and management at the time of the riots handled themselves in the most professional way. If they would not have done that, I have no doubt that a coroner would be doing [an] inquest into numerous deaths and injuries. These statements by the presiding magistrate tend to put the lie to the constant carping from those in the community and in the opposition about the poor standard of management of detention centres. I remind the House that the judge mentioned that `the officers and management at the time of the riots handled themselves in the most professional way'.I would now like to turn to the specifics of the bill. It amends the Migration Act 1958 to, firstly, strengthen the criminal offence of escape and to introduce a new offence relating to the manufacture and possession of weapons; secondly, to introduce an additional power to search detainees for weapons or items that can be used to inflict injury or to assist with an escape; thirdly, permit searches of detainees held in state or territory prisons; and, finally, to introduce additional security measures for visitors to detention centres.Members will have read and seen the reports that clearly identify the increase in the seizure of self-made weapons. I have with me today for the House the Australian, and it shows in fact the `Woomera weapons haul', as they put it. I will now read from the article in the Australian:An electric prod comprised of two forks and a jug cord, a spiked knuckle-duster and a razor headed toothbrush are among the home-made weapons allegedly confiscated. They also included screwdrivers, half a garden shear, knives fashioned from door knobs and two nooses.For those who recall, there was a photograph of some extremely dangerous looking items. Quite clearly, these are not toys. They are designed to inflict injury. They represent a danger to staff and other detainees alike. This legislation is needed to prohibit the manufacture, possession and use of these or similar weapons. There is also a need for the power to properly search detainees to uncover items. Existing search powers are limited by the necessity to have the consent of the detainee. It is not reasonable to assume that a detainee who is concealing a weapon is going to agree to be searched.The minister is doing an exceptional job in a difficult portfolio. He has assured the House that these strip searches will not be undertaken as a matter of routine. There must be strong reasons for undertaking a strip search. There must be a reasonable suspicion that a detainee has a hidden weapon or some other form of undesirable object and, as the minister has said, it does not include an internal examination of a detainee. The minister has built a number of safeguards into the bill to ensure that it is used in the proper context. First, as we have said, there has to be reasonable suspicion. Secondly, a search can only be conducted after approval from one of only two senior departmental officers, and they do not include on-site managers being able to give that authorisation. If it is a minor aged up to 18, that person can be searched only with the consent of a magistrate.There are those who view strip searches as somehow an invasion of privacy. The fact is that we need to remember the comments of the presiding magistrate over the last riot, and we cannot ignore the violent and threatening activity of some detainees. Equally, the government cannot ignore its duty of care to other detainees and staff at detention centres. This is an action that I fully support. For those who have somehow lost sight of the central argument in the question of illegal immigrants, we must never forget that these people come to our shores uninvited and unwelcome. They serve mainly to destroy and defer the aspirations of people who wish to seek residence in Australia through legitimate channels. Australia is a caring country and there are legitimate channels through which people can seek to enter Australia. Furthermore, I remind the House that the number of long-term detainees—and there are many now in detention centres—is the result of the opposition and the Australian Democrats previously refusing to pass legislation through the Senate which would enable the appeals processes to be substantially improved and streamlined.I note that the judicial review legislation, which has languished in the Senate in the past, has now been relisted. I trust that the Democrats and the Labor Party in the Senate will look afresh at the judicial review legislation and see their responsibility to immediately ensure that those who are long-term detainees can be sent back to their homes, and to reduce the angst and concern in the Australian community about people being detained for long periods of time. It is not the government's fault. It is not the fault of the Australian people. That piece of legislation needs to be put through the Senate. I am pleased to see that we have a measure of support from the opposition for the Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill (No. 2) 2001. I hope that the shadow minister for immigration, the member for Bowman, remains consistent in his support. However, I am concerned about the opposition's opportunistic approach to the question of illegal immigrants. I would like to quote the shadow minister, the member for Bowman, and I refer to the Hansard of 6 February 2001 where he said:I have said to the minister before that if he can come up with something which is reasonable he will get the support of the opposition. The minister's response, of course, is, `Well, what's your solution?' Well, I am not the minister. The opposition is not in government. You are the minister. You come up with the solutions and we will have a look at them—you have got the whole of the department plus advisers ad infinitum. All I have got is one person.On the face of it, that is true, although the opposition has the power to put that bill through the Senate. So you are not just one person; you are the Senate as well and the responsibility falls on the Democrats and the Labor Party in the Senate. We will see that bill relisted and we will find out how sincere people are in the Senate and in the opposition about reducing the numbers in detention centres in Australia.Back to the `all I have got is one person,' and this is where inconsistencies in comments from the opposition become evident. You will recall that temporary protection visa holders were being sent to Brisbane, which is the capital of my own state. The member for Bowman's electorate is in Brisbane. However, that did not stop him from accusing the federal government of treating the refugees like low-life by dumping them in an alien city. I hope the member for Bowman does not refer to Brisbane as an alien city in his own electorate.83ERipoll, Bernie, MPMr Ripoll—It is alien to the asylum seekers.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Where do you want to put them? Everywhere is going to be alien because they are illegal immigrants and presumably have not been here before. What a silly comment. For goodness sake!The inconsistencies go on. Let us have a look at some more of the inconsistencies. On 23 May 1999, the shadow minister said, `The situation is fast reaching crisis proportions.' There is no doubt about that. On 27 May 1999, he said `... the Government must now view the flood of illegal immigrants as a major crisis'. But on 3 July 2000, the shadow minister said, `The reality is that it's not a crisis.' We had done such a good job that obviously in 12 months we had averted the crisis. I wish that were true. The minister has done an exceptional job, but the reality is that the job is still ahead of everybody. So it is `major crisis; crisis proportions; it's not a crisis'. The inconsistencies go further. I refer to the government's measures to deal with boat arrivals. On 9 June, on ABC radio, referring to the government, the shadow minister said:We've now brought in the three-year temporary visa. I don't think that's doing much, but in any event, we've agreed to that.However, on 3 July he went further and said:I think though we are getting a bit of a handle on it.In a month we have got a bit of a handle on it. It goes further than that; the inconsistencies are quite extraordinary. One of the best is the reference to the high risk factor list. On 17 March 2000, to the Migration Institute Conference, the shadow minister said:I am very disappointed by the Immigration Department's overzealous use of the so-called `high risk factor list of countries'.He then went on to say:It is very hard for Labor to tolerate a list such as this ...If that were the case, who introduced the list? The ALP introduced the list when they were in office. It is pretty hard to say, `I'm very disappointed by the list; it is very hard for Labor to tolerate the list,' when they introduced it. If you cannot tolerate your own policies, it is a bit rich to ask the people of Australia to tolerate them—mind you, I do not think that that is something you will have to worry about. Again, on the integrity of visitor visas, at the Gay and Lesbian Immigration Task Force annual general meeting on 30 March 2000 in Brisbane, the member for Bowman, again referring to the list, said: I have already given a commitment that this list will be reassessed and its usage reviewed ...Yet in a media statement on 15 March 2000, only a fortnight before, he accused the government and said:This Government and in particular its Minister Philip Ruddock beat their chest everyday about their toughness ... They are extremely soft.The government are soft. He went on to state:Not only has its refusal to act quickly and decisively on this issue ...On the one hand, the list that Labor brought in, which the government is continuing with, is hard for Labor to tolerate and they are disappointed by the overzealous use of the list, but, on the other hand, when you are talking to the Gay and Lesbian Immigration Task Force annual general meeting, the government is extremely soft. You cannot have it every which way; you have to be consistent on this. The Australian people know that the Labor Party are soft on illegal immigrants. They say one thing when they are talking to a group that they are trying to draw in for the next election, but, when they are talking to another group on the other side, it is a different argument. Your inconsistencies, my friends, will come home well and truly during the election campaign.MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—I raise a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am becoming disturbed at the many allegations the member for Dawson is making against you. I ask that she comply with the standing orders and address her remarks through the chair. I am sure that you are not guilty of all of those things, Mr Deputy Speaker.10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—Order! The honourable member for Dawson will address her remarks through the chair.FK6Kelly, De-Anne, MPMrs DE-ANNE KELLY—Thank you for your advice, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will certainly follow it. However, this government is supposedly extremely soft. The shadow minister made the point quite well on 17 March 2000, again to the Migration Institute Conference, when he said:Minister Ruddock has completely frozen the offshore component of the refugee program ... This is an unfair situation for those genuine refugees that have been waiting often for years in UNHCR camps around the World for a place on Australia's program.Absolutely! He rightly made the point—I commend him on it—that it is an unfair situation. Illegal immigrants are taking up places in Australia that rightly belong to genuine refugees who wait patiently, following the correct procedure. The inconsistencies from the opposition will be their undoing in the forthcoming election. The Australian people want to see a fair system. (Time expired)12:27:0030121Ripoll, Bernie, MPMr RIPOLL83EOxleyALP00—I am pleased to speak on this important piece of legislation, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill (No. 2) 2001. I consider the debate to be a victory for the Labor Party. It is a victory because earlier this year the government was forced to split the discussion into two separate bills so that the contentious issue of the strip searching of immigration detainees could be given the proper consideration that it deserved and so that we could debate it in this House. As I listened to a number of contributions to the debate, in particular as I listened to the member for Dawson, I could see that most people have not spent much time dealing with the bill or what it is about. They talk about all sorts of issues and problems but they have little understanding of the core issues, which they should understand but do not.The opposition supports this bill because the government has recognised that the amendments that Labor proposed were necessary for the protection not only of individuals' wellbeing but also of Australia's good governance. There is a common theme in the ongoing debate over immigration detainees, and that is human rights. This is not a matter that needs to be debated; everyone in the House should support it, and I believe they do, but the way in which they go about that support sometimes is very questionable. The wedge politics being used by the government in this debate has allowed it to undermine the community's understanding of human rights issues, in particular those in relation to our obligations to treat individuals with dignity and humility, regardless of where they are from and how they get here. There still is a baseline that we draw in this country. That is important for us as a nation, not because of an international obligation on human rights, not because of the rule of law, and not because of all the things that you might think. It is something that we as a people believe in: the issue of human rights is something that we believe in passionately. It is something cultural about Australia; it is something about our system and the way we do business. It is not just about the rule of law or our obligations; it is much more than that. Then you have to look at the government's attempt to quash discussion that coalition members in particular wanted to raise about problems with immigration detention centres at the recent committee hearings. When the government realised that `wedge' politics was not working even on its own side, its instructions to its own members were, `Make no comment. Stay silent.' This did not work, and we all saw what happened when the minister accused his own members of being naïve and Johnny-come-latelies who had no idea. I do not know if he has retracted or apologised, but he was talking to some people with quite extensive experience and knowledge. It was quite an insult to those people on their own side, let alone everyone else. This government is now attempting to do the same thing with this bill by blurring the lines of responsibility through attacks on other areas. It is blurring the lines of responsibility in this bill, as it has blurred the lines of responsibility in health matters, Medicare, education—as we see every day in this House. This government now takes responsibility for absolutely nothing. Everything is the responsibility of the states. It is passing on taxation, the GST, health matters—everything is someone else's responsibility. This government no longer accepts responsibility for anything in this country. Of course, the government tried to counter the authority of the parliamentary committee to investigate the living conditions at immigration detention centres, but it has not worked. People do know what the conditions are, and I do not think they are fooled by some of the sensationalism and propaganda this government puts out. The documents it puts out in electorates is just rubbish. I was also greatly disappointed with the Four Corners program that was aired on television recently, in that I believe strongly that there was a gross misrepresentation of the facts and reality. There was no understanding of the program, no balance, no supporting evidence—just a completely biased view. There was great disappointment in the accusations and allegations made—to Australia—that our detention systems are somehow worse than the Taliban and a whole range of things. It is not a simple argument. While I get up here and have a go at the government about their policies, at the same time I accept that there are difficulties with the system we have. But there are better ways to do it and better ways to manage it. There are better ways to deal with this whole issue.One of the things we have been trying to push forward is the idea of a judicial review of conditions. It is unfortunate that the government will not support us on this but is ignoring it. I wonder what it is afraid of and what it is hiding from. A judicial review would give us a better understanding of what the real conditions are, and then we may not have the kind of problems we had with the Four Corners program of distorting the truth, misrepresenting the facts, and not even coming close to what the reality is in those places. I am sure they just went to one place and spoke to three people and that is supposed to be what happens in detention centres across Australia. I, like many others, am very concerned about these matters, and I have visited every detention centre and every processing centre and have done extensive work in this area. I have to say that, while we have many problems, it is certainly not the way it was portrayed by the Four Corners program. While there are huge problems, they are problems of management. There are also problems about length of stay and all of the other problems that have been put forward today and yesterday in this debate. I think those issues are a part of this bill but separate in that we need to look at other ways to deal with this. There is an experiment being carried out in Port Hedland at the moment where they are releasing women and children into the community. They are splitting up families, which I do not think is a good thing, but I suppose that releasing women and children is a good thing in itself because it gives them an opportunity to not be contained within those walls. The member for Dawson was saying that Labor do not offer any practical solutions. We have offered quite a number of them; it is just that the government does not take them up. When it comes to offering solutions and trying to assist, I cannot think of any other portfolio where a shadow minister—the member for Bowman—and the Labor Party have been more cooperative. We have been out there trying to support the government, because we know this is a difficult issue. We know there are many problems. We want to do what is best for this country and for those people who are desperate to come here. We want to do the best by everyone, and we have attempted to do that by putting forward amendments and seeking the government's support for them so that the legislative changes are better. I do not think the government could ever claim that you can just put up policy and think that it is perfect straight off the bat. We saw that principle in play with the GST legislation—and here we are, 1,800 amendments later. I can remember quite distinctly the Treasurer telling the world about this new tax system for a new century that was so good, so perfect, and so thought through that not one change was needed. We now have something like seven or eight kilos of legislation, as thick as 5½ telephone books, and this is from a government that said, `It is fine; we do not need your help.' This government's principle is that it is fine on its own. It takes no responsibility and does not need any advice or help. It will be fine on its own; it can manage everything. Which one is it going to be? Where is the line being drawn? There are a whole range of concerns not only about what is happening in detention centres and not only about the regime. This government has put in place its own attitude and approach to these issues, but in this bill at least we are going some way to doing the right thing in terms of trying to make the legislation better.Labor has supported this bill conditional upon our amendments being supported by the government. The amendments we are putting forward are quite reasonable. I do not think anyone could go out there and say that we are trying to obstruct the government in doing their job. The amendments we will put forward in relation to strip searching quite simply make the system better. We are trying to apply the same principles and standards as might be expected out in the community. I do not think standards for detention centres or gaols should be different from community standards. There must be some line. So we have put forward a number of amendments that provide for strip searches to be conducted in a certain manner.There must be an objective assessment of how strip searches are to take place. They should not be the sole responsibility of the ACM staff, for example, or the staff of the company running these centres, because they have proved not to be very effective or efficient in their management. So some objective assessment must be made as to whether there is a necessity to strip search people. It must be done according to a range of specified authorisations. For example, authority for a strip search must be given by a DIMA SES officer of at least acting deputy secretary level or above. This will make people think about what they are going to do, particularly given that this legislation will allow for the strip searching of minors over the age of 10. I think the community standard for everyone here would be that these things should be done through the correct process: there should be witnesses, they should be done in the most supportive manner possible and they should be done having regard to dignity and human rights. That is what it comes down to: if people are to be subjected to strip searches they have to be done in the right way. In this country we cannot allow for things not being done in the correct way. That is what happens in other countries, such as Iran, from where asylum seekers and refugees are fleeing. It does not happen here and should not be allowed to happen here. I am happy to support this bill if those amendments are put in place. I also want to make some comments in relation to weapons. We heard the member for Dawson refer to the weapons that have been found. I want to say straight off the bat that I do not condone violence in the community—in detention centres or anywhere else. No-one should condone violence, riots or people taking the law into their own hands, and I think we have to look at that also. Turning to weapons themselves, we need to have a way to check that weapons are not being taken into detention centres. It will always be the case in any group or community, be they in detention centres or anywhere else, that, while the majority may be of good character and good intent, there will be one or two who may be of a criminal element, who may be of bad character. Therefore, we need to protect the other detainees, those women, children and families who are detained under our system, from them. We also need to protect some people from themselves.So I believe there is a need for this process to be put in place, but I think it has to be done the right way. That is what Labor have been saying. We have not been obstructing the minister or the government as they would have people believe. If you listened to the minister or to the government you would think that, at every step and every bit of legislation, we are there just to obstruct them. We are not. The evidence is in the Hansard: we have been supportive of positive change. We have been supportive of what will make a difference, but this government obviously will not acknowledge that in this debate or anywhere else. It is interesting that, while the government will come to us and ask for support, they will never acknowledge it; they certainly will not go out there crowing about the good work that we have done. I honestly would not expect them to, but on the other hand I also would not expect the minister or the government, at every opportunity they have to speak on this, to attack Labor. The minister says that, somehow, it is our fault. They are the government and they are responsible but he says that somehow we should take the responsibility for all these things that have taken place; it is our fault because we have hindered them.But what are the facts? Let us go to facts. If you cannot debate people on anything else, you should at least debate them on facts. Over the last 10 years some 13,000 people have come to our shores by various means and been classified as unauthorised, illegal entrants. That is a lot of people. It is not huge in international terms and it is not unmanageable from our perspective. But what has happened over the last five years since this government has been in power? What is the figure for the last five years? Ten thousand people out of those 13,000 people have come in the last five years. This government say they are out there with the right policies and that they are out there making the changes; yet, the majority of these people have come in the last five years and none of the policies or legislation brought in by this government or this minister have actually stemmed the flow. In fact, you would say that it has worked the other way. So what is going on?This bill does not deal with the core issue at all. This bill deals specifically with strip searching and a number of amendments that deal with what might be problems within detention centres. Yet we hear every government member claiming that they are improving the system, and they use words like `stemming the flow' and `this will make it harder for the people smugglers'. Strip searching at Port Hedland is going to make it harder for people smugglers in Indonesia? I do not think so. This government are kidding themselves if they think that somehow this change in the legislation we are talking about is going to have any core effect on anybody coming in a boat this morning. It will not. The people smugglers are not going to care about the legislation. The people smugglers making millions of dollars through organised crime and by smuggling people are not going to care that those people might be strip searched when they get here or in fact that they will be put in detention. I just cannot understand where the government are coming from. We have legislation that we have put forward amendments to, but the government say, `This is going to fix the problem. This is part of fixing the problem.' I think we are a long way from fixing the problem. I think the government have run out of ideas. The evidence for that is right here in this grubby, disgraceful pamphlet that Liberal Party candidates are putting out in certain marginal seats—in, let us say, One Nation type supported seats. We have seen what happens to those who would play games and play wedge politics. In the Northern Territory we heard Denis Burke apologising. It is fantastic to have principles and morals after you have lost. It is too bad you did not have them the day before.The minister, obviously supported by the Howard government, is putting out absolute garbage. Alan Wood said in the Australian on 28 February:Ruddock has restored integrity to the migration program by strongly emphasising skilled migration, English language proficiency and age limits and by cracking down on rorts.Based on what? We have had the biggest influx of illegal immigrants and the most riots ever. The system is falling apart. The administration of detention centres, through ACM, is failing. The government has no solution, because it keeps coming back here with legislation that is ineffective. The government says that Labor are soft. How are we soft? We have supported the government. Which bit of legislation has not gone through? Labor have made positive amendments. We have asked the government to think about what it is doing.We have asked the government not to use this issue as a political wedge, but they think that distributing grubby pamphlets will get them re-elected. The government are scaring people. We talk about sensationalism and racial prejudice. They are heating up these issues in the community with rubbish like, `The Howard government is rock solid on protecting Australia's borders.' Where is the evidence of that? There is not any.The government have failed miserably at understanding what the core issues are, and they have failed to put together any program to deal with this issue. Now they are about to fail in my state of Queensland. The government have put forward a proposal to build a detention centre somewhere in the Greater Brisbane region. This will more than likely affect my electorate, which already has quite a number of institutions. It is not so much a case of `not in my backyard' but a case of community load. We do not have the capacity to deal with it. More importantly, why does this government want to build a detention centre in Queensland? It wants to shift its problems around the country. I do not think the government has any intention of fixing the problems; it just wants to shift the blame and the responsibility. That is all we have seen to date. When will the government wake up and stop putting out rubbish pamphlets? Peter Dutton, the Liberal candidate for Dickson, is trying to play wedge politics by putting racist arguments. This will not be an issue for the election come 17 November when we go to the polls. This is not an issue that will concern people the most. This government should get serious about immigration detainees and do something to clean up this mess. (Time expired)12:47:0030125Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—Before I make my contribution, which I hope is a positive one, to this debate on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill (No. 2) 2001, I want to make a brief comment on the issues that the member for Oxley has just raised in respect of his electorate. The people of Australia will have the opportunity on Saturday, 17 November, when they go to the polls, to express their view about it. I am sure the member for Oxley will increase his margin in that seat, as I hope to do in my electorate in spite of the disgraceful attempts by the government to fix the aircraft noise problem by selling Sydney airport before the federal election. I am not here to talk about that, but I should make that point.The purpose of this bill is to make amendments to the Migration Act so that a regime is created that enables strip searching of immigration detainees without a warrant. The issue of strip searching without a warrant is a highly contentious issue. I am advised by my friend and colleague the shadow minister for immigration, the Hon. Con Sciacca, that the government has acceded to the four amendments put by the opposition in respect of this bill. For the purpose of debate, it is worth restating those amendments briefly. Firstly, strip searches are to be conducted only after an objective assessment of intent is proven; that is, following the conduct of conventional searches. Secondly, authorisation for strip search must be given by a DIMA SES officer of at least acting deputy secretary level. Thirdly, the detainee will be provided with the option of having another person, acceptable to the detainee, present to act as a witness during the conduct of the strip search. Fourthly, in the case of a minor over 10 years of age being strip searched, the request for a search must comply with the provisions of the Crimes Act 1914. It is important for these provisions to be understood for what they are. To gain an understanding of these provisions, it is worth making some observations. Firstly, this bill represents an attempt by the minister to meet a delicate balance between his competing public duty to ensure border protection on the one hand and, on the other, to preserve the dignity of detainees. That is why it is so important that this bill ensures that there are effective safeguards against such abuse. There is an argument consistently put by this government that an unlawful arrival should be mandatorily detained. This policy is shared by the opposition. From this policy comes an increasing array of administrative powers, rules and practices that require careful examination when compared with Australian law.This legislation attempts to ensure that a human being, irrespective of whether he or she is an illegal arrival, is treated as a human being. The moral basis upon which I view every human being is found in Genesis, chapter 1, verses 26 and 27, which reads:And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. From this simple but profound quote flows the fundamental cornerstone of universal jurisprudence from which I speak. This quote is the foundation of the greatest legislative instruments ever written, from the Magna Carta to our system of jurisprudence. I raise this point because this parliament is to vote on a bill this afternoon that seeks to make laws for detainees which need careful comparison with the laws relating to the strip searching of Australian citizens. Let me briefly review the law of strip searching as it applies to Australian citizens. The Bills Digest No. 131 of 2000-01, on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill 2001, notes that if you are an Australian citizen:Police officers have no power under the common law to order searches of a person or seizure of their property unless the person has been arrested.The Bills Digest goes on to note:However, statutes like the Crimes Act 1914 (Cwlth), confer powers on police officers to search a person who is in lawful custody and seize anything found during the search.Under the Customs Act 1901, Customs officers are provided with powers of personal search. The relevant words in the quotation are `lawful custody'. Detention is not arrest. For an arrest, the person has their rights read, they are made aware of a charge and statutory rights are conferred on the prisoner: a right to bail: the application of the Magistrates Rules, access to a lawyer, one phone call and so on.I bring to the attention of the House, as I have done so on many other occasions, the fact that the federal electorate of Lowe is one of the most ethnically diverse electorates in Australia, boasting some 21 ethnically distinct communities. As a consequence of this, my electorate office has increasingly become involved in detention cases, with my electorate office needing to make an increasing number of representations on detention cases requesting ministerial intervention. During the last year, it has become increasingly apparent that the necessity to address detention matters is rising rapidly, with more cases and more desperate political and social situations occurring abroad. Many people are escaping what are called `relativist regimes'—that is, the law in those countries treats them differently and adversely compared to others. They are discriminated by reason of their race or religious or political beliefs. Fortunately, in Australia we have laws that outlaw such discrimination. What is `relativism'? It means, simply, that there are rules for some and not for others—or, to put it another way, the law says a law will apply depending on who or what you are. A recent example of this is the law in Afghanistan which would consider the death penalty for those found guilty of the heinous crime of preaching Christianity.So what is the current circumstance with this bill before the House this afternoon? Here we have a law that applies to a detainee. So what is a detainee? A detainee obviously means one who is detained. It is critically important to distinguish detention from imprisonment. This House must bear in mind that the critical difference between a detainee and a prisoner in jail is that the prisoner knows how long they are going to be imprisoned. If you commit an indictable offence, you are given a sentence of imprisonment by a court of law. You are told that your sentence will be, for example, six months imprisonment and, further, that you have certain appellate rights to plea bargain, reduce the sentence or have that sentence mitigated or waived altogether. Such a situation does not exist with the detainee. The reason an immigration detainee is being detained is that that detainee has breached Australian migration law. Once that breach has occurred, the person ceases to be within the purview of Australian criminal jurisdiction and instead falls within the administrative jurisdiction of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, the Hon. Philip Ruddock.The difference between the administrative justice within the judiciary and the administrative justice within the executive is significant. At first instance, it must be said that a minister, particularly the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, is not immune to the law and the judiciary, one of the three arms of government—although it must be said in passing that this government has done everything within its power to attempt to balance the judiciary's powers with the powers of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs—for it is the original jurisdiction of the High Court of Australia which is the paramount issue here. The original jurisdiction of the High Court demonstrates the living legacy of our common law jurisprudence—a jurisprudence borne out of our Christian heritage that seeks to ensure that each man and woman, whether citizen or not, counts as one person.I commend Philip Ruddock and the government for accepting the opposition's four amendments as noted above. In doing so, the minister has accepted the most pressing concerns I hold personally and on my behalf of my constituents. However, this brings to light the second issue about detention—that is, detention is further distinguished from imprisonment in that detention is not supposed to be a punitive measure. Detention is not a punishment in violation of a criminal act, and we must be mindful that such legislation never creeps over the line so that it becomes so. However, the minister is faced with the difficult pressure of ensuring that his officers have sufficient powers to perform their duties in an environment of increasing border violation by unlawful entrants. That being said, I observe that indeterminate detention is worse than imprisonment. I ask each member of this House today to imagine, if they can, being detained at a detention centre, never knowing when or if you are likely to be released. A prisoner in jail knows when their sentence expires, even if that sentence is for 20 years or more. The period of detention plays on the detainee's mind. It is a serious blight on the detainee. Psychiatric disorders amongst detainees can be permanent and the longer term effects can be even worse. I know that from my first-hand experience in dealing with some of these cases through my office. That is why it is important that these provisions made by the minister ensure fairness in meeting the human rights of the detainee whilst maintaining sufficient powers in the hands of the detention centre officers. I believe this bill achieves that balance. There is a possible simple solution to the issue of indeterminate detention. The magistrates rules apply in Australia to ensure that a person arrested on a suspected felony is brought before a duty magistrate within a prescribed period. No citizen in Australia can be under arrest beyond a reasonable time, and a person must be charged or released unconditionally or conditionally—that is, on bail. The department of immigration does make every effort to expeditiously deal with requests for ministerial intervention and also to make decisions to ensure that people remain in detention for the least amount of time possible. I understand that something in the order of 35,000 requests for intervention are received by the minister each year. So Philip Ruddock has a pretty difficult task. I commend the professionalism with which the ministerial intervention unit and case officers have dealt with such difficult and complex cases in a spirit of fairness and impartiality. It is important that our detention laws and powers conferred on officers reflect the jurisprudence that is equivalent to that enjoyed by any other person. The rules governing strip searches must reflect a system whereby fairness and equity prevail, balancing the rights of the detainee with the onerous responsibility of the minister in his administration of duty. So what are the comparable rights enjoyed by an Australian citizen in being strip searched? I note that the relevant Bills Digest for this bill is No. 14 of 2001-02. However, a prior and more substantive Bills Digest identifies the comparable rights of Australian citizens under Commonwealth law. First, it is important to note that the power to strip search is held by a number of Commonwealth agencies, including agencies such as the Australian Customs Service and Australasian Correctional Services Pty Ltd. I note that the ACS is a subsidiary of the US Wackenhut Corrections Corporation, which in turn raises questions of what ethical relationship a private company—and a foreign private company at that—can have with the public interest factors, including human rights. I bring it to the attention of this House today that the Villawood Detention Centre is managed on a day-to-day basis by Australasian Correctional Management Pty Ltd, which is subcontracted by ACS and which is the operational arm of its parent. The responsibility of those officers at the Villawood Detention Centre is truly a daunting task. My electorate staff is complimentary of the excellent work these officers perform. They have a difficult task. These officers make every effort to treat the detainees with courtesy and respect. The power of strip searching without warrant is a difficult power to justify unless one understands the immediate issue. The absence of warrant is the critical factor in the overall justice of this bill. The bill is set up in a way to ensure that there are sufficient checks and balances in the administration of such power without the power being abused and thus depriving a person of their human rights. This policy must be supported by ensuring the speedy and expeditious administration of detention cases, which I know the minister and his staff are making every effort to address. Without this policy, the prospect of detainees being driven to escape will increase.The minister for immigration will be well aware of his ministerial guidelines for those seeking intervention on decisions from the Refugee Review Tribunal pursuant to section 417 of the Migration Act and decisions of the Migration Review Tribunal pursuant to section 351 of the Migration Act. A major factor in the public interest to be triggered for the intervention of the minister is whether there was an unintended or unforeseen consequence of the legislation. It is my observation that detention was never designed to be a punitive provision. However, detention must be expeditiously treated and some degree of certainty and timing ensured.The fundamental of this bill and detention law in Australia is therefore pitted against two serious and competing policy objectives. On the one hand there are the human rights of the detainee; on the other hand there are the pressing needs of Australia's border protection. I say all this in the hope that our laws reflect the universalist jurisprudence which preserves human dignity whilst fulfilling the onerous public responsibility of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs. For these reasons, I support the attempt by the minister in this legislation. As one member of this parliament who is becoming increasingly engaged in detention cases, I seek to work with the minister in ensuring that justice and fairness prevail in fulfilling the dual policy objectives of maintaining Australia's border protection whilst not violating the human rights of the detainee. I commend this bill to the House. I further commend the minister for the efforts he has made to ensure the safety, peace and security of detainees who long for protection, justice and acceptance in Australia, a country which they hold to be a land of beauty, fairness and safety. If the minister can achieve this delicate balance, then Australia will be known as the country of the fair go, a country where we can all be proud to call ourselves Australians because we will be respected as a society if we meet this balance.13:06:0030129Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I rise to speak to the Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill (No. 2) 2001, a bill which clearly shows that this government needs to start putting in place more effective and sensible policies to deal with the illegal immigration problem that this country is currently facing. Almost daily in Australia's current affairs and national debates a new problem arises from Australia's immigration policy. Most recently, the policy of mandatory detention of asylum seekers or illegal arrivals has come under criticism from many different sections within our community. This is a debate which has been fuelled by emotive sentiment and humanitarian concerns from different sections of the community. It is an issue that must be taken very seriously indeed.I have represented parts of the Fairfield local government area, in all three levels of government, for more than 30 years. In that time, I have formed some very close relationships with many of the cultural groups and societies within my electorate. I have also formed close associations with many of the families who have come to Australia and settled in my electorate. The member for Lowe—who spoke previously in this debate—and I have something like 120 languages spoken in our community, with 98 different ethnic groups represented. Some 52 per cent of the population of the Fairfield local government area is born overseas.Many of these people have been separated from their close family members, many of whom are either waiting in their home countries for successful migration to Australia or, due to circumstances beyond their control, are forced to flee their country fearing persecution or violence from oppressive government regimes. While these people wait for their application for offshore refugee status to be granted, they endure some of the most appalling and horrendous conditions imaginable in overseas refugee camps. The humanitarian component of Australia's immigration laws is designed to provide assistance and asylum to these people. Unfortunately, it does not go far enough.However, at the same time as we are experiencing a global crisis in the number of refugees we are also experiencing a thriving boom in the illegal business of people-smuggling. People-smuggling racketeers are despicable cancers on society and on the human race. They feed off the misery and desperation of other human beings for the sake of making money. I find this practice totally abhorrent. Australia's immigration laws are not there to be flouted and disrespected by people who use every trick in the book and every opportunity to lie and deceive their way through the migration laws of Australia. That is why the Labor opposition does not oppose the policy of mandatory detention for illegal arrivals. We believe that Australian laws must be respected and adhered to, and our immigration laws are no exception.All countries screen their immigrants to ensure that migrants do not pose a serious health or security risk and are not people of bad character. It is not draconian, racist or discriminatory to perform character checks on people who apply to migrate—either on humanitarian or non-humanitarian grounds— to this country. People who have the means to employ people smugglers have really not had the same experiences as those who apply in the correct way to migrate to Australia. On arrival, people who have utilised people smugglers come with their hands in the air and say, `I am a refugee.' They say that they have had the same experiences as those people who have suffered the horrendous conditions of refugee camps. Time and again the truth has shown that many of these people have not had the same experience. They have not experienced or even seen the misery of those people in such camps as I have described. As a result of these people's actions, the number of people who can get out of those refugee camps and resettle in our country is diminishing. People who are free enough and wealthy enough to pay a people smuggler are virtually rewriting our immigration laws. For the people in my electorate who have friends and relatives overseas waiting for resettlement, the actions of these people who employ people smugglers have made their wait so much longer. The fundamental difference is that the people who will employ people smugglers are people who are looking for a migration outcome and will try whatever visa category is available to them to stay in Australia. If that includes breaking Australia's migration law by arriving illegally, then some of them will do it. This is opposed to the plight of the refugees, who often have only one possible way of legitimate entry into Australia, and that is through our humanitarian program. Australia has to have immigration procedures that are effective, reasonable and just. It must also be said that the opposition does not believe that some of the measures the government has taken in the past are the correct way to handle the detainee issue. It is the view of federal Labor that the problems with our detainees escaping and rioting can be dealt with and can be resolved by effective, sensible policies that are humane and take into consideration the detainees' concerns but still uphold the integrity of Australia's laws and the sovereignty to decide on the penalties for breaking them. The bill before the House deals with our mandatory detention system. Specifically, it deals with the power of detention centre staff to perform strip searches of detainees. Labor did not support this legislation when it was first presented to the parliament because it was the view of the opposition that the measures proposed in the original legislation were invasive and showed little compassion or regard for the concerns of detainees. Federal Labor, I am pleased to say, did force this government to accept provisions relating to the strip search powers. It is due to that scrutiny and accountability by the Labor opposition—I give full marks to the shadow spokesperson on immigration, the member for Bowman, the Hon. Con Sciacca—that we now see before the House, and are debating, these amendments. Others have outlined the amendments, and I would like to restate them. Strip searches can be conducted only on the provision that there is a reasonable suspicion of a weapon being hidden on the person and only after the suspicion is aroused after a pat-down search or a metal detector scan. A strip search can be authorised only by a senior officer of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs who is employed at deputy secretary level or above. Detainees being searched have the right to have a witness of their own choosing present during the search and, in the case of minors, the strip search must be authorised by a magistrate in addition to the senior departmental officer.These amendments have found support from many sections of the community and have even been endorsed by refugee advocates, who have deemed this legislation now worthy of support. Labor believes that the new safeguards will prevent an abuse of powers while diminishing the risk of harm to both detainees and employees in our immigration detention centres.Apart from dealing with the amendments proposed in this bill, I would like to make some comments regarding the complete lack of compassion and understanding from this government for the refugee problem. There have now been three separate reports within Australia—the Flood report, commissioned by this government, and the two Ombudsman reports—which have basically been ignored by the minister. Their recommendations have been quickly dismissed as being not relevant or as being impractical to implement. There has been international criticism from the United Nations of our detention centres. These comments were again dismissed by this government and this minister as being yet another example of the UN sticking its nose into the domestic affairs of a sovereign country, which is the typical response from this government to UN criticism. Obviously there are problems in our detention centres, to the point that some worthy suggestions have been made as to how we can do something to alleviate some of the problems there. Not only do we now have the three separate reports I mentioned; we also have a bipartisan report. It did not contain a minority report; it was a bipartisan report of the Human Rights Subcommittee of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, with government backbenchers as well as opposition members arguing for, at the very least, new approaches to the policy in our detention centres. But it appears that this government will not listen to any comment about or appraisal of what to do with detainees and the refugee problem in Australia, and the government is now not coping with it. Seeing as the minister refuses to listen to anyone, one would assume that he must have all the answers. The facts show that this is a government that has evidently done nothing to stem the flow of illegal arrivals and has not fixed the problems that are rife in our detention centres. The Howard government has no answer to the unauthorised boat arrivals problem. After all of their chest-beating and grandstanding, the Prime Minister and the minister for immigration have failed miserably to stem the numbers of asylum seekers arriving on our coastline. As recently as last night, it was reported that another 400 illegal arrivals had landed on Australia's coastline at Christmas Island. Our island administrator, a former member of this parliament, Bill Taylor, also stated that this landing of 400 on Christmas Island comes only days after 350 landed on Christmas Island and follows the occasion two days before that when 230 were intercepted at Ashmore Island.In the last 10 years there have been approximately 12,700 unauthorised arrivals. The vast majority of those—10,000—have arrived since the Howard government came to power in March 1996. This government's policies over these five years have been focused on introducing domestic legislative changes which were supposed to help slow the number of unauthorised arrivals, but even blind Freddy could see that it is just not working. All of the legislative measures— like introduction of a new temporary protection visa regime, tougher border control measures, increased jail terms for people smugglers and boat crews, tougher laws for trouble makers in detention centres and special strip search powers—have received bipartisan support from the opposition, but the time has now come for this government to start listening and to take on board not only recommendations from other reports but also suggestions to help fix the illegal immigration problem. Introducing more domestic legislation will not deter the people smugglers.When the minister introduced, with opposition support, a new temporary protection visa for unauthorised arrivals in 1999, he predicted that this change would provide a strong disincentive and would then stem the flow of illegal arrivals. Yet, since that bill was passed in November 1999, over 6,000 asylum seekers have arrived by boat. So it certainly deterred them! They represent almost 50 per cent of the total number of boat arrivals that have come to this country since 1989. This bill was going to stop all that.No attempt to shift responsibility for this government's failure can disguise the fact that overseas criminals involved in the lucrative and insidious people-smuggling rackets see Australia as a soft touch. It is time for this government to get serious about curbing the flow of illegals. Federal Labor has promised an Australian coastguard service which would act as a maritime police force and send a message to overseas criminal gangs that Australia is serious about protecting its borders. Australia needs a coordinated approach to address the difficulties we face with boat landings. The recent large number of incursions into Australian waters by illegal immigrants has focused this debate on the importance of effective border control and coastal surveillance. The Howard government has consistently failed to fully acknowledge the breadth of this issue, and this is evidenced by the statistics I have already mentioned, which prove that we now have a totally ineffective border control system. Responsibility for the protection of our borders is currently shared between five different statutory organisations, including Coastwatch, the department of immigration, the Australian Fisheries Management Authority, the Federal Police and the Royal Australian Navy. An Australian coastguard will draw together the coastal surveillance resources programs and activities currently undertaken by these organisations.The final point I would like to make in the time available to me is the issue of even contemplating renewing ACM's contract as manager of our detention centres. The numerous allegations that have been raised against ACM highlight the problems of accountability associated with privatised detention centres, especially in relation to detained asylum seekers who are not criminals. The federal opposition has been calling for a judicial review to look at the allegations that have been made and the way that these places are being managed, because in the end we do believe that violence begets violence. The government should not contemplate any tender process prior to receiving advice from a judicial inquiry. One of the questions that I personally believe a judicial inquiry should look at is whether privatisation of these facilities is acceptable. Only this would get to the bottom of all of the allegations and, I believe, clear the air to enable Australia to start afresh.There is no easy solution to the problem of illegal arrivals. It is clearly evident that there is an international crisis of displaced persons, refugees and asylum seekers. We on this side of the House may not have all of the answers, but we can say that whatever domestic policies have been implemented by this government to date have not stopped the flow of illegal arrivals. We need to look at the committee reports more closely. We need to take on board the Ombudsman's reports and the suggestions from the refugee advocates. We need to listen to the international criticism that has been levelled at our immigration policies and learn to adjust and to change. If the minister continues to take a holier-than-thou attitude by not responding to these suggestions and reports and dismissing the recommendations as ill informed, naive and impractical, then we as a country will go nowhere towards having an immigration policy that both respects the integrity of Australia's laws and offers effective processing and fairness to asylum seekers. This is a very, very difficult task. I am not saying that everything is very simple. What we are just saying, as I tried to point out in all fairness in this debate, is that the problem is there and we are not solving it. We cannot have criticism where the government of the day stands on a soapbox and says, `It is only the Labor opposition that is stopping this problem being solved.' We are saying that we have cooperated on most of the pieces of legislation coming before the House and we have renegotiated to make sure that other pieces of legislation, such as the bill we are debating today, come forward and problems are dealt with in a humane and practical way. We repeatedly have at our doorstep evidence showing that the process is not working. We cannot continue to have people smugglers determine when or from where we are going to take our immigration settlers. I believe that we have to control that. I appeal to the minister and the government to look closely at the reports, to at least get another view as to what is happening and, more particularly, to not always take on board criticism as being directed individually or personally; it is directed at the process. The process is not working, and that is what needs to be changed. 13:22:0030133Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—At least this time we are having a debate on this legislation, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill (No. 2) 2001. My name was down to speak on this legislation just before the winter recess. The debate was gagged and the legislation was rushed through. I was down to speak for 20 minutes, then I was told that I would get five minutes and then, a couple of minutes before I was due to speak, I was told that I was not allowed to speak. I was gagged and the legislation was rushed through. I think only the shadow minister spoke to it on this side. The world is perhaps witnessing a somewhat new phenomenon that is facing us all today, which is people movement. People are moving across borders like never before, be it because of war, ethnic cleansing or for a better economic future. That will change only when the conditions that are forcing people to move are challenged and overcome. This is a program of the International Organisation for Migration, but I must say that a long-term solution will take many years. We can build as many high-security fences topped with razor wire as we wish, but people will still come. We should be working out an adequate response, which this legislation is not doing. I wonder how many of those speaking today have actually visited one of our detention centres. The member for Hughes said that refugees are held in better conditions than those experienced by many who came here in earlier years. That is a very debatable point. The big difference is that those who came here earlier were not locked up behind razor wire in the most inhospitable parts of Australia. The member for Dawson said that this legislation will make detention centres safe. What absolute rubbish! It will have the reverse effect. I put it to the member for Dawson: why do people riot? I do not know anyone who has visited a detention centre who has not been profoundly affected by that visit, and I have visited every one of Australia's detention centres, including the area on Christmas Island where people are held.It was very interesting that the member for Dawson trotted out that photograph of the so-called weapons. I have something to say about the weapons. When I was at Woomera I was shown a few sticks and I was told that they were the weapons. But every time there is a report in the media about a riot or a problem at a detention centre, be it at Woomera, at Curtin or at Port Hedland, the exact same photograph of toothbrushes, electric prods and so on is shown. Mr Deputy Speaker, if you check you will see that it is always the same photograph. This is very much sleight of hand by people. The papers write the stories up as though there is a different list of weapons at each centre. It is the same list of weapons. I would go so far as to suggest that a lot of these weapons do not exist, because we have not seen them. We have seen only photographs; no-one has seen weapons. The member for Dawson accused the opposition of being opportunistic. The member for Dawson surely knows that there are not many voters speaking out in support of asylum seekers. Believe you me, there are not many votes in that! So who is being opportunistic?Over my 18 years in this parliament there have been pieces of legislation that I am immensely proud to have been associated with, but this is not one of them. It is a wrong and inappropriate response to the issue. It is typical of the way that the whole people movement issue has been dealt with in this country—by overreaction. We are told that these issues are about controlling inappropriate behaviour in detention centres. We hear about the weapons. As I said before, I have visited all the detention centres and I have seen the so-called weapons, but I was shown only a couple of pieces of wood at Curtin. There are always the same statements by the same officials after a so-called riot. We never hear the point of view of a detainee. The committee that inspected the detention centres spoke with the detainees. Before I went on that trip around the detention centres I did not believe the stories about Australian guards bashing detainees. Believe you me, after visiting those centres and talking to the people in them, I know that the thugs who run them bash the detainees. I have challenged the media many times to go inside one of those detention centres and to tell the stories of the detainees. There was an attempt to do so on a Four Corners program recently. Look at the way the media and the right wing in Australia overreacted to that! Do you know what we are doing in this country? People such as the minister, the media and others are demonising asylum seekers and heaping abuse on those who have an alternative point of view. After we brought down the report on our visit to the detention centre we received the sharp end of the minister's tongue. We were told that we were naive, that we had not done the hard yards, that we did not know what we were talking about and that we were sending green light signals to people smugglers. In the winter recess I spent 21 days in Europe and Scandinavia. I visited eight countries looking at reception and detention centres and talking to officials. My trip was criticised as being some sort of jaunt in Europe. Visiting eight countries, seeing eight detention centres and speaking to people about detainees is not exactly my idea of a jaunt. I visited Denmark, Sweden, Britain, France, Holland, Germany, Italy and Switzerland. Each and every one of those countries handles the situation with asylum seekers much better than does Australia, and they are dealing with so many more people than does Australia. It is such a joke when people talk about the number of people coming to this country. Sweden deals with 18,000 asylum seekers a year; Holland deals with 40,000 a year; Germany deals with 70,000 a year; and Britain deals with over 100,000 a year. Each and every one of those countries handles those numbers without the trauma that we have in Australia. Each of those countries has a detention centre, but the difference between us and them is that, whereas we lock up everyone immediately upon arrival, they—I must admit that they are tough detention centres—lock them up only when they are about to be deported.No country should lock up women and children. It is totally unacceptable. Members of this parliament come in here and make all sorts of speeches on all sorts of subjects. As a member of parliament I am ashamed that people are not coming in here and saying how outrageous and totally unacceptable it is to lock up women and children. That criticism goes to my own side as much as it goes to the other side. It is appalling that we are locking up women and children and that we are going to strip search them.People say, `What is the alternative?' Let us have a look at the Swedish model. Bear in mind that Sweden deals with 18,000 asylum seekers a year. The people going there seeking asylum are registered and fingerprinted because, under the Dublin agreement, if they have sought asylum elsewhere they are sent back. They spend a couple of days in a reception centre where they are free to come and go. They are found accommodation. They receive enough money to live on. Many of them do not meet the requirements and of course they have to go back. The minister asks, `What happens when you have to send them back and you cannot find them?' That is no real problem in Sweden. I heard the member for Prospect, the member for Dawson and all the other people who have spoken today talk about health and criminal checks and things like that. Sweden is able to deal with those issues. A few disappear in Sweden and in other countries as well, but at any time we in this country have between 60,000 and 80,000 people in the community illegally—overstayers.0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock—No, we don't—58,000.DH4Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLIS—Okay, 58,000 on your latest count. Perhaps this year it will have gone up to 60,000. Life goes on in this country with 58,000 overstayers, who really are the illegal immigrants in this country. We do not demonise them. We do not lock them up. Life goes on. We are so worried that perhaps a couple of these people who have come here seeking asylum might go into the community. Both the member for Chifley and the member for Calwell have pointed out that the overstayers are the real illegals. However, as I say, we do not demonise them. Let me make one point perfectly clear: there is a problem with people smugglers. It is a profitable business. It is much more profitable than narcotics, I am told. Officials to whom I spoke in Europe agreed that it was a problem and we have to address it, but not in the way we are currently. It has to be a united, coordinated approach like we took with drugs. In relation to people paying money to escape from oppressive regimes, the Jews in Nazi Germany often pooled everything they could get their hands on to escape from that oppressive regime. The government tried to stop people coming here illegally by producing a video which people in DIMA are not allowed to speak about. This video showed people on these sinking boats coming here. If they were not taken by the sharks and they actually arrived here, they could be taken by crocodiles. If the crocodiles did not get them, the snakes would get them. If the snakes did not get them, the poisonous spiders would get them. This is such a joke in Europe. Wherever I went in Europe they raised this question of the video with me. Mrs Ogarta, the former High Commissioner for Refugees, showed it in Geneva as an example of how not to go about educating people about this. That video was such an embarrassment and such a joke. Thank goodness it has been withdrawn.There are going to be more riots in our centres. Some people in this House have said today that there is a feeling that the people who come here should be grateful. If I was in one of these centres, I would be rioting, too. The interesting thing is that there are not more riots. All the ingredients are there and there is going to be a death there. You have to visit one of these centres to actually experience the utter despair and the hopelessness of the people. They are locked up behind barbed wire and razor wire in the harshest, most inhospitable parts of Australia. They are given nothing to do—not even adequate recreation facilities—and people wonder why they riot. You do not have to be a psychologist to know why people riot; you just have to understand a little bit about human nature. I am concerned by some of the actions of Liberal members. I am appalled that the member for Gilmore, my neighbour, has allowed a wrong and inflammatory pamphlet to be circulated in her electorate about migration. That is playing into the hands of the rednecks in the community. I can tell the honourable member for Gilmore that there are better ways of spending her $100,000 printing budget than printing pamphlets such as these. I would be ashamed to have my name on such a pamphlet.Several other members have made reference to the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade visits to detention centres. As we are being gagged from speaking about that report in the other chamber, I want to make a few comments about it in relation to the legislation we are debating. I have always found that if you are going to be critical of a colleague or the work of a group it greatly enhances your case to have your facts correct. Therefore, I am disappointed that on 21 June in the other place my friend and colleague Senator Jim McKiernan was so critical of the report and so wrong on so many of the conclusions he drew. My first point of disagreement is his rather condescending statement when he said:In many areas it is a very dangerous report.He was referring to the report we brought down after our visits to detention centres. He continued:I think there is a problem in having committees of the parliament going out and doing the work in what might be termed `specialist areas' and not understanding the subject matter they are addressing. It comes through in this report that there are a number of inadequacies contained in the report which might misdirect the uninformed person reading the report.How patronising. All wisdom on migration and human rights does not lie with Senator McKiernan. Many of us have been involved in human rights causes for many years, even before we came to this place. He goes on to say:However had the Human Rights Subcommittee travelled a few extra miles, particularly out of Derby in Western Australia and Port Hedland in Western Australia—indeed, they would not have to move very far from Woomera in South Australia—and looked at the conditions that our indigenous people are living in, I would suggest that that would leave far more lasting impressions on the members of the committee than their very brief visits to Australia's detention centres. I would hope that, at some time, the Human Rights Subcommittee will undertake visits to indigenous communities around Australia and then provide the parliament and the Australian community with views on what they find. The Human Rights Subcommittee would welcome a reference regarding the living conditions of indigenous communities, but I would have thought that the senator would be aware that there are already two committees of the 39th Parliament dealing with such issues; that is, the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs and the Joint Statutory Committee on Native Title and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Land Fund.The honourable senator would also know that the Human Rights Subcommittee reported in November 1994 in a review of Australia's efforts to promote and protect human rights. A whole chapter was devoted to visits to remote Aboriginal communities in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. I know that because I was on that committee. These are very remote locations— one is 460 kilometres south-west of Katherine. He also criticises the committee about boat people. We agonised as to whether we call them `boat people', `illegal arrivals' or `asylum seekers'. Whichever way we put it there was always some objection and so we thought that `boat people' was a generic term that could be used. I know some people say that it is condescending.The senator also claims that we did not mention the report, Not the Hilton. We did mention it many times, but many of us are not terribly impressed with that report. We think it is a bit of a joke that that report looked at detention centres but did not talk to any detainees. The final point I make is that he said that we did not test the issues. That is true in a way, but it was because of our reference. This was an issue that we discussed. We wanted to test the proposition, but we felt that this was not a normal inquiry. We reported on what we were told without expressing an opinion, and we could not test it. Every opinion or statement contained in that report did not necessarily mean that we endorsed it. We tried to get a report that we could all sign our names to. Of course, to do that, many of us had to compromise on some issues. For some members the report went much further and for others it did not go far enough.What we are doing in this community today is demonising asylum seekers. We are also criminalising asylum seekers. It is not a criminal act to seek asylum, but in Australia we are making it a criminal act. There are people now in jail in Australia with a criminal record who arrived here without a criminal record. No country treats asylum seekers as we do, and it is a disgrace. Even in the United States at a Senate hearing the officer in charge said that they would no longer lock up so-called illegals.Why is it that so many countries apart from Australia can get it right? To read some of the media and to listen to some of the speeches here today, one would think that there is an overwhelming problem with the population. Today this parliament commenced with a prayer. When my good Christian or other faith colleagues are on their knees in church on Sunday—and bear in mind that this coming Sunday is Refugee Sunday—they should reflect on the speeches they made in this chamber today. Why is it, I wonder, that everyone except the minister and the members of the Liberal Party gets it so wrong? Why is it that the unions, the churches, academia, welfare agencies and the NGOs are all wrong and the only person who gets it right is the minister? We do have a good record on migration. We have a good record on taking refugees under the UNHCR. We are a very multicultural society and we do live in harmony in this society. We should be an example to the world. But what kind of message are we sending? The two major political parties are jockeying over who can be toughest on detainees, among whom there are women and children who are being demonised in the community. It is not, I suggest, a proud day for the Australian parliament.13:42:0030136Andren, Peter, MPMr ANDRENKL6CalareIND00—I rise in this debate on the Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill (No. 2) 2001 to support the member for Calwell in his second reading amendment. This amendment is a statement of what this legislation lacks, especially, as it states in paragraph (1):... the absence in the bill of important provisions to guarantee the basic human rights and entitlements of detainees ... I am not convinced by all the points included in the honourable member's second reading amendment, such as the suggestion that all basic entitlements of detainees are not provided for. I note that the member for Calwell has gathered first-hand evidence of this, but the minister has also provided me and other members with detailed information on the services, newspapers, television, phone access, et cetera, available in detention centres. However, I think it is important enough to make this House consider the huge divisions we are driving through this society by exploiting in any way the fear and anxiety in the community by any of us, the media included, in this election year particularly. I admit my anxiety at each boatload that arrives at Christmas Island and realise how difficult it is to sustain an argument that we are not being invaded and that our lifestyle is not at risk. That is an easily exploitable route, but I realise the truth of the other side of the argument, that there are those who would not want to argue refugee status for people who are not indeed refugees. That is why we need basic human rights built into legislation such as this, containing as it does provisions requiring the most basic and undignified of procedures to protect refugees, illegal immigrants and those working with these people. Indeed, there are far more humane models abroad, such as in Sweden, which, incidentally, was my grandfather's point of embarkation for illegal entry into Australia in the late 1800s. It seems that New Zealand handles its influx of asylum seekers in a far more relaxed yet controlled manner. It is incumbent upon us and the media to not exploit anxiety in the community, for that breeds a backlash and a backlash brings bigotry and a closing of the mind. Let me read into Hansard a newspaper column I wrote for a local newspaper last week. It was titled, as a rhetorical question, `Refugees or illegal immigrants?' It states:The debate over our treatment of boat arrivals is likely to attract much heat over the next month or so leading up to the election particularly after the latest record shipload at Christmas Island. This is very unfortunate, because the quite unreal and often hysterical climate of the pre-election period is not one in which to have such a serious debate.Let me say at the outset I have strong regard for Philip Ruddock in a hugely difficult situation. There are about 2000 people held in detention centres around the country at the moment who have illegally entered Australia, mostly by boat. The majority of such arrivals in recent years have been granted refugee or asylum status. Some have escaped from south or north Iraq where they and their relatives are part of minorities targeted by Saddam Hussein. We supported allied action against Saddam to try and prevent the Butcher of Baghdad perpetrating some of his horror plans, which no doubt include extermination of the Kurdish minority. Some of our illegal immigrants have fled Saddam's regime. Some are no doubt frauds who have purchased their way to a better way of life. Many have risked their lives to catch leaky old boats to Australia.There are also 50,000 people illegally in Australia who have arrived by air in recent years, and overstayed visas in the hope of remaining here. Bob Carr highlighted that last week in calling for much tougher screening of normal work, tourist or migration applications, because some are slipping through with violent criminal backgrounds. But many Australians wonder why we need to punish the majority in detention centres when so many are legitimate asylum seekers and for whom continued detention is so traumatic? Why can't low risk asylum seekers be released to trusted care, to report to authorities on a regular basis until their status is determined? Sure, some might slip through the net, but there are 50,000 who came by other means and who are more `illegal' than most of the detainees seem to be.I must comment on the media's role in this refugee debate. As a former news editor and journalist with 25 years experience in metropolitan and rural areas, I know the pressures involved in getting a story to air. But I am concerned the Four Corners program, with all its resources, appears to have accepted much of the information from interviewees at face value. There were facts that were not gathered or not shared with the public in order for a balanced assessment to be made. I am satisfied that some claiming refugee status are using the system way beyond reasonable bounds after strong rejection by due process right through to the Federal Court. I have refugees from Iran in my own electorate who escaped that regime in fear of their lives for practising the Baha'i faith. They have been warmly welcomed into the local community, even though it is a very conservative community. When people meet and understand, they put aside their preconceptions and their misconceptions. The majority of our asylum seekers, it must be remembered, are getting approved. They are like my Iranian family in Bathurst. I am concerned at the queue jumping. I am concerned at the ability of some to buy their way to freedom. I am concerned at the criminal vultures who feed on this human trade. But I am also concerned that our overseas processing appears to be such a frustrating and protracted procedure.Let me tell members about the case of Sarwar Haiter, the 50-year-old brother of Dr Akber Alamyar, a doctor in my electorate at Oberon, a man who came here himself from Afghanistan in 1977. His brother, Sarwar Haiter, is a graduate of Adelaide University in dryland agriculture—one would think he would be an ideal immigrant to this country. He fled the Taliban regime to Pakistan, as I am told, and despite almost a decade applying for refugee status he has been continually refused in applications through our immigration processes in Islamabad. He has been sponsored by his brother in Oberon throughout this period. His brother is a well-respected and highly active member of the medical fraternity, the AMA and, indeed, the local community in general. It is said his brother has not proved the risk to his safety. He has recently worked for an aid agency in Pakistan dealing with Afghan refugees and has been told by that agency that he cannot enter Afghanistan because they cannot guarantee his safety. How frustrated and frightened is he at this state of affairs, this continued rejection, the disappointment and the sense of injustice, as he sees it? I am not passing unnecessary judgment on this, but it helps one understand the boat phenomenon a little better, whatever the rights or wrongs of his particular immigration application.I will support this second reading amendment by the member for Calwell because I believe it is important to draw attention to the complexities of this issue. There are dangers in introducing a tougher legislative regime on the one hand while we continue to avoid the need for a basic human rights law in this country. It is significant that the member for Calwell has introduced such a bill as the Australian Human Rights Bill 2001, which sits on the Notice Paper. I urge the government and the opposition to show their commitment to not only a rigorous detention and assessment of illegal arrivals but a human rights framework that will incorporate the presumption of innocence when dealing with these people. After all, as I have said, the vast majority are innocent.This amendment does not decline the bill a second reading. The bill has been the subject of significant adjustment from the government and the opposition. I understand that the member for Calwell is attempting some other amendments, which I do not propose to support at this stage. I support the bill as it stands with reservations. But I make the point, in supporting this amendment, that we are playing with dangerous forces if we continue to paint these detainees as criminals and aliens with all the racist overtones that this implies.13:55:0030138Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00— This bill, the Migration Legislation Amendment (Immigration Detainees) Bill (No. 2) 2001, introduces the power to conduct strip searches of detained asylum seekers. It is designed to safeguard the working conditions of the officers tasked with the job of guarding these detainees and to also ensure the safety of other asylum seekers within detention centres. Labor supports the measures proposed in the bill, subject to a number of government amendments which I understand have been agreed to.It is very important that we achieve a level of safety in detention centres. No-one condones the violence that has occurred. Strip searching is never a pleasant task, nor one that a parliament should very lightly empower people to do. That is why we on this side of the parliament have been very concerned to ensure that there are in fact adequate safeguards and that guards cannot just at a whim conduct strip searches. The bill is the outcome of protracted negotiations between the government and the opposition on this matter. The whole difficulty, though, is that the number of asylum seekers coming to this country as unauthorised arrivals is going through the roof. Very unfortunately, although the government has put in place a number of measures that time and time again it has said will guarantee a reduction in the flow of unauthorised arrivals, sadly and spectacularly it has failed to stem those arrivals. Over the last 10 years there have been around 12,700 unauthorised arrivals. The vast majority of them—in fact, more than 10,000—have arrived since the Howard government came to power in March 1996. In response to that the government said it would put in place a range of domestic measures that would reduce the attractiveness of Australia as a destination for unauthorised arrivals. The measures include a new temporary protection visa regime. I remember very clearly that the government said, `This will do the trick.' The government tried to wedge in the Labor Party on that matter. In the end, we supported, with some qualifications, the measures that the government advocated there on the basis that they would in fact stem the flow of unauthorised arrivals. But they have failed to do so. Other measures include tougher border control measures, increased jail terms for people smugglers and boat crews, tougher laws for troublemakers in detention centres and, as covered in this legislation, special strip search powers. The Labor opposition has put forward a number of policies that it thinks could be a lot more effective in dealing with this problem, most particularly an Australian coastguard service. It is quite bemusing to me that, whenever we talk about that Australian coastguard service, it is ridiculed by the government as being entirely unnecessary and very expensive. Well, the problems that we have now are very expensive, and I put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, and to this parliament that the range of measures that the government itself has said will fix the problem have failed spectacularly to do so. I reinforce that point with these statistics. In 1998-99 there were 920 arrivals. In 1999-2000 that figure leapt from 920 to 4,174. Already for this year to date there have been 4,592 unauthorised arrivals.There is a lot of human misery locked up in this whole sorry saga of unauthorised arrivals. I for one am concerned about the problem of queue jumping. People who wait patiently in refugee camps and other locations overseas have their rights to consideration for entry into this country thwarted by queue jumping. But among those who jump the queue and arrive on boats are very desperate people as well. So it is evident to me that we need to do a lot more in terms of processing arrivals in countries of origin and in other countries so there is some equity in this entire process. This brings to the fore some of the other social consequences of unauthorised arrival. In Logan City, most of which is in the seat of Rankin, there are a substantial number of refugees. The agencies charged with the responsibility of caring for refugees are under enormous financial pressure. You would think that one of the more compassionate things that a government could do would be to at least provide the necessary resources to the agencies and voluntary organisations to which have fallen the responsibility to manage the lives of refugees, many of whom arrive here with nothing. They come to Logan City because of its very low cost housing, and there are a lot of housing commission homes in Logan City. I know—and I put this through the parliament to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, who is sitting opposite—that our local organisations are under intense pressure. They have written to the minister, and I hope that he will consider the representations of these organisations sympathetically. Logan City is one of the most multicultural areas— arguably the most multicultural area—in Australia in terms of diversity, with people from at least 106 homelands, quite a number of whom are refugees. Our resources are stretched to the limit and beyond.I would like to see a much more even-handed debate about immigration policy in this country. From time to time the issue arises. I have to say that, sadly, opportunities seem to be seized upon by the coalition to practise some wedge politics. I hope that does not arise in the future, but it has, sadly, in the past. Maybe the coalition considers that there are some political benefits in that, but I think any political benefits would be short term and very cynical and should be eschewed, because this is a very important issue for the future of this country. We do not have a proper population policy in this nation. We do not have a decent immigration policy in this nation. That is very sad, because under more than five years of coalition government you would think the government would set out such a policy. Whenever Labor talks about having a proper population policy or a more enlightened immigration policy, out come the wedge politics and the criticism. Let us try to make this a bipartisan debate. Since the Second World War, there has been a great wave of immigration into this country that has built up this nation. We always say, `We want more skilled migrants.' Everyone wants more skilled migrants. The demand for skilled migrants around the world is very high and we compete very hard for skilled migrants, but lots of skilled migrants prefer not to come to Australia. But, if you look at how Australia was built, it was built very substantially on the back of unskilled migrants. Unskilled migrants arrive here highly motivated. There are so many famous examples of migrants who arrived in this country penniless and with no English language skills whatsoever and who have risen up and made a very substantial contribution to the economic and social development of this country.It is very important that we have a proper bipartisan debate on a population and immigration policy for this country, because without that we are going to see opportunistic divisions created within Australian society by our political leadership. That itself is a very sad indictment on this parliament and on the coalition government in particular. As I say, whenever we raise these issues, the coalition practises wedge politics.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Order! It being 2 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101A. The member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Miscellaneous3014010000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I advise the House that, owing to the illness of Mr Speaker, I am taking the chair on his behalf.Ministerial Arrangements3014014:00:0030140Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I inform the House that the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, Mr Anderson, will be absent from question time today. He is attending Agquip, one of the largest field days in the Southern Hemisphere. The Minister for Trade will answer questions in his absence.Questions Without Notice301403014014:00:0030140Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, are you aware that on 23 November last year your Minister for Small Business hosted, at the Picnic Point Function Centre in Toowoomba, a fundraising function that was attended by the Treasurer? Are you aware that the Groom FEC executive entered into a scam arrangement with the Queensland Liberal Party to obtain GST input tax credits for the catering of this Costello fundraiser without paying the GST? Are you also aware that the Minister for Small Business not only knew of this arrangement but condoned it? Prime Minister, did the Minister for Small Business draw to your attention this GST scam?30140Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I know nothing at all about this; nothing at all. I will have a look at it and, if there is anything I ought to tell the parliament, I will.3014014:01:0030140Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Administration. Would the minister advise the House of the government's approach to privatisation? How does this compare with alternative policies in that area?30141Fahey, John, MPMr FAHEYHQ5MacarthurLPMinister for Finance and Administration10—I thank the honourable member for Hinkler for his question. The government's policy and position in respect of privatisation have always been very much up front, very transparent and available for all Australians to see. Honourable members would be aware that prior to the 1996 election the government went to the Australian people and indicated quite clearly that it proposed to sell, when it got government, one-third of Telstra. Prior to the 1998 election, with respect to the further sale of Telstra, the government went to the Australian people and made abundantly clear what its position was regarding privatisation. When it comes to the sale of government businesses, the government has, broadly speaking, applied the Yellow Pages test, has undertaken feasibility studies and has recognised that, when it is in the interests of the Australian people, it is quite silly for the government to hold on to such businesses. That was the approach the government took with regard to the sale of the Commonwealth Bank. I can say that, when the Howard-led coalition government was given the responsibility of government in 1996, one of the first tasks that was placed in front of me as the Minister for Finance was to conclude the sale of 50.4 per cent of the Commonwealth Bank. That particular sale had been set in train at an earlier point in time. But the sale of the final tranche, the 50.4 per cent of the Commonwealth Bank, followed on from two previous tranches. I noted with great interest that in the prospectus entitled How to apply for shares in the Commonwealth Bank, there was a letter dated 24 September 1993 signed by the then Minister for Finance, Ralph Willis, the predecessor of the current Leader of the Opposition. That letter was addressed to `Dear investor' and it went on to say:The government has no intentions whatsoever of further reducing its shareholding below 50.1 per cent in the Commonwealth Bank ...Further, that letter by the then Minister for Finance said:and the government looks forward to the Commonwealth of Australia continuing as the bank's majority shareholder in the future.So that was the pledge: the government would maintain its majority shareholding in the Commonwealth Bank. Eighteen months later, there was a budget delivered in May of 1995—in fact, it was the last of those deficit budgets that this government had to confront when we got there in 1996. I noted that in Budget Paper No. 1, which had on the front `Circulated by the Hon. Ralph Willis and the Hon. Kim Beazley', the then Minister for Finance, there was this statement on page 3.214:Following the partial share sales conducted in 1991 and 1993 the government now intends to sell its remaining 50.4 per cent shareholding in the Commonwealth Bank.So here we go. The Leader of the Opposition has been running around the countryside in recent times and has had a series of people backing him up for months, and he has been saying, `I pledge this: I pledge never to sell any more of Telstra. The government will maintain the existing majority shareholding in Telstra.' And the signs go up: `Don't sell Telstra!' Of course, we know that the member for Melbourne and the member for Perth were in seeing the investment bankers last year, getting advice on what might be a way of disposing of Telstra's assets. So the man who in fact broke the pledge—YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—Mr Acting Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask that you enforce the ruling of Mr Speaker previously that, where an allegation has been refuted on personal explanation, it cannot be repeated.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—There is no point of order. Resume your seat. The minister has the call.HQ5Mr FAHEY—Let me repeat it. The Macquarie Bank bulletin printed the fact that you were in there getting advice. That is what the bulletin said.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—You are a liar!10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! Resume your seat, Minister. The member for Melbourne will withdraw.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr Tanner—I am not going to withdraw.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I name the honourable member for Melbourne.Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the member for Melbourne be suspended from the service of the House.14:11:00The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 75Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Katter, R.C.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Pearce, C.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.61Adams, D.G.H.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W. *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Tanner, L.Theophanous, A.C.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Worth, P.M.Swan, W.M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! The honourable member for Melbourne is suspended from the services of the House for 24 hours under standing order 303.The honourable member for Melbourne then left the chamber.HQ5Mr FAHEY—As I was indicating, the Commonwealth Bank was sold by the Leader of the Opposition, as the then finance minister, notwithstanding a pledge that was made by the previous finance minister in writing. It was a pledge not worth the paper it was written on. Everybody knows that. Today's pledge maker on Telstra, who goes around saying that there will be no further sale of Telstra, was the pledge breaker on the Commonwealth Bank. The Leader of the Opposition has no credibility. When he was minister for employment there was record unemployment of 11.2 per cent. When he was Minister for Defence he botched up the construction of the Collins submarines. When he was Minister for Finance he added in the last five years of Labor, in the last five budgets, a further $80 billion of general government debt. No one member of the Australian public has the slightest doubt that, if Labor should ever get into government, Telstra will be sold. 3014314:17:0030143Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I am back.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Not for long if you keep this up.DT4Mr CREAN—My question is to the Treasurer. Didn't you know early this year that the Groom FEC executive, with the approval of the Minister for Small Business, had entered into a scam arrangement with the Queensland Liberal Party to obtain GST input tax credits for the catering of your Toowoomba fundraiser without paying the GST? Were you aware that the Queensland Liberal state director, Graham Jaeschke, had confirmed that this GST scam was put in place on the advice of the Liberal federal secretariat and that it had been used by other Liberal Party branches? Were you also aware that on 20 March the Minister for Small Business, at a meeting of the Groom FEC executive, advised, `If this got out, it could bring down the government'? Treasurer, did you refer this serious GST scam by the Groom FEC executive and other Liberal Party branches to the tax office and the Federal Police for investigation or did you instead cover up the scam by branches of your own party?30143Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I am asked what the Minister for Small Business has allegedly spoken to third parties and what has allegedly been spoken by third parties to federal secretariats. Obviously, I do not organise these functions. Obviously, I am very happy to turn up and speak at functions, and I recall having a very good meeting and there were a lot of people there. Although it was not much of a question, may I just say that we do welcome the member for Hotham back. Nobody is happier to see him back then we are!DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I have a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, on relevance. The question was specific: did he know?10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—There is no point of order. The multiquestion was very much like a shotgun.3014314:20:0030143Moylan, Judi, MPMrs MOYLAN4V5PearceLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of recent claims concerning waiting times for treatment in accident and emergency wards in Western Australian public hospitals?30143Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for Pearce for her question. There has been a good deal of debate about waiting times in accident and emergency over the last 24 hours and I think it is illustrative of how well our public hospitals can be working, even though I fully concede they are under pressure from time to time. This, of course, is not something unique to Australia; it is not unique to any state. Let us take the example and analyse it now that we have all the facts before us. A person turns up to casualty with abdominal pain at 11.03 in the morning. It is a busy day; the hospital is in full swing. What would normally then happen is that the person would be seen instantly by a nurse as they walked through the accident and emergency doors and they would be given a triage score. Undiagnosed abdominal pain would have a triage score of 3. That means that the person should be seen by a doctor in 30 minutes. That is an international standard, not something that we apply ourselves. The person would then go to the cubicles.In this case, did the doctor take 30 minutes to see the person with undiagnosed abdominal pain, as would have been an international standard? No. They were seen within five minutes by the doctor for the initial assessment. And, following that initial assessment, five minutes later—that is, 10 minutes after arriving in the hospital, still 20 minutes short of the international standard for the first visit by the doctor—the person was given a substantial dose of pain relief, so much so that the person became somewhat groggy. The hospital then arranged for a full surgical work-up, which required tests and required visits by a registrar and other doctors. That happened within 90 minutes. By any sense, that is a very good effort—a very good effort by international standards, a very good effort by Australian standards—for someone who just walks up to a hospital, unannounced. The question then is: what happens next? What happens next has actually shown a high degree of confusion, because there has been much said about there being no bed available. This in fact shows that one's thinking is somewhat out of date, because beds are not the rate limiting step in a case like this; operating theatres are. Ten years ago, hospital beds were actually the significant rate limiting step in a hospital. But, as length of stays have come down, throughputs have gone up. In most hospitals today it is the operating theatre availability that is the rate limiting step, not the bed. What in fact happens is people are discharged from hospital throughout the day. A hospital might find that more than 10 per cent of their beds turn over every day—beds may become available which you are not expecting—so there are always beds becoming available through a day.In this case it was not the availability of the bed that was a limiting step. I say that categorically. A bed would have become available. A bed was not an issue whatsoever. The simple issue was: how do we get someone into an operating theatre when we have a busy weekday with all the lists full? So the person then had the option of going to a private hospital, where it was believed there was a theatre available, or staying and having an operation on the same day in the public hospital. The person, at 2.38, decided to go to a private hospital to have the operation at 6.15 p.m. that night. That was a 3½-hour time from hitting the front door unannounced to being completely worked up and being discharged to somewhere where you can have your procedure. By any standards, that was actually a good effort as well.There is only one problem here with this whole story. The treatment was good. The hospital performed perfectly. How, then, can we possibly use this to create a crisis in our public hospital system? It is completely illogical. It has, however, created a crisis in the credibility of the Leader of the Opposition, because on this occasion he has been caught out, on the fourth occasion, gilding the lily. Yesterday in the House we watched him doing his Al Jolson routine: `Five hours, five hours, five hours.' There is only one problem. The Leader of the Opposition did not understand that hospital accident and emergency departments log everything precisely. And as he was up here at the dispatch box, waving and saying, `Five hours—it's outrageous!' the hospital was in fact doing the sums and finding that he had added 40 per cent to the length of time to make his argument stronger—just as he had said the previous day that someone had been turned away, when they had not; just as the previous day he had said he had never raised it before, when clearly he had; just as the previous day he had said the problem was that there was no bed available, which clearly was not the problem. The problem also for the Leader of the Opposition is that the previous day he had said she had had to go to the private hospital, when the public hospital says clearly she should have had treatment there. There is a very simple truism about health: you cannot fix health if you do not understand health. This shows very clearly that the Leader of the Opposition has no understanding of health whatsoever.Distinguished Visitors3014410000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from the House of Councillors of Japan. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice301443014414:27:0030144Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Treasurer. I ask: Treasurer, were you aware of the scam arrangement by the Groom FEC and the Queensland Liberal Party to obtain GST input credits without paying the GST, an arrangement approved by the Minister for Small Business? When did you become aware of this scam arrangement and did you refer this serious arrangement by the Groom FEC and the Liberal Party to the tax office and the Federal Police for investigation? 30145Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I already said in answer to the last question, when I am invited to address a meeting I do not set the admission, I do not collect the money; I do not inquire as to the tax arrangements; I do not fill in the return. That is the responsibility of anybody who is running the meeting. Nor am I told who is responsible for returning the tax arrangements, nor am I told who is going to do that. I am invited to give a speech, which I am very happy to do and which I do, and I do not inquire as to any of those arrangements.If the member for Hotham wants to make an allegation against any person that they have breached the law or otherwise, if he were genuinely interested he could give me evidence and I most certainly would refer it to the Australian Taxation Office. If the member for Hotham has any evidence whatsoever, he is very welcome to give it to me. I most certainly would refer it to the Australian Taxation Office. But the fact that he has not done so—he has never contacted me; he has never written to me—tells me that, like most of the allegations that he has made, most probably it is false and most probably it is done as a political stunt. But if he wants to give me any evidence whatsoever—whether he gives me evidence in relation to the Toowoomba Liberal Party or whether he gives me evidence in relation to the Hotham Labor Party—I am very happy to send it down.The only other thing I would say in response is: I am very pleased that he is now showing an interest in the enforcement of the GST, because I thought he wanted to roll it back. I actually thought that he never wanted it to be introduced. So on the one hand he says it should never have been introduced; once it is introduced, it should be rolled back. But if he can make a political stunt about its enforcement, he will do that as well.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Acting Speaker, I rise on a point of order that goes to relevance. The question was specific: did he know? He has not answered it. Did he know, and when?10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Treasurer, have you finished your answer?CT4Mr COSTELLO—Yes.3014514:30:0030145Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Is the minister aware of very recent claims concerning allegations that people are being turned away from accident and emergency wards in Western Australian public hospitals?30145Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. Of course there was substantial talk on this yesterday, but the honourable member has asked me if I am aware of very recent statements on this issue, and we do have further information today on this issue. The whole question of the Leader of the Opposition's credibility turns on the issue of what was said in the caucus meeting. The Leader of the Opposition at a press conference yesterday, and in this House in a censure motion yesterday, made a great point of saying that he had not used the words that his daughter had been `turned away'.I was charitable; I was prepared to concede that one person's briefing could have got it wrong. Of course, unlike the coalition which actually have one person—the member for Menzies—do the briefings after our party room meetings, the Labor Party needs two: one from the Left and one from the Right. It is a little bit strange that both people yesterday got it wrong, and even stranger that the member for Jagajaga, the shadow minister for health, went on radio and used the same phrase `turned away'. So three separate people having been at the one meeting all apparently had the same take from it. But, no, the Leader of the Opposition said, `To the best of my recollection, I haven't used those words.' I do not want to denigrate the profession of politics, but most of us know that, when someone uses a caveat like that, it actually means, `I don't think I can be found out.'In a doorstop this morning, the Leader of the Opposition was asked about this inconsistency. He was asked by a journalist:Jenny Macklin remembers you saying that she was `turned away' in caucus. BEAZLEY—If you take a look at what Jenny Macklin had to say, I think it was a little bit different from that.Let us have a look at what Jenny Macklin did say the day before. I will read a transcript from 2GB, Graham Richardson at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday afternoon. I quote:MACKLIN—When Kim told us that story today in caucus, everyone gasped because you do not imagine that people will be turned away in an emergency.As far as I can see, the Leader of the Opposition's doorstop this morning, trying to suggest that it was a little bit different, is complete rubbish. It was in fact absolutely spot-on; it was absolutely dead identical. There is more because, over the last 24 hours, members of the press gallery have been phoning around and asking for independent confirmation of what went on in that caucus meeting. This can be very annoying for people in government because usually we are the beneficiaries or otherwise of this, but it can also be useful. Let me read what two journalists have written today about this supposed comment in caucus. Mark Mallabone from the West Australian said:Though the exact wording of his comments is unclear, some Labor MPs said they were told she was `turned away' from several public Perth hospitals before eventually finding a bed.Some Labor MPs, plural. Ian Henderson from the Australian wrote:Another Caucus source told The Australian yesterday that Mr Beazley's remarks to caucus had left the clear impression that his daughter `couldn't get a bed' at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital and that she `was ferried around until they got her into a private hospital bed'.Here we have two different sources completely contradicting the Leader of the Opposition, backing up the three sources yesterday completely contradicting the Leader of the Opposition—a person whose credibility is in tatters.3014614:35:0030146Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, were you present at the 19 December 2000 meeting of the Liberal Party Groom FEC executive? Can you confirm that at this meeting there was lengthy argument about the potentially fraudulent nature of the arrangement to be used to obtain GST input tax credits for the catering of the Costello fundraiser without paying the GST? Can you also confirm that at that meeting your FEC executive treasurer refused to participate in this scam, saying, and I quote from the minutes: `It was cheating on the government as no GST had been paid on the income.' Given the seriousness of the scam and your obligations under the ministerial code of conduct, why didn't you do something to shut the scam down?30146Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I would have to check my diary to confirm where I was on 19 December but, if it was the day that I think it was, when the FECE met at my house, my attention was being taken up not by the FECE meeting—that is, I was not actually attending that part of the FECE meeting but I was actually talking to journalists because that was the day I was announced as the Minister for Small Business.3014614:37:0030146Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is directed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of the importance of credibility and honesty in policy formulation and implementation? Would the Treasurer advise the House of instances where credibility of economic policy has been compromised?30146Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Hume for his question. I can inform him that when it comes to making election policy it is important that political parties do so from the basis of a clear and certain budget position and do so in the knowledge that the undertakings that they give to the Australian public can be implemented consistent with good economic policy.All of us in this House would remember the shameful 1993 election when the Labor Party ran to that election with a policy of opposing a GST and introducing income tax cuts; in fact, not just introducing tax cuts— they said before the election that those tax cuts were `l-a-w'. Then, after they were elected, we found out that the Labor Party hiked every wholesale sales tax, took away the income tax cuts, increased the company tax and increased petrol excise by some five cents. The Leader of the Opposition boasted that they had been able to get away with such a program. Don't you recall him coming into this House and boasting that the opposition had been unable to nail him during that 1993 election in relation to his policy? Let us flick forward to the 1996 election. The 1996 election was fought at a time when the now Leader of the Opposition was the Minister for Finance. Who will ever forget the words that he uttered on 1 February 1996? Remember, this was the financial year ending on 30 June that year. He said this: `We are operating in surplus and our projections are for surpluses in the future.' That next month, after this government was elected, when the Treasury came in, there was no surplus. The budget was then, at the time the Leader of the Opposition made those remarks, some $8 billion in deficit. What happened when he was confronted with the truth? Was there an acknowledgment that he had misrepresented the situation? Was there an acknowledgment that he should not have been claiming during that election campaign that the budget was in surplus when it was not? No. In a pattern of behaviour he sought then to cover up the situation. On 17 April 1996, after the independent books had been thrown open by the Treasury, he said this:... this notion of an $8 billion hole is largely a fraud ... there are no statistics produced by Treasury that indicated there was that dimension of a hole ...So there is a pattern of behaviour. First of all, they say during the election campaign that the budget is in surplus. When they lose the election and the Treasury produces the figures, there is a denial of the facts. It was a denial that the then shadow Treasurer, Mr Gareth Evans, did not seek to continue. As I informed the House last week, even the then shadow Treasurer, Mr Gareth Evans, had the decency to acknowledge Labor's failure. He had the decency to put out a press release; he had the decency to say, and I tabled it in the House, that he had never disputed that the budget was in deficit in that 1995-96 year. He said it was no secret that he did not dispute it. His line was, `Yes, it was in deficit; yes, we had misrepresented the situation, but we did intend to try and fix it.'But that is different to the Leader of the Opposition. To my knowledge, the Leader of the Opposition has never yet admitted the falsity of what he said during the 1996 election campaign. To my knowledge, he has yet to acknowledge the falsity of the way in which he made allegations against the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital in Western Australia.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—There were no allegations.CT4Mr COSTELLO—There were no allegations against them? There were no allegations against the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital? This was heard by the two caucus spokesmen, it was repeated on the radio by your health spokesman, it ran all through the afternoon that your daughter had been turned away and it ran in the papers the next day. He makes no allegations against the Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital; he makes no allegations against the Western Australian government, which happens to run the hospital; he does not make any allegations against Premier Geoff Gallop, who happens to be one of his best friends. No, he crosses the continent to make allegations against the federal Liberal government and the Prime Minister.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—That is right.CT4Mr COSTELLO—That is right, he says. Why? Because what you were interested in throughout this was the political stunt and you were prepared to misrepresent the facts in order to get it. The defence that the Labor Party now engages in today is, `Look how successful we've been. By bringing in the daughter of the Leader of the Opposition, by making a false allegation, by turning it into a political attack, look how successful we've been.' It is boasting that by misrepresenting the facts you have been able to achieve some political stunt.It would be much more credible if the Leader of the Opposition was able to face the facts and if he was able to say that the description he gave to the caucus was false, his cheap political attack on the Prime Minister, the minister for health and the Federal government was false; that he was prepared to politicise the treatment of his daughter for a political stunt; that his position in the 1996 election was false; and that his denial and cover-up afterwards was false. This is a pattern of behaviour which first misrepresents and then seeks to cover up rather than to deal with the facts. These are not the attributes of somebody who can produce a policy and they are not the attributes of someone who would become Prime Minister of this country. 3014814:45:0030148Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, can you confirm that you also attended the 20 March 2001 meeting of the Liberal Party's Groom FEC executive? Can you confirm that, at this meeting, there was heated debate about the Groom FEC executive treasurer's attempt to shut down the GST scam by writing to the federal director of the Liberal Party? Can you confirm that, in defending your GST scam, you told the meeting, `If this gets out, it could bring down the government'? Didn't you also reveal that Peter Costello knew about the GST scam? Minister, given your obligations under the ministerial code of conduct, instead of covering up your branch's GST scam, why didn't you do something to shut it down?10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! The member for Deakin! The Minister for Small Business has the call.30148Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I have not brought my iPAQ into the Chamber with me today. I will check to see where I was on that day and I will then inform the House when I can confirm it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I raise a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker, going to relevance: did he tell the Treasurer?10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.3014814:47:0030148Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House of the cancer control initiatives and related activities that the government has undertaken in recent years and how Australians are benefiting from these? Is the minister aware of other proposed approaches to tackling cancer?8I4Martin, Stephen, MP10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I warn the member for Cunningham!30148Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for Sturt for his question. It is of course appropriate that we review our efforts on cancer, given that tomorrow is Daffodil Day, the Australian Cancer Council's major fundraising effort, and I commend many people on both sides of the House who have worn a daffodil today—it certainly brightens the place up a bit.There is probably no-one in the House today who is not touched by cancer one way or another, either through themselves or through a loved one. Cancer has often been called the affliction of the 20th century, although, to be fair, if you actually break cancer up, you find that the great increase in cancer over the 20th century was caused by lung cancer. Nonetheless, a whole range of other cancers are very terrifying to most people. Soon after I became minister, I elevated cancer to a national health priority area, which meant that the Commonwealth and all state and territory governments had to work together in attempting to coordinate these services. This is no easy thing, but it is having some quite substantial success. In 1997, we sponsored the establishment of the national cancer control initiative to look at some specific activities where there were gaps in cancer. This is being auspiced by the Australian Cancer Society and it is doing an excellent job. We have also continued support of the National Breast Cancer Centre that was originally conceived under the previous government. The member for Fremantle funded it initially and it has proved to be entirely successful. I was initially sceptical about disease specific initiatives, but this has been one disease specific initiative that has really worked. Australia has one of the best outcomes for cancer of any country in the world, and that is something Australians can be proud of. We are salvaging more life from cancer. With regard to the two areas of cancer that affect women particularly, breast cancer and cervical cancer, just in the last five years alone deaths from cervical cancer are down approximately 13 per cent and deaths from breast cancer are down 17 per cent. We have augmented these activities with additional funding in this year's budget to try and make our cervical cancer screening work better. Currently, 65 per cent of women in Australia are appropriately screened—that is, once every two years. Around 35 per cent are underscreened or never screened. The women who are underscreened or never screened tend to be older women. Of women born in Australia, New Zealand or the UK, 600,000 have never been screened whereas, of women born in non-English-speaking countries, 300,000 have never been screened. It is a misnomer to think that the hard-to-get women are necessarily Aboriginal women, rural women or women from non-English-speaking backgrounds, because the biggest cohort of women who have never been screened is older women born in Australia, New Zealand or the UK. For that reason, I was able to persuade my colleagues to put $72 million in this year's budget for a very substantial initiative into cervical cancer.The basis for doing that was our success with immunisation. Immunisation has been something that the government has turned around and we used the system that was already there—one of general practice and by paying general practitioners incentives. This is the first time that GPs have been paid for outcomes. Last year, over 5,500 general practices were involved in the immunisation incentive program. We had 86 per cent of all general practices in Australia having more than 80 per cent of their kids properly immunised, and 48.6 per cent of general practices in Australia had 90 per cent of their kids properly immunised. That was an absolutely dramatic turnaround in a five-year period by putting the incentives where people go.The point about general practice, as I said the other day, is that 91 per cent of women go to a GP every year. That is a very high figure. Nearly 97 per cent of all women will go to a GP every two years, and every two years is the screening period for cervical cancer. Only three per cent of women in Australia will not go to a GP in a two-year period. With 35 per cent of women unscreened or underscreened, we can get to probably 32 of those 35 using the existing network we have. There is only about three per cent of those 35 that we are going to have real difficulty getting to other than through the GPs themselves. That is why we are so strongly opposed to alternative programs that would take that away. In the end, general practice has been shown to be an effective way to do it. Setting up a bureaucracy for a limited amount of money in a limited number of places is not going to meet the needs of those 600,000 European women and 300,000 NESB women who are being underscreened. We have had, as I have said, an extraordinary reduction in cervical cancer—40 per cent in the last five years—but we can do substantially better if we use what works and ignore what does not.3014914:53:0030149Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I ask the Minister for Small Business again: Minister, have you had any discussions with the Treasurer concerning the Groom FEC scam arrangement? When did that discussion or those discussions take place, and what was the outcome of those discussions?30149Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—It is not this side of the House whose honesty is being questioned. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Yes, it is.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—I have discussions with the Treasurer all the time about a whole range of issues. I do not have a day-to-day knowledge of the operation of my FEC's finances, but I understand that everything is done in accordance with their tax obligations.3015014:54:0030150Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation. Will the minister inform the House of any changes in the regulation of financial services that reinforce the government's credibility and commitment in protecting consumers, and reinforce the government's credibility in providing a world-class financial services industry in Australia? 30150Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I thank the member for Makin for her question and for her concern about consumer protection. The financial services industry in Australia represents seven per cent of our economy and it employs 330,000 people. Today, the Senate passed landmark legislation that will deliver for Australian consumers new regulation that will in turn deliver better financial products and better financial services. The Financial Services Reform Bill 2001 removes cumbersome licensing, conduct and disclosure laws. It removes the requirement for a financial service provider to smother consumers in paperwork that is often too legalistic and too technical. It means that banks, building societies, credit unions, insurance companies and fund managers can offer products that better respond to the individual consumer's needs. It also means that lawyers, accountants, financial planners, insurance advisers and all financial institution employees need to think carefully about consumer needs before they sell to them or advise them on financial products. The new regime is particularly innovative because it means that the same laws and the same rules will apply to most financial products whether they are sold to consumers via the Internet, via the phone, face to face or through an agent. That is a clear illustration of the government's commitment to good regulation, not more regulation. Underpinning this major reform are a few key principles. Firstly, the laws that we have introduced are based on honesty. They are based on the concept that people in important positions must tell the truth to the general public. Secondly, the laws are based on credibility. Before they ask people for their money, providers must have a proven track record of doing the right thing by the public. Thirdly, the laws are based on integrity. It is no use being in a position of power if the public are unsure of your credentials for the job. Finally, the laws are based on accountability. If you mislead the public on important matters, you are held accountable for your actions, for what you have said and, importantly, for what you did not say. It might surprise some people that we were able to get that bill through the Senate, but it happened after much cajoling and a little pushing. However, when it came to the crunch today, on an important matter relating to the protection of the public, the Labor Party went to water. That is perhaps no surprise, after what we have seen this week. We were concerned that, during a takeover, everyday investors—the mums and dads of Australia, who have made us the largest share owning nation in the world—may be misled by stockbrokers into selling their shares for the first time. Many investors would know that, when they ring up their stockbroker, the stockbroker usually tapes the conversation. That is designed to protect the stockbroker if the public make commitments and then do not keep them. The Howard government wanted to offer the same protection to Australian consumers. That is, if a stockbroker rings a consumer and asks them to sell their shares during a takeover, we want to make sure that the stockbroker is telling the truth. The way to do that is to tape conversations in the same way that the stockbroker is protected. The Labor Party, in that instance, decided to back the big end of town. The Labor Party was more interested in protecting stockbrokers than in protecting consumers. It was not a great leap. We were not asking the Labor Party to support the taping of caucus. We were not asking the Labor Party to support the taping of a public meeting in Merimbula. We were asking them to support the protection of consumers when it really matters— when they are being asked to part with their money. It comes down to credibility. When the acid test is applied to the Labor Party, they are shown to be short of credibility. When the acid test is placed on the government, we are credible, we are honest, and we are about protecting all Australians. 3015115:00:0030151Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I ask the Treasurer: did you have any discussion with the Minister for Small Business concerning the scam arrangement involving the Groom FEC executive? When did that conversation take place and what action did you take arising from it? 30151Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I have had no discussion with the Minister for Small Business about any scam involving the Groom electorate or any other electorate—none whatsoever. As I said earlier in relation to the first question on this matter, if I attend a meeting of an electorate committee, I go and I give a speech. I am not responsible for selling the food or the service. I am not responsible for the charge, nor am I responsible for remitting in relation to the Australian Taxation Office. That is not my responsibility. It is the responsibility under the law of those people or those persons that are selling the goods or the services, not the person who makes the speech, as I said in my answer to the first question. If the Groom FEC or the Hotham ALP or anybody else wanted to know what their taxation liabilities were, my advice to them would always be the same: they should pay their taxation liabilities. If the member for Hotham or anybody else wants to say that they have not paid their taxation liabilities, they can give evidence, which I would pass across to the Australian Taxation Office. As I said in answer to the first question, if you want to give evidence that they have not done it, then you can pass it across. I would be only too happy to pass it across. But, if the Groom FEC want any advice from me, my advice to them would be to pay their due and just taxation liabilities. That would certainly be my advice to them if they sought it. I would give the same advice in relation to the Hotham ALP, I would give it in relation to a small business, and I would give it in relation to any other organisation. That would be my advice. That is the position I have always adopted, and that is the position in relation to these questions. 3015115:02:0030151Thompson, Cameron, MPMr CAMERON THOMPSON84CBlairLP10—My question is directed to the Minister for Defence. Would the minister advise the House of the government's commitments in relation to the Defence portfolio? Would the minister advise the House of instances where commitments in the Defence portfolio have been given and not met or where commitments have been given which lack credibility? 30151Reith, Peter, MPMr REITHWI4FlindersLPMinister for Defence10—I thank the honourable member for his question and I am pleased to advise the House that the government has made commitments in respect of defence and we are sticking to those commitments. Furthermore, in this year's budget we provided hundreds of millions of dollars to make those commitments a reality for a more efficient, more modern and up-to-date Defence Force. In fact, we have plans to spend in the order of $27 billion over 10 years. We have given the defence organisation a plan for the future and the resources and commitment to make that a reality. I am asked about other commitments in defence and the credibility of those commitments. The opposition certainly have commitments in the area of defence, but they have absolutely no credibility when it comes to sustaining those commitments. In fact, I would say to the parliament that most of the commitments made by the Labor Party are commitments which, in effect, will deceive the Australian people as to what the Labor Party can or cannot do in the future in regard to defence. UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I warn the member for Paterson!WI4Mr REITH—We have from the Leader of the Opposition constant carping that he is going to set up a coastguard, yet he himself, when he was a relevant minister, brought down a report saying that it would be ineffective and would in fact cost us a lot of money. It is a deception of the Australian people for him to put forward the idea of a coastguard. It would not work. It would reduce the effectiveness of the existing operation and, of course, the opposition does not have the money to pay for it. That is not the only thing for which the Labor Party do not have the money but which they are out in the Australian community touting they would do if they were elected. They are promising people in the Hunter a new bombing range at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars. 8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. As the Speaker has ruled on a number of occasions where personal explanations have been taken in this place—10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Resume your seat. The minister has the call. WI4Mr REITH—There is one promise after another, none of which will ever be backed up and for which there is not one cent to make them a reality. There were promises of Anzac battalions and a couple of additional submarines—just to mention some—which would cost literally billions of dollars and which the Labor Party know will never be delivered. Yet they are still out there in the public arena advocating these propositions. Now we see that the Leader of the Opposition says that he is not going to increase the Defence budget. But of course he has got all the promises out there—to one group here and one group there. There is one offer after another. He has got a promise for anybody who is prepared to listen, just on the basis that none of the comments go national. These promises have no credibility. I am asked whether or not we have seen such promises in the past. Of course we have. I take just one example, of which there are many: when the Leader of the Opposition was defence minister, he went down to Newcastle in 1989 to tell them that five of the 12 ships—the frigates to be built—would be assembled and launched in Newcastle. As everybody knows, that was not true. It never happened. It is typical of what those opposite do—promising a group here, promising a group there. They are promises that will never be kept. In the last 24 hours we have had a few emails coming in on this subject as well. There was a talkback caller named Michael on 3AW this morning who I thought spoke on behalf of many Australians when he said:When Kim Beazley was defence minister, he came to Williamstown dockyards. He said `Go out and mortgage your house, go out and buy a new car, your jobs are safe.' About seven months later, a couple of hundred or nearly a thousand people lost their jobs.He then said:A leopard never changes his spots.The Labor Party has no credibility whatsoever on defence. It is a fabrication and a deception to be advocating proposals across the country that the Labor Party will never put one cent towards if ever they get into government and for which they have no commitment whatsoever.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Acting Speaker, I ask that the minister table the document from which he was just reading.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Minister, is it a confidential document?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—The documents I had were the notes for my answer. You can have those with pleasure and I hope you enjoy reading them. I also have the offending press release if you would like that. I table that as well.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What about the email?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—I don't have any emails with me.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Acting Speaker, the minister indicated—10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Are you asking a question?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I am; of you, Mr Acting Speaker. The minister indicated in his answer to the—10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—No, not now—later if you like.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister indicated in his answer that he was reading from an email.Honourable members—No.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—He did. I am now asking that that be tabled.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I cannot confirm whether or not the minister was reading from an email. He has tabled what he wishes to table. He has no obligation if it was a confidential document to table anything else. I am informed that he tabled everything he had at the dispatch box.3015315:08:0030153Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Treasurer. Do you deny having any knowledge of a tax arrangement in which the Queensland division of the Liberal Party have obtained GST input credits without paying the GST?30153Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—As I said in the answer to my first question, if I attend the Groom FEC dinner—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order: the question is not specifically about Groom. It is about any arrangement involving the Queensland division of the Liberal Party and whether he had any knowledge of that.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The member for Hotham will resume his seat. The question started off specifically about tax arrangements and the Treasurer is in order; he is answering the question.CT4Mr COSTELLO—As I said, if I attend a dinner of the Groom FEC, or indeed any meeting of the Queensland Liberal Party or any other Liberal Party—or whether I attend a meeting of the Rotary Club or whether I attend an Olympic dinner—and it is my responsibility to give a speech, I will turn up and I will give the speech. It is the responsibility of the person who is selling the goods and the services to comply with their taxation obligations. I do not ask them what their taxation obligations are. I do not advise them on their taxation obligations. If they seek my advice, my advice to them is to comply with their taxation obligations. I would say to the Groom FEC or the Queensland Liberal Party—or, indeed, to the Hotham ALP if they want to invite me out to give a speech— that they should comply with their obligations and that they should make full disclosure in relation to all of their obligations to the Australian Taxation Office. After making full disclosure of all of their obligations to the Australian Taxation Office, they should pay any liability that they have. That is my view and that is what I advise them.As I understand it—and I am having this checked during question time—the Australian Taxation Office has done an audit on the Queensland Liberal Party in relation to its obligations. I will find out from the commissioner whether or not the audit has uncovered any material that shows that obligations have not been adhered to. If it has, our advice to the Queensland division of the Liberal Party is that they should comply with their obligations, just like anybody else. The Australian Taxation Office would be instructed if it sought advice, which it probably would not, from the government that the law should be enforced in relation to the Queensland Liberal Party, just as it should be enforced in relation to the Victorian Labor Party. My recollection is that the Victorian Labor Party at one point was caught not complying with its obligations in relation to a fundraising dinner.Opposition members interjecting—CT4Mr COSTELLO—That is my certain recollection. I believe that, when we were approached in relation to the Victorian Labor Party not complying with its obligation, our position was the same: the Victorian Labor Party should comply with its obligation. It should go down to the Australian Taxation Office, it should make a clean breast of its position and it should pay its liability. The attitude we take in relation to the Victorian Labor Party is precisely the attitude we take in relation to the Queensland Liberal Party: if there is anybody in Queensland who has not complied with their obligation they should go down to the Australian Taxation Office, they should make complete disclosure and they should pay their obligation. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has evidence that they have not done that, I am more than happy to pass it across to the tax commissioner, who is responsible for enforcing the law, and I am more than happy to ensure that the law is enforced.3015315:13:0030153Cameron, Ross, MPMr ROSS CAMERON3K6ParramattaLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Has the minister seen recent media reports about education policies? Could the minister advise the House of the accuracy of those reports and is the minister aware of any alternative policies?30154Kemp, 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 Parramatta for his question. Yes, I have seen recent media reports on education policy. The Daily Telegraph this morning decided to address the issue of education policy under the headline `Keystone Kim— Beazley leaves trail of blunders as election nears'. The article addressed the issue of Knowledge Nation—noodle nation. Do you remember noodle nation, Mr Acting Speaker, and what the Leader of the Opposition said on 2 July, when he released Knowledge Nation, the education policy that dare not speak its name? He said: I commit the Australian Labor Party from today to the long-term agenda of this Report, and I pledge all my energies and my every working day to achieving it ... He pledged that, every working day, he would be pursuing Knowledge Nation. Yet, less than a month later, on 1 August, he said on Adelaide radio of this grand scheme:If it hadn't been for that little design of Barry's, it would have been talked about for one day and disappeared.He was making fun of his own policy. Within a month he was saying that this was a purely opportunistic document. He knew it had no real credibility, and he was making light of it. The only publicity it got was the spaghetti-and-meatballs diagram of Barry Jones. That is how much belief he had in his policy.UU5Horne, Bob, MP10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! Under standing order 304A, the member for Paterson is excused from the service of the House for one hour.The honourable member for Paterson then left the chamber.BT4Dr KEMP—Since this parliament has returned, there has not been a single reference by the Leader of the Opposition to this policy that he said he would dedicate to promoting every working day. This is the education policy that dare not speak its name. The tax policy has disappeared, roll-back has disappeared, the education policy has disappeared and now his credibility on health has gone down the drain. All we see from the Leader of the Opposition is an utterly cynical attempt to beat up policies when he thinks he can get a bit of credit or kudos on the day for what he says and then in the end abandon them because he has no real interest in the substance whatsoever. You cannot believe a word that he says.We are reminded of the words of the member for Werriwa to the Sydney Morning Herald in October 1998. When the education policy was abandoned and he resigned as the education shadow minister, the member for Werriwa said:... people think Kim's a big angel, but some of this stuff is a bit dirty behind the scenes.What cynical opportunism that revealed about the Leader of the Opposition. Nobody thinks he is a big angel any more; in fact, nobody believes him anymore. Nobody believes him because he has no credibility. His attitude to policy is utterly opportunistic and he will say anything to try to win a point on the day whether or not that point is true and whether or not he has any commitment to the policy.3015415:18:0030154Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, can you confirm that the Groom FEC Executive Treasurer was so concerned about the legality of obtaining GST input tax credits for the Costello fundraiser without paying the GST that she not only refused to participate but subsequently resigned her position in protest. Minister, again I ask: didn't you know about the GST scam? Given how serious your own FEC Executive Treasurer regarded the GST scam, why didn't you do something to shut it down? Why instead did you cover it up and not refer it to the tax office and the Federal Police?30154Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I am not aware of anything untoward that has been done in the FEC. My understanding is that the books of the FEC have been audited. I am not aware that the auditor has any concerns in regard to the financial operations of the FEC.3015415:19:0030154Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business. Minister, in what manner has the government's policies improved job prospects for all Australians? How would alternative policies, particularly Knowledge Nation, affect job prospects, workplace relations and small business prospects? What is the government's response? 30155Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I thank the member for Robertson for his question. This government said that it was going to deliver better lives to ordinary Australians, and it certainly has. This government has produced more jobs. People are earning higher pay and they are paying lower tax. This government has delivered on its promises. The only alternative policy is a document entitled Knowledge Nation, which has been described as `long on rhetoric, short on detail and blank on costing'. That is not my description. That is the description of Knowledge Nation by someone who knows the Leader of the Opposition well: former Senator Peter Walsh who, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, was a minister who actually got things done in government. If you look at this extraordinary spaghetti-and-meatballs diagram which is supposed to encapsulate Knowledge Nation, there is one truly remarkable omission. The one remarkable omission from this diagram is jobs. I have the missing meatball. I recommend to the Leader of the Opposition that any policy worthy of the name must have jobs as its centrepiece.The nearest thing to an employment program in knowledge nation is in recommendation 13, which talks about `ensuring that employers increase their level of investment in training'. So what we have is another trip down memory lane with Keystone Kim, or in the case of the Leader of the Opposition it is recovered memory lane—10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The minister will refer to the Leader of the Opposition by his correct title.EZ5Mr ABBOTT—or false memory lane. He wants to go back to the training guarantee levy of the Keating government, which did not stop apprenticeships falling to record low numbers and did not stop Australia developing the best trained dole queues in the world. There is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of Knowledge Nation. This Leader of the Opposition expects these switched-on, wired-up, online workers to operate under a 1970s style industrial relations system. He expects these young, dynamic entrepreneurs to leave their high-tech laboratories, get into their P76s and their Trabants, go down to the Industrial Relations Commission and ask for directions about everything that happens in their workplace. He expects these people, who can out-compete the world, to become industrial zombies and to put their hands up every time the union officials say so.There is a very simple reason why there is no reference to decent, dynamic workplace relations in knowledge nation. When you actually look at the people who made submissions to knowledge nation, you see that there were 10 academic organisations, one academic trade union and, of course, who else but the AMWU—our old friends the AMWU who bankroll the Labor Party and determine its policy. I doubt very much whether Dougie Cameron actually wrote Knowledge Nation, because only someone as prolix as the Leader of the Opposition could write a 55-page wish list. Knowledge Nation entirely symbolises the character of the Leader of the Opposition: embellish the bad news, fib about the facts and bluster when you get caught out. Knowledge Nation is a fairytale—every bit as much a fairytale as Kim's hospital tales.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Mr Acting Speaker, I raise a point of order. During the minister's answer you drew his attention to standing order 80, and he concluded his answer by again breaching standing order 80.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Unlike some members of this chamber, I am not deaf. I did hear him, but he had finished his question and, in the interest of the House and to facilitate your Deputy Leader asking his question, I decided to ignore it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Love that facilitation!10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I am sure I can facilitate anything you like, coming or going.3015615:25:0030156Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, can you confirm that, on 31 January this year, the Groom FEC executive received a letter of advice from accountants Fowler and Board advising that the GST scam should be abandoned, saying:We express the view that the Commissioner of Taxation could attack these transactions using division 165 of the GST Act.Minister, didn't you know about this advice? Having received such serious advice and given your obligations under the ministerial code of conduct, why didn't you act immediately to shut down the GST scam?30156Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—This is a wild-goose chase being launched by the Labor Party. It is my understanding that, based on the auditor's audit of the FEC, there is nothing untoward happening in the books of the FEC of Groom.Censure Motion301563015615:26:0030156Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—by leave—I move:That this House censures the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business for:(1) being aware of and involved in the Groom Liberal Party FEC Executive entering into a scam arrangement with the Queensland Liberal Party to obtain GST input tax credits for the catering of a fundraiser involving the two ministers, without paying the GST;(2) failing to refer this GST scam by the Groom Liberal Party FEC Executive and other Queensland Liberal Party branches for investigation by the Taxation Office and the Federal Police;(3) being complicit in the Liberal Party not paying its fair share of GST whilst claiming that the GST was going to end the black economy; and (4) serious breaches of even the Prime Minister's discredited Ministerial Code of Conduct, with respect to the obligations of Ministers.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Now prove it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I will prove it. I think the Liberal ministers who have come floundering to the bench today have proven it themselves. Make no mistake about this, what we have is a scam of the first order: a Liberal fundraiser for the Minister for Small Business to raise money to re-elect him, a fundraiser involving none other than the Treasurer of the country as its drawcard, and a scam whereby the Liberals are claiming GST credits from fundraisers when no GST was paid. That is the scam, and that is what we have identified today.The Liberal Party in respect of their divisions have two choices, like everyone else. They can constitute themselves through the subentity regime, whereby if the particular branch has a turnover of less than $100,000 no GST is paid, but there is no right to claim the input tax credits. So they do not pay the GST but they are input taxed. That is available to them as an option, just as it is available to many other organisations in this country below that threshold. That is one option that they have.The other option is, of course, that they can pay the GST on the fundraiser. In the case of this particular one attended by the Treasurer, we understand that there were 201 paid-up attendees and that the tickets were $80 each. So, if the GST were paid, they would have collected another $1,608—if the GST were paid. But, if they pay the full GST, they can claim the credits. That is how the tax works. They can take one or the other— but they cannot get both. In the case of what we have outlined today, they are getting both. Under this scam, the Liberal Party are having it both ways: no GST paid, but they farm the credits and claim them when they are not entitled to them. That is what has gone on, we know, in Groom; and we know that also in relation to at least one other named FEC—and a further one again, we are told.This is a fraud. It is a fraud condoned and covered up by the minister seeking funds to get himself re-elected, and a fraud done under the very nose of the Treasurer, the man responsible for tax avoidance—a Treasurer who has responsibility for stamping out fraud and tax avoidance, a Treasurer who told us the GST was going to trap the black economy, and a Treasurer under whose very nose the Liberal Party are conducting the fraud that achieves the avoidance. This is another example of a special rule for the Liberal Party alone. Yesterday this House, under the weight of government numbers and opposed by us, passed a special rule for the Liberal Party: special legislation to address the cash flow problems due to the GST. There is no special legislation for the hundreds of thousands of small businesses in this country who are suffering cash flow problems.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin Thomson—What about for the pharmacists?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—There is nothing for the pharmacists, nothing for the meat industry and the abattoirs and nothing for the groups who are saying, `We have serious cash flow problems,' and have identified them. No legislation there! But, when it comes to the Liberal Party, they reorganise the whole of government business and rush in a special piece of legislation to give themselves favourable treatment. It is not for anyone else: it is only for the Liberal Party, this course of action.We know that the Liberal Party has been getting advice that small business want more done, because we received another leak a few weeks back: a cabinet memo prepared by the Minister for Small Business, a memo which contained in it the fact that small business wanted more done in terms of simplifying the GST and addressing their cash flow problems. But, when we released and tabled the small business document, there was not one suggestion or recommendation that went to that issue.But today, of course, we have received another set of leaks. This is a party leaking like a sieve at the moment; and well it may, because people within its own ranks—decent people, people who have been involved in business, people who have been involved in their party for decades—are fed up with this government's double standards and hypocrisy. That is what we have today. We have a Liberal Party in revolt internally, because this government has one set of standards for itself and another for the rest of Australia. This scam came to light from another set of leaks and it shows that the Liberal Party cannot help itself. Not content with bringing in special legislation to look after its organisational wing—special legislation that applies to no-one else in this country—it now wants to cheat the system as well. That is not good enough, and that is why these ministers deserve to be censured.Ian Macfarlane, the Minister for Small Business, was present at a meeting at which this contrived mechanism was discussed and imposed on the FEC treasurer against her will. Her objections are recorded in leaked minutes. The treasurer of the FEC, Mrs Margaret Watts, later resigned over the issue. So incensed was she at this double standard and fraudulent behaviour on the part of her own organisation, condoned at the very top level, that she resigned; and we say, `Good on her!'WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—A decent Liberal.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—She is a decent member of the Liberal Party, unlike these who sit on the front bench. There is no decency in this government—no listening and no decency. This is a government corrupted by its own office now, a government that wants one set of standards for the rest of the country but, when it gets into difficulty itself, goes off and does a separate little tricky set of deals.The minutes also show that the FEC sought advice on the issue from a firm of accountants. The advice concluded that the arrangement should not be used, and further expressed the view that the Commissioner of Taxation could attack these transactions. That was advice paid for, as we understand it, by the particular division of the Liberal Party. So concerned were they internally about this debate that they actually commissioned advice and asked whether the right thing was being done, and they were told that it was not. But still the practice was condoned. That was, amongst other things, one of the circumstances that led to the FEC treasurer's resignation.The documents also reveal that the matter was brought to the attention of the federal Treasurer, Peter Costello, and that Mr Costello `carpeted Macfarlane'—and I am referring to the information that we have got— over the issue. There is no evidence that the Treasurer took any action to refer the GST avoidance to the tax office or to arrange for the evaded GST revenue to be paid to the tax office. The man in this country who is charged and commissioned with responsibility for the tax office comes into this place and says that he is cracking down on tax avoiders. But, when he has this scam drawn to his attention by a colleague and another minister, he does nothing—nothing. This is a Treasurer without credibility, because he is a Treasurer who is not prepared to be even-handed. He is prepared to turn a blind eye when it comes to his own party, yet, when it suits him, he parades as the champion against tax avoidance. It was very interesting today. Here was the Treasurer, chiding us on this side with where was a question to him. We gave him a few questions today, but we did not get a real answer—not until the end. It was like pulling teeth, in the case of the Treasurer. First of all, he gave the impression that he knew nothing, which is the Prime Minister's defence, the Sergeant Schultz approach—`I know nothing; I know nothing.' This is their approach. We know that the smirk doctor has not worked, because it keeps creeping back in, Treasurer. That consultation was a waste of money—better go back. But as we went on and on in the process, reading the lips and the body language of the Minister for Small Business, it was clear that he was uncomfortable about these arrangements—and his minutes show why he should be. They show his attendance, they show his knowledge of the accountants report, they show his knowledge of the scam and they show his knowledge of the resignation of his own treasurer.We are all involved in our own party branches, and I ask: don't you think the warning signal would go up when someone resigns over an issue like this? Don't you think you would do something and say, `We've got to fix it; we can't be in the parliament legislating laws that we ourselves aren't going to apply'? But here he is, the Minister for Small Business, up to his eyeballs, by the look of things, in supporting and condoning a scam that means that his branch can claim credits when it has not paid the GST and get an advantage—and this is not the only circumstance in which it is happening.There is also evidence in the material that will be available that this scam was used in relation to at least two other Queensland Liberal federal electorate councils. It was very interesting to see the flights around the chamber when these questions started coming today—mostly from government members from Queensland. The member for Longman was hardly in his seat for the whole of question time. We know that the member for Longman has been involved in interesting sorts of schemes, because the member for Dickson has taken him to task and exposed him on those in other circumstances. But today he was very agitated. Like the proverbial bee in the bottle he was today: from seat to seat, `What do they know? What can we do? Does anyone know about this?' The member for Longman was hardly in his seat at all in question time. But there were others who were actively conversing on this, because they know that they have been sprung. But it is not just the members of parliament who are involved in this. The director of the Liberal Party in Queensland, Graham Jaeschke, asserted that this GST scam was put in place on the advice of the federal Liberal secretariat. This goes right to the top. Do we understand this? This is not just some little arrangement in Toowoomba. You might remember that this fundraiser was the tour that the Treasurer went on when he was referred to as Mr Moneybags. I have some material somewhere here. This was the Treasurer's fundraising foray—and I know that we can hold these up for about five seconds—`Welcome Mr Moneybags'. That was the Toowoomba tour of the Treasurer. We know Mr Moneybags now. He was lining the money bags of the Liberal Party in Queensland. That is what he was up there doing. He was not up there looking after the interests of regional Australia; he was lining the Liberal Party coffers through some fraudulent scheme—and it was being carried out under his nose and in circumstances in which he was the drawcard.I might say that the very next day, 24 November, on his Mr Moneybags tour, the Treasurer went out on a doorstop and had this to say. He launched into an attack on the Labor Party in Queensland about the activities that were then going on in Queensland— and you might remember that it was before the last election. This is what the Treasurer had to say at that doorstop: It is inconceivable that these state secretaries would have been oblivious to what is going on.He went on:It would be inconceivable that all of this was going on—this kind of thing is handled at an organisational level—He would know. He continues:with the organisers not having some knowledge of what was going on.There was the opportunist Treasurer on his first foray into the regions, I think, because we had been attacking him on that and we forced him out. But he had to go into protected territory—so protected that we now know the sorts of scams that they were getting up to. But there he was, out in the region, participating in a function that was perpetrating a fraud on the Commonwealth taxes, which was being condoned at the highest levels in the Liberal Party—the highest levels. The minister was involved and knew about it—the minutes will show that. The Treasurer, we now know, knew about things. The final answer to his question was the one in which he gave away the fact that he knew something was on. But did he do anything? Did he refer it to the tax office?He comes in here and says, `If anyone gives me information,' but he is really saying `only if the Labor Party gives me information'. If you want the information from the Labor Party, let us get into government and we will give you the information all right. If you cannot run the show, then get out of the seat. That is what we are saying to you. If it has to be us who brings it forward, then have the decency to give us the opportunity to administer from the appropriate benches.You say, `Give me the information.' It would appear, Treasurer, that you have had this information. You either knew it from Ian Macfarlane, the Minister for Small Business, or you knew it because the organisational structure of the party—through the Queensland division and its secretary and the national secretary—were aware of it, and it was certainly being run and condoned in Queensland. I do not believe that you had no knowledge of this, Treasurer, and I will be very interested, when you get up to answer this censure motion, to hear you categorically say when you knew and what you knew. Most importantly, you have then got to tell us what you did about it. This is fraud against the Commonwealth. This should be referred to the tax office and the Federal Police—but did you do it? Has the money now been paid?CT4Costello, Peter, MPDT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—The money that you have avoided.CT4Costello, Peter, MPDT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—We know what you know, my friend. The trouble is you will not fess up.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The deputy leader will address his remarks through the chair.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—You now have 15 minutes to do that fessing up.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! Address your remarks through the chair, please.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—Through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the Treasurer has the opportunity to fess up. He never comes in to debate issues in this House. He is always chiding us about asking him questions—we will not ask him a question until he gives an answer and until he turns up to answer in economic debates that he is responsible for, not flogging it off to the minions. Come in and defend your record, instead of prattling away at the dispatch box in response to dorothy dixers and looking stupid in the process.We say to you, Treasurer, this is the most serious charge that can be levelled against two ministers: knowledge of a fraud being perpetrated against the Commonwealth and doing nothing. In the case of the small business minister, the charge is even more serious, and if there is to be an investigation he should be stood aside. We will be interested to see what you do, because I say to you, Treasurer—and to you, Mr Deputy Speaker—we have referred these issues to the tax commissioner today. He has the full details. We have asked him to look into this matter. We know that has not been done by this government, because the Treasurer has had information on this, the small business minister has been aware and they have done nothing. It is the Labor Party that has referred this to the tax office. These ministers deserve censure. They are condemned for being part of a fraud against the Commonwealth. In the case of the Treasurer, a man responsible for the tax office is in support of that fraud. (Time expired)10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClelland—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—Mr Deputy Speaker, I ask that the minutes that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was reading from be tabled. The deputy leader was reading from a document, and I ask that the document be tabled.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The standing order regarding tabling of documents only applies to ministers.15:49:0030160Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—Let me begin my response to the censure motion by saying the Labor Party comes in here and says it has written evidence that a scam has been entered into, and it refuses to produce the evidence. The record will show I just asked the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to table the document that he was reading from, which allegedly proved a scam and which was worthy of a censure of two ministers in this parliament, and he refused to table the document. I myself would have thought that, if the case were that he had really hot evidence and if he were really worried about a scam that had been entered into, he would be tabling the document for the world to see—certainly tabling the document for the press to see, certainly tabling the document for the Australian Taxation Office to see, and I would be interested in it myself. But doesn't it strike the members of this House as passing strange that you should walk in here claiming that you have uncovered a scam in a written document which you then refuse to table, refuse to make public? I would have thought that to give yourself a shred of credibility that would have been the first thing that you would have done.The second thing that you would have done—and I think we can dispose of the argument very quickly and then we can go on to what is really behind this censure—is, if you were alleging that a scam arrangement had been entered into to claim input tax credits, you would have shown that input tax credits were claimed and paid. That would have been the most obvious thing. If the scam is that somebody claimed an input tax credit when they were not entitled to do so, you would come in here and you would say the input tax credit was claimed on a BAS of such and such a time and that such and such an amount was paid, because if it was not claimed or if it was not paid there is no scam. But I would have thought that, you having alleged that there was a scam and a fraud, the first thing you would do is come in and say, `There is the claim. There is the money that was paid,' because if no money is paid there can be no fraud.The fact that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition makes the allegation counts for nothing in this House—everybody knows that. We have a false allegation probably on a daily basis, and I will come in a moment to why we have this allegation today. The claim is that a scam arrangement was entered into by the Queensland Liberal Party to obtain GST input tax credits. Let me explain, for the benefit of those who may not know how the system works, that if you buy goods and services you pay GST. If you want to claim back an input tax credit you must put in a return, claim your input tax credit and you will receive a cheque. Presumably with the Groom FEC—and I would not know; I do not do the return for the Groom FEC, and I know it would come as a great shock to the Minister for Small Business that I have no inclination to start doing the GST returns of the Groom FEC—if there was a fraud, the first thing one would do is that one would have their return which claimed these input tax credits, because unless you have done that you have not shown that they actually received anything that they should not have, because you have not shown that they received anything. By the way, even if you did that, you would not have shown that they had not received anything that they were not entitled to. So that would be the first step in showing that they had received something. I do not do the returns for the Liberal Party state branch, nor of course am I aware of or responsible for its returns. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition's proposition is this: if I attend a lunch where somebody has not complied with their obligations, I am liable. If I walk into a milk bar and I buy a pie, and that milk bar, as it turns out, has not properly accounted for GST or, worse, if it is engaged in a scam, I am complicit. Or if I walk into a restaurant and I buy a meal, and the restaurant does not put in its return or it is involved in some scam, I am complicit. And the same goes for him—presumably, he is complicit every time he walks into a milk bar or a restaurant if the person, unbeknown to him, does not put in a return. That is the proposition that was put here.You have only got to state the proposition to realise how ridiculous it is. First of all, he does not prove that the Groom FEC received anything. I would not know whether they had; I am not responsible for their returns. But if I was going to get up here and say there was a scam by the Groom FEC, step 1, I would say they received something. Then I would prove that they were not entitled to receive it. Then I would show that it was somehow counselled or procured by the Minister for Small Business. And then, if I wanted to lay this at the door of the Treasurer, I would say it was counselled or procured by the Treasurer. That was the allegation, that this had somehow been counselled or procured by me or by the Minister for Small Business. But, of course, he does not show any of that.I said in question time earlier today that I was aware that political parties in the transition to GST had made errors in their returns. Not so, said the member for Hotham—never been done by the Labor Party. So I will table a document. I will table the Herald Sun of 22 March 2001. The article says:Labor has been caught dodging the GST on a swanky fundraising dinner via a loophole it had just pledged to close. It was revealed yesterday Premier Steve Bracks had used a tax avoidance tactic—Listen to this—that Labor's federal deputy leader had said was outrageous.So he was running around saying that this tax tactic was outrageous while it was being engaged in by the Premier of Victoria. The article goes on:Shadow Treasurer Simon Crean had accused the Liberal Party of dodging tax by disguising most of the ticket price to a dinner as a donation. But it has emerged Labor used the same aggressive interpretation of tax laws for a Bracks fundraising dinner in December of last year. The embarrassing discovery has undermined Labor's pledge to shun shady fundraising tactics.According to the logic of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, that is a fraud which should have been reported to the Federal Police and the Australian Taxation Office. He, as the deputy leader of the party, is complicit in it; therefore, he should be sacked.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—It's not a fraud.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—It is not a fraud? Hang on! Labor is, according to this, trying to dodge its GST. That is not a fraud—oh no. But if the Groom FEC has made an error in relation to GST, that is a fraud. Is that right? Not that you can show that the Groom FEC actually received any input tax credits, not that you can show that it actually has not complied. No. But it is the Groom FEC— ipso facto, it is a fraud. Labor is in the clear, and the Minister for Small Business ought to be condemned.Let us now come to why this motion is being moved today. There are two reasons. One is that for the last 3½ years we were going to have roll-back—roll-back was going to be the policy of the Australian Labor Party. When roll-back died, the Australian Labor Party said, no, health was going to be its big issue. All of this week we have had a concerted question time on health. Even today, the MPI was going to be on health, because health, health, health is the Labor Party's issue—so they said. But, having been humiliated yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition decides to bring forward the diversion. It is no doubt something that has been sitting in the back pocket probably, I would say, waiting for the campaign. Apparently these are events which happened last year, so this has been in the back pocket waiting for the campaign and is brought out today. Why? Because not only can they now not mention roll-back, not only can they now not mention `noodle nation', but now they cannot mention health. So they pull a counterattack out of the back pocket, get the old deputy leader down here, get him to try and put as much dirt on as many people as possible, rely on the newspapers to print some of it because it has been said under privilege and then try and divert the whole week off their health attack. The second reason why this is pulled out of the back pocket today and run by the deputy leader is his utter humiliation on Tuesday of this week. It appears that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has given up asking any questions about the economy, having falsely claimed the Australian economy would be in recession—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—When did I say that? That is a lie!CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—When the national accounts came out and they showed Australia's quarter had been the strongest in 2001 of any of the industrialised countries of the world, he gave up asking questions. In fact, I can pinpoint precisely the day when he stopped asking questions on the economy: it was the day of the national accounts which showed the Australian economy for the March quarter had the strongest growth—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—That is a lie!CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—in relation to all the industrial nations.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The Treasurer will resume his seat. I have extended a great deal of understanding to the deputy leader, but I am getting tired of his constant claims that it is a lie. I would be obliged if he would withdraw.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—No, I will not withdraw. I urge you to check Speaker Andrew's rules—CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—This is my time.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Of course it is your time! It is my time because I am being asked to withdraw in circumstances in which you are just peddling lies.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I have asked the deputy leader to withdraw. I do not really want him to have an early mark, but if he does not withdraw I will have no alternative because he is defying the chair.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Acting Speaker, this is a very significant issue you are raising with me, because Speaker Andrew has said that, whilst he does not like it, he has to allow it to happen. Why? Because the Prime Minister has said it from the dispatch box. If you are going to allow the Prime Minister of the country to accuse us of a lie—10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Resume your seat! I accept the argument made by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. However, I encourage every member of this House to adopt a practice of not only not calling people liars but also not claiming that they are lying or saying that it is a lie.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—As I said, I can pinpoint precisely when the Deputy Leader of the Opposition lost his nerve and stopped asking questions about the economy in this House. It was when the March quarter national accounts came out, which showed that in quarter 1 of 2001 Australia had the strongest growth of any of the major countries of the industrialised world. He stopped asking questions. When the press reported this on Tuesday, so humiliated was he that he demanded the opportunity to come back in with something that has been in the back pocket, no doubt since last year, and to run this totally spurious and false allegation against me.The reason we are here on this censure today is not that the Labor Party suddenly found out about a Groom fundraiser last year; it is not that the Labor Party came into the possession of a document today; it is not that they actually want to table the document, because when I gave them the opportunity they refused. The reason why we are having a censure today is that we cannot discuss roll-back, we cannot discuss noodle nation and we cannot discuss health. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been humiliated because he cannot ask a question on the economy, so he pulls out the Groom FEC, if you please, from last year. So important was this matter, so important was it to censure two ministers in relation to this matter, that they have been sitting on it for only eight or 10 months! So important! Lest we actually get any of this documentary evidence, he refuses to table it. I have never seen someone came into this House and say, `Here is a document that proves a fraud,' but when they are asked to table it, they refuse to do so. You would want to have this in the gallery; you would want to have it down at the tax office; you would want to be able to prove your case. In relation to the case, what is the case? The case is that the Groom FEC somehow, in contradiction of the taxation act, received input tax credits when that was not lawfully available to them under the legislation. But he does not prove that they actually applied for them nor that they received them—one problem in establishing a forgery.Presumably the shadow Attorney-General is going to get up next and presumably he is going to show, `This was the return and this was what was paid, which was not in accordance with the law, and therefore fraudulent.' Mr Acting Speaker, can I have an extension of five minutes? (Extension of time granted) First of all, not having proved that any claim was made; secondly, not having proved that any claim was paid; thirdly, not having proved that it was not entitled to under the law; fourthly, not having proved that I had any responsibility; fifthly, not having proved that there was any involvement of me either counselling or procuring, this censure falls flat on its face, except as a diversionary tactic for a Labor Party which now can speak not of any policy. It now has no policy that it can speak of. He finished up by saying: `Well, if you want us to stamp this out and to enforce the law, give us the right to administer the GST.' That is how he finished!3J4Sawford, Rod, MPMr Sawford—Mr Acting Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to point out that the time clock has eight minutes to go when it should in fact be four minutes.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—My clock is showing six minutes and 26 seconds.Opposition members interjecting—10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! Perhaps everybody would like to know that an extension of time is not moved for a specific period of time. The Leader of the House, who moved the motion, moved that the Treasurer's time be extended. The motion provides inherently that that is for half the time of the original speech. That is 15 minutes, so in that case the time is correct. The Treasurer has the call, and no more trivial points of order.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLO—When I made the offer, saying to him that, if he thinks that there is anything untoward from the Groom FEC or, indeed, if he thinks there is anything untoward from the Liberal Party state division in Queensland, I would be happy to receive any information and I would be happy to pass it on to the Australian Taxation Office, he said that he could not do that because the only way that this can be fixed is if he gets into government and has the right to administer the law—in other words, the right to administer the GST. Haven't we come a long way now? The Australian Labor Party, which says, `There should be no GST; it should be rolled back,' now demands the right to administer the GST. When the perfectly reasonable offer is put to him that, if there is anything untoward, give us the evidence and we will pass it on to the Australian Taxation Office, he refuses to do so. He refuses to give any information to us for the enforceability of the law.I want to make it entirely clear that the government is responsible for policy and for legislation in relation to taxation matters and the Australian Taxation Commissioner is responsible for enforcement. That has always been the case. There is a reason behind that. The reason why you have an independent statutory officer responsible for enforcing the law is so that no person who holds ministerial office and no person who is in the parliament is able to influence the Commissioner of Taxation in the enforcement of the law. No person has the capacity to do it: I do not have the capacity to do it; the Minister for Small Business does not have the capacity to do it; the Prime Minister does not have the capacity to do it. Anybody who knew the first principle of Australian taxation law would know that if the Groom FEC has contravened a law then the Australian Taxation Commissioner, free of any influence, has the capacity to enforce that law. What is more, the Commissioner of Taxation is protected from dismissal by a protection mechanism which is almost akin to a High Court judge. The Commissioner of Taxation can only be removed from his office by proven misbehaviour through a motion of both houses of parliament. And that is as it should be, so that the Commissioner of Taxation can be sure that he has tenure of office, unless proven misbehaviour is found by the houses of parliament, to enforce a law without fear or favour. The Commissioner of Taxation has the power to enforce it against the Groom FEC; he has the power to enforce it against the Queensland Liberal Party; he has had the power to enforce it against the federal Liberal Party; he has the power to enforce it against me in respect of my own taxation obligations; and he has the power to enforce it against the Minister for Small Business in respect of his taxation obligations.The suggestion which is coming through here with no evidence whatsoever—the slimy little smear that is being put down here by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—is that somehow I was able to engage in some preferential treatment for the Groom FEC or the Queensland Liberal branch. That is false; absolutely false. I have never obtained any preferential treatment for any Groom FEC or for the Queensland Liberal branch or for the federal Liberal Party. I have never sought to do so and I never would.If you are going to come into this parliament and you are going to make an allegation like that, you should come in with a shred of evidence. You ought to come in with a case: you ought to have the input tax credit claim; you ought to be able to prove that they did not pay tax; you ought to be able to prove that they were liable to pay tax. But you do none of those things, because you are not really interested in this motion at all. What you are interested in is making sure the parliament gets up tonight without discussing health. That is what the Labor Party is really interested in. Earlier in the week they could not ask enough questions about health, yet on the final day of the sitting it is, `Don't mention health,' just as they cannot mention roll-back, just as they cannot mention `noodle nation'. This is an opposition that now has no policy and it is moving around with the smear and the slur trying to slide to an election before anybody can ask them what they would actually do if they governed this country, because it is frightening to know what they would do if they ever governed this country. We would be right back in the old days.There is not a speck of evidence in relation to this matter. The Groom FEC is obliged to follow the tax law, like the Queensland division and like the Liberal Party of Australia. This government did not seek to influence the Commissioner of Taxation. No proof has been given. This is a fraudulent censure and it ought to be shown the contempt that it deserves.LN6Hatton, Michael, MP10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The member for Blaxland may think that he sits so far back that he cannot be seen or heard. He can, and he is warned.16:11:0030164McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—What we have just heard is a speech from the Treasurer saying, `I plead the fifth. I say nothing.' It was a classic case of standing mute. He spoke for, what—22½ minutes. At no time did we hear what he knew and when he knew it. He called for us to table the documents. That is tremendous. He was a barrister by background before coming into the House. That would be really smart on our behalf—to sterilise the documents by tabling them, because once we do they are the subject of parliamentary privilege forever after. That would be a really smart thing for us to do. But I tell you what: if the Treasurer wants to find out what is in the documents, all he has to do is do what he should have done in at least February and phone the Commissioner of Taxation, because Mr Carmody has those documents today and I am sure he will be happy to reveal to the Treasurer what is in them. And the member for Groom can easily give the Treasurer his copy of the documents. In terms of being involved in this transaction, I give the member for Groom, presuming that he will follow me in this debate, some time to think about his reply in terms of his attendance at the meeting of the Groom FEC executive on 20 March. He actively participated in the meeting. Indeed, there are records of him moving motions and there is a motion about the issue of the GST credit being raised. The minutes record:Discussion arose about this issue and led to correspondence being issued to Peter Costello—that is interesting, isn't it?regarding the matter from a member of the FEC. Heated debate came from this issue till R Redden called for the discussion to end.That is an understandable thing. But it was moved as a consequence that:... if Ian Macfarlane or Neville Stewart's names are to be mentioned in correspondence they are to be notified prior to the correspondence being sent out.Mr Macfarlane, the member for Groom, might well tell us what that motion was in respect to. What was the correspondence in which his name was raised? That is something that the member for Groom can contemplate over the next few minutes. Only the Liberal Party would be claiming a tax deduction without paying tax. Not only are they spending $20 million worth of taxpayers' money each month on their re-election, they are now seeking GST input credits to fund their local campaigns. Taxpayers are coughing up twice to fund this Liberal Party's re-election campaign.The government have one rule for struggling small business. The Bankruptcy Legislation Amendment Bill 2001 is listed for debate later today. I do not want to foreshadow that debate but, as part of the research, I discovered that bankruptcies of small businesses went up 170 per cent in the last quarter of the last financial year. They have gone up because small businesses have to comply with the GST—and here we have a party which are actually defrauding the Commonwealth of money. There is no doubt about that when you go through the records. This government perceive themselves as born to rule. They have been in power for 5½ years. Imagine the damage they would do to this country, and imagine the resources of the Australian people that they would spend on their own incumbency, should a misevent occur and they be re-elected later in the year. This is a classic example. It stands to reason. Let us go through the transaction in a little detail. The Groom FEC presumably raised less than $100,000 per year. In those circumstances, they are not obliged to render an amount to the Australian Taxation Office in respect of GST earned at their fundraisers. That is accepted. However, if they do not render the GST, they cannot claim the input tax credits on the GST that their suppliers, and in particular their caterers, have charged. What do the Queensland Liberal Party do? They say, `Look, there's a bit of a good little earner out here. If we can pick up these input tax credits on our functions, we're going to be a bit ahead.' We have here a memorandum by the treasurer of the Groom FECE to her Treasurer's Report dated 13 December 2000 and she refers to Mr Graham Jaeschke, the secretary of the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party who she says:... has advised me that if we have any accounts over $2,000 that have a GST component, we are to send a cheque to them for the account less the GST and they will pay the whole account and recoup the GST component. There is nothing in writing from him. Of course there was nothing in writing from him. This is a scheme that we have here. There can be no doubt that it is nothing short of a scheme. There is a further reference in notes to accounts dated 19 December last year:It has been raised by Sandy that Graham Jaeschke requested that any large bills we have should be sent to Brisbane for them to pay and reclaim the GST. On checking with Graham, it appears the bills have to be over $2,000—as in this case the caterer's bill was—and there is no circular on the subject.Of course there is no circular on the subject. The amount of activity we saw in question time today, in particular from the member for Longman darting all over the place, suggests that that scheme is in place in a much broader category. Effectively, we have the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party using its local federal electorate councils as satellites, if you like, with each of the federal electorate councils not charging the GST, presumably on the pretence that they are earning less than $100,000, but with the Queensland Liberal Party central office mining from them all their GST tax credits. I have no doubt that that is occurring and I have no doubt, on this evidence, that it is known right up to the Treasurer through to the federal director of the Liberal Party. In terms of people feeling uncomfortable about this, we saw the treasurer of the Groom FECE personally handing the cheque to the secretary of the Queensland Liberal Party and receiving the larger cheque back in response, which was taken to the caterer. The caterer says, `Look, you've already paid me. Why do you want this transaction reversed? Why do you want the Groom FEC's cheque returned and why are you paying me this money?' The caterer said, `I'm not sure about this. I'm going to make a diary note.' That was certainly a wise thing to do in terms of the advice that we have received.The corruptness of it stands out like the proverbials. It really stands out. I feel sorry for the Treasurer, who seems content to plead the fifth, but that can last only so long. The minutes of 23 January show that the treasurer of the Groom FEC requested that the minutes be amended to record her opinion that `it was cheating on the government as no GST had been paid'. That was a question from the Treasurer: `Where's your evidence that no GST has been paid?' Well, cop that, Treasurer. It was cheating on the government as no GST had been paid on the income and she wanted the opinion of the full FECE before complying with the request. After much discussion, and on advice from the Queensland vice-president that she should accept the direction of the secretariat in this matter, the cheque was drawn. After the motion, one Delly Kelly's name was recorded as specifically dissenting from that motion.On 20 February 2000, we have Mr Jaeschke attending the Groom FEC and this matter is clearly the subject of discussion. The minutes record that Mr Jaeschke:... advised that Groom FEC acted on advice received from Federal Secretariat.So where is your evidence linking the federal secretariat, Mr Treasurer? It is from the secretary of the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party that a discussion took place. Advice was then tabled, to which the shadow treasurer referred, indicating that, in effect, what had occurred was a scheme under part 165 of the GST tax legislation. Having read the report, the records record that Mr Jaeschke `apologised for any inconvenience'. Other notes record that he quickly left the meeting. Why wouldn't he quickly leave the meeting when you get advice like this? This is the substance of the advice from the accountants:We further express the view that the Commissioner of Taxation could attack these transactions using Division 165 of the GST Act 1999.There is clear knowledge there that the member for Groom was in possession of this letter, and of advice of the scheme. The advice goes on:Division 165 deals with Anti-Avoidance Provisions. Based on our interpretation of all the facts surrounding the transactions we are of the view that it would be very difficult for you to claim that the Groom FECE and the QLP had not entered into a scheme and that the Groom FECE had not received a GST benefit.There is your professional advice. It is no wonder the secretary of the Queensland Liberal Party hotfooted it after that advice was tabled. We have on the record, coming back to this meeting of 20 March 2001, which I gave the member for Groom the opportunity to consider before he participated in this debate, accounts of events not recorded in that meeting which show that: ... the Hon. Ian Macfarlane and Neville Stewart were vicious in their attack on Margaret Watts for her temerity in corresponding with the Director, Lynton Crosby ...There you are, there is another chain, if you like, Treasurer, of the correspondence to Lynton Crosby. It is inconceivable that Lynton Crosby would not have phoned the Treasurer—it is just quite inconceivable—to obtain appropriate advice at least as to what the story was. The Treasurer at no time has denied that occurring—he has at no time denied that occurring. London to a brick it occurred, London to a brick the Treasurer knew about it, and he should come in here and do better. He owes an obligation under the ministerial code of conduct to be frank with the Australian people, not to plead the fifth, as he has done. There is further reference that: Ian Macfarlane asked Margaret Watts that didn't she realise `that if this got out it could bring down the government.'There you are, there's your cover-up. In terms of principles of conspiracy, of being knowingly involved in a cover-up, there you are, Treasurer, cop that. These are things that have to be explained by the member for Groom when he comes to the party. We have seen the professional advice that there has been a breach of division 165 of the GST legislation, the object of which is to `deter schemes to give entities benefits by reducing GST, increasing refunds or altering the times of payments of the GST or refunds'. The advice is entirely consistent with what has occurred. But, worse than that, these events go to establish a fraud against the Commonwealth; that is, taking taxpayers' money to fund a local campaign. Commonwealth Criminal Law by Deborah Sweeney and Neil Williams refers to the concept of fraud against the Commonwealth, and they say:... conduct may amount to defrauding where it dishonestly causes the Commonwealth some economic harm, either by causing the Commonwealth to pay someone money—which happened in this case—to which he is not entitled, such as a benefit or grant, or the evasion of a liability to pay the Commonwealth money to which it is entitled ...That is a clear case. Mr Treasurer, I clearly will not have time to refer to relevant passages, but just read Peters v. The Queen, of 1998, in terms of the concept of conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth. What you might like to tell us, Treasurer, is: towards the end of February, what conversations did you have with the member for Groom? What conversations did you have with Mr Lynton Crosby? Clearly, Mr Lynton Crosby had been informed of what was going on by the treasurer of the Groom FEC. It is inconceivable that you did not discuss the matter with him, and it is inconceivable that you did not discuss the matter with the member for Groom. (Time expired)Motion (by Mr Beazley) proposed:That Mr McClelland be granted an extension of time..10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I second the motion.Honourable members interjecting—Question put.16:31:00The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 58Adams, D.G.H.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W. *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.73Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Swan, W.M.Worth, P.M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The question now is that the motion be agreed to. I call the Minister for Small Business.LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPMr Martin Ferguson—When did you tell the Treasurer?10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I warn the member for Batman! The minister has the call.16:36:0030168Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10— That will keep him quiet for a while.84HZahra, Christian, MPMr Zahra—When did you tell the Treasurer?10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I warn the member for McMillan!WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—Mr Acting Speaker, it has been an interesting day. You come into these chambers expecting the Labor Party to want to debate us on issues other than tax, issues that they feel strongly on— issues like health, perhaps. But we know why they do not want to debate us on health. So with much fanfare, after it has been reported in the press earlier this week that he has been silenced, the shadow Treasurer announces that he is back. I cannot tell you how pleased I was to hear that. Within 30 seconds, he had put his foot in it. He outlined almost immediately that he has no understanding of how the GST works. This is the man who aspires to be the next Treasurer of this nation. He claimed that the Liberal Party in Groom had paid an account without paying the GST. That is simply not possible to do. It may be under what they propose in roll-back, but it is not possible to do it under the current system. GST is charged on accounts. That is the system. Perhaps he was having a throwback. Perhaps he was going back to the sales tax system. I know the sales tax system very well; I was a farmer. Under the sales tax system—that archaic system that never worked, to the point that the tax base continued to decline—if you had a sales tax exemption number, you were able to be granted an exemption from paying sales tax. You were able to pay an account without paying sales tax. So almost within a minute of him returning and saying, `I am back,' he has confused that tax system—one that is old and out of date, which he and about three other countries in the world support—with the one that this government has introduced. In terms of the modern tax system that we have put in place, the new tax system, when you pay a bill you pay the GST—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—When did you tell him?10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Deputy Leader of the Opposition, put a sock in it! Carry on, Minister.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—Mr Acting Speaker, when you pay an account you pay the GST. That is how the system works, and by introducing this modern system of taxation the federal government has been able to do a lot of other things with the tax system at the same time. We have reduced income tax rates by $12 billion for PAYE tax earners. We have halved capital gains tax and we have reduced company tax by 20 per cent. We have introduced a new scale of depreciation rates particularly for small business. I do not want to spend a lot of time explaining to the shadow Treasurer how the new tax system works.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Please do!WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—But I certainly suggest that he take the time to go and learn it.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—We want to know about the scam.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—Those who sit opposite criticise a tax system that they do not understand. We waited with anticipation for the Labor Party to produce evidence of a `scam', I think they called it, a method to cheat the system. So we waited through eight or nine questions, I think—1½ hours or one hour and 25 minutes of question time. We waited through two speakers from the opposition, but not one shred of evidence was put forward that shows that there was a fraud. In almost 2½ hours of parliament, those who sit opposite have not been able to produce one shred of proof to show that the tax system has been cheated. They have not been able to produce one shred of proof to show that the GST was not paid on the dinner. They have not been able to produce one shred of truth. The only thing that has been produced in this House in the last 2½ hours that shows that anyone has been caught dodging the GST is the article produced by the Treasurer during his address. The article comes from Rick Wallace, whom I understand has very good connections within the Labor Party. The article says:Labor has been caught dodging the GST on a swanky fundraising dinner via a loophole it had just pledged to close. It was revealed yesterday Premier Steve Bracks had used a tax avoidance tactic that Labor's federal deputy leader—I assume that is still the member for Hotham, the shadow Treasurer, Simon Crean—had said was outrageous.The only proof in this chamber in the last 2½ hours of any attempts to cheat and cause tax fraud is this newspaper article that refers to the Labor Party. I challenge those who sit opposite: if you have proof, produce it.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—`Ian Macfarlane has requested that a letter of clarification to some statements'—10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Member for Watson!WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—If they have any proof, have them table it.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—I'm refreshing his memory.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I'll refresh yours about the standing orders in a minute.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—Mr Acting Speaker, what they are relying on are discussions that supposedly took place at FECs of the Liberal Party—83VEmerson, Craig, MP10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The member for Rankin is persistently defying the chair. Do it again and you will walk immediately. You are warned.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—some of which I did not attend for the reasons of other commitments. What they have are off the record comments, supposedly made by members of that FEC. In now 2¾ hours of parliament, in this great House—where we are supposed to be discussing the issues of state and where I would have assumed that the Labor Party would have been keen to discuss the issues of health, but we know why they do not want to discuss the issues of health; I would have thought that they may even have wanted to debate us on the tax system, bearing in mind the lack of understanding that those who sit opposite have of that system, but, no—they have relied on innuendo, hearsay and pieces of paper of dubious origin. They have no proof that the tax system has been defrauded. They have no proof that anyone has cheated the tax system on this particular issue. The government has proof that the Labor Party have cheated the tax system, but Labor do not have proof that the Liberal Party has cheated the system. As I said earlier in question time, I do not have a day-to-day knowledge of the books of the FEC of the Liberal Party in Groom, but I do know that those books are audited regularly. For anyone in my position, it is important that those sorts of checks and balances are put in place. My understanding is quite clear: those books have been audited. I am informed that the auditor saw nothing untoward in those books.4T4Melham, Daryl, MP10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! The member for Banks, you have been a good boy all day. Please stay that way!WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—Mr Acting Speaker, I would never challenge the ruling of the chair or the opinion of the chair, but I am interested that you have ruled that the member for Banks has behaved himself all day.MG4Lee, Michael, MP10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Unlike the member for Dobell!WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—At no point has the auditor displayed any concerns about the operations of the Groom FEC. At no point has the auditor raised any issues with me about the operations of the treasurer or the financial figures of the Groom FEC. So we are back to the same point again: where is the opposition's evidence? Where is anything that would show that the last 2¾ hours have been anything but a diversionary tactic by the Labor Party to take the debate away from where they are most vulnerable? Where are the Labor Party most vulnerable? The Labor Party, as is the case always, are most vulnerable when they have to produce something concrete. They cannot produce any evidence on this issue; worse still for Australia, they cannot produce any concrete policies.We see policies slip and slide. One minute they are rolling back; the next minute they are not rolling back. One minute they are introducing a simplified accounting system for the GST; the next minute the Leader of the Opposition says there has to be an annual reconciliation. The reason Labor have launched this diversion today is that they do not have policy to take up the time of this parliament. They do not have what it takes to be in government in Australia, so they embark on a bit of smear—all sorts of innuendo; all sorts of information that they claim to have picked up here and there—but not one shred of evidence. There is not one piece of proof that the tax system of Australia has been cheated. There is not one piece of proof that there has been fraudulent behaviour in the Groom FEC.The last 2¾ hours of proceedings have been a waste of time. It gives me no pleasure to say that, because I come to this place to ensure that the Australian people get good government. Fortunately, I sit on this side of the chamber, and I am able to satisfy myself that that happens. Those who sit opposite spend their time trying to muckrake and to make something out of nothing. They do not produce any evidence, they do not produce any policies when they are challenged, they continue to work their way backwards and forwards through the system and they impress no-one. In the end, voters out there want to see their policies. They want a shadow Treasurer who understands the tax system, not one who thinks that we run a system that allows people to pay a bill and to not pay the GST. I was amazed to hear the shadow Treasurer of this nation—someone who aspires to be the Treasurer of this nation—say that you can pay a bill without paying the GST. You might be able to under roll-back, but we know that Australian businesses do not want roll-back. I hear that when I am out in the electorate. I hear that throughout Australia. I hear that from small business everywhere. Small business does not want what the Labor Party propose on taxation. The shadow Treasurer, first of all, has no understanding of the tax system. Not only does he have no understanding of the tax system; he has a wishy-washy policy on roll-back that he dare not talk about in this House—that he dare not go into detail on. Any time he goes into detail, he makes a mistake. He announced here in the last sitting of parliament that, under his tax system, small business would have an option of not doing an annual reconciliation. Yet three times in the previous week his leader had contradicted that view. We see constant confusion from the other side. The Labor Party have no concrete policies to put forward and so they resort to muckraking over what is now 2 hours and 50 minutes of parliament. They have been unable to table any proof. 16:51:0030171Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—So that he can tell us when he told the Treasurer, I move:That Mr I.E. Macfarlane (Minister for Small Business) be granted an extension of time.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?MG4Lee, Michael, MPMr Lee—I second the motion.Question put:That the motion (Mr Crean's) be agreed to.A division having been called and the bells being rung—4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—Mr Acting Speaker, could you read to the House the question that we are dividing on, please?10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The question that we are dividing on is that the Minister for Small Business be granted an extension of time.16:56:00The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 59Adams, D.G.H.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W. *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.73Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Wooldridge, M.R.L.Swan, W.M.Worth, P.M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The minister's time has expired.Original question put:That the motion (Mr Crean's) be agreed to.17:01:00The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 59Adams, D.G.H.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Rudd, K.M.Sawford, R.W. *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Smith, S.F.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.73Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Cameron, R.A.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.Swan, W.M.Worth, P.M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I have been persuaded by the eloquence in the debate, particularly that of the Minister for Small Business, and so I now seek leave to table documents sought by those seeking to defend themselves. I seek leave to table a summary of events in relation to the fundraising scam and I seek leave to table the copious minutes—10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! Is leave granted?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—We have forced them to do this, so of course we are pleased to grant that.Leave granted.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Acting Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations3017317:10:0030173Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH5V5PerthALP00—Mr Acting Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Yes.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Please proceed.5V5Smith, Stephen, MPMr STEPHEN SMITH—Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. During question time the Minister for Finance and Administration asserted that I had attended the Macquarie Bank with my colleague the member for Melbourne for the purpose of discussing the further privatisation of Telstra. This allegation was first made by the Treasurer on October 2000. As I explained to the House on that day, and I repeat it today, this allegation is false and without foundation.Questions to the Speaker301733017317:11:0030173Horne, Bob, MPMr HORNEUU5PatersonALP00—Mr Acting Speaker, under standing order 150, I request that you write to the minister for financial services, honesty and integrity—no, sorry, to the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation with respect to question No. 2719 submitted on 20 June. It is now more than 60 days since that question was supplied to him. Would you ask him to reply to it?10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The Speaker will do that.3017317:11:0030173Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—Mr Acting Speaker, under section 150 of the standing orders, will you write to the Treasurer asking him to answer my question numbered 2367 of 26 February this year?10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I will not, but Mr Speaker will.83YHoare, Kelly, MPMs Hoare—Mr Acting Speaker, section 58 of the standing orders states that members `take their seats when they are in the chamber'—and at present there are quite a few standing around.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I thank the member for Charlton. The Attorney-General and the parliamentary secretary will resume their seats.Matters of Public Importance301733017310000SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honorable member for Brand proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely:The failure of the Government to provide adequate resources for Australia's health system, including its public hospitals.I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places.More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places—17:13:0030173Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALPLeader of the Opposition00—Mr Acting Speaker—Motion (by Dr Stone) put:That the business of the day be called on.17:15:00The House divided. (Mr Acting Speaker—Mr G.B. Nehl) 71Abbott, A.J.Andrews, K.J.Anthony, L.J.Bailey, F.E.Baird, B.G.Barresi, P.A.Bartlett, K.J.Billson, B.F.Bishop, B.K.Bishop, J.I.Brough, M.T.Cadman, A.G.Causley, I.R.Charles, R.E.Costello, P.H.Downer, A.J.G.Draper, P.Elson, K.S.Entsch, W.G.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gallus, C.A.Gambaro, T.Gash, J.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Hull, K.E.Jull, D.F.Kelly, D.M.Kelly, J.M.Kemp, D.A.Lawler, A.J.Lieberman, L.S.Lindsay, P.J.Lloyd, J.E.Macfarlane, I.E.May, M.A.McArthur, S. *McGauran, P.J.Moylan, J. E.Nairn, G. R.Nelson, B.J.Neville, P.C.Pearce, C.J.Prosser, G.D.Pyne, C.Reith, P.K.Ronaldson, M.J.C.Ruddock, P.M.Schultz, A.Scott, B.C.Secker, P.D.Slipper, P.N.Somlyay, A.M.Southcott, A.J.St Clair, S.R.Stone, S.N.Sullivan, K.J.M.Thompson, C.P.Thomson, A.P.Truss, W.E.Tuckey, C.W.Vaile, M.A.J.Vale, D.S.Wakelin, B.H.Washer, M.J.Williams, D.R.57Adams, D.G.H.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Cox, D.A.Crean, S.F.Crosio, J.A.Danby, M.Edwards, G.J.Ellis, A.L.Emerson, C.A.Evans, M.J.Ferguson, L.D.T.Ferguson, M.J.Fitzgibbon, J.A.Gerick, J.F.Gibbons, S.W.Gillard, J.E.Griffin, A.P.Hall, J.G.Hatton, M.J.Hoare, K.J.Hollis, C.Horne, R.Irwin, J.Jenkins, H.A.Kernot, C.Kerr, D.J.C.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Connor, G.M.Plibersek, T.Price, L.R.S.Quick, H.V.Ripoll, B.F.Roxon, N.L.Sawford, R.W. *Sciacca, C.A.Sercombe, R.C.G. *Short, L.M.Sidebottom, P.S.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Worth, P.M.Swan, W.M.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the affirmative.Bills30174R134930174Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.30174Bill (on motion by Dr Stone)—by leave— read a third time.Bills30174R134430174Bill returned from Main Committee with amendments; certified copy of bill and schedule of amendments presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Main Committee's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 2, insert:2A Subsection 90ME(2)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) A payment is not a splittable payment if it is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection. The regulations may prescribe a payment either: (a) generally (that is, for the purposes of all payment splits in respect of a superannuation interest); or (b) only for the purposes of applying this Part to a particular payment split in respect of a superannuation interest.(2) Schedule 1, item 19, page 13 (line 23) to page 14 (line 6), omit subsection (2), substitute:Payment splits under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations (2) There is also a roll-over if: (a) an interest in a *small superannuation fund (the first fund) is subject to a *payment split; and (b) as a result of the payment split, there is a transfer or roll over of benefits, for the benefit of the *non-member spouse, from the first fund to another small superannuation fund; and (c) the transfer is under provisions of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 dealing with superannuation interests that are subject to payment splits; and (d) in order to give effect to the payment split, the trustee (the transferor) of the first fund transfers a *CGT asset to the trustee (the transferee) of the other fund for the benefit of the non-member spouse.Note: CGT event E2 may apply to the transfer.(3) Schedule 1, item 19, page 14 (line 21 to line 26), omit subsection (6).(4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 14 (line 27 to line 29), omit the item.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.30175Bill (on motion by Dr Stone)—by leave— read a third time.Bills30175R137430175Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy presented.Ordered that the bill be taken into consideration forthwith.Bill agreed to.30175Bill (on motion by Dr Stone)—by leave— read a third time.Bills30175R133930175Debate resumed.17:25:0030175Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I take the opportunity briefly to thank all the members who have contributed to the debate. Where they have raised substantial comments I will reply to them. I thank the opposition for their support for the bill as it will be amended with the amendments I propose to move shortly.10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The original question was that the bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Calwell has moved as an amendment that all words after `That' be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question.Question resolved in the affirmative, Dr Theophanous dissenting.Original question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.30175Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.17:27:0030175Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—by leave—I move my amendments Nos 1 to 4: (1) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 29) to page 4 (line 8) omit proposed subsection 252A(3), substitute (3) A strip search of a detainee may be conducted by an authorised officer only if: (a) a screening procedure in relation to the detainee has been conducted under section 252AA; and (b) an officer suspects on reasonable grounds that there is hidden on the detainee, in his or her clothing or in a thing in his or her possession a weapon or other thing described in subsection (1); and (c) the officer referred to in paragraph (b) suspects on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to conduct a strip search of the detainee to recover that weapon or other thing; and (d) the strip search is authorised as follows: (i) if the detainee is at least 18— (A) a magistrate orders the strip search because he or she is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for those suspicions, or (B) the Secretary, or an SES Band 3 employee in the Department (who is not the officer referred to in paragraphs (b) and (c) nor the authorised officer conducting the strip search), authorises the strip search because he or she is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for those suspicions, and a lawyer or representative from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission is present during the strip search; (ii) if the detainee is at least 10 but under 18—a magistrate orders the strip search because he or she is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for those suspicions.(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 2), at the end of proposed subsection 252B(1) add: and (l) to avoid doubt, cannot be conducted in relation to a detainee unless a search of the detainee is first conducted under section 252AA.(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 6 (line 7), at the end of proposed subsection 252B(3) add “or to a lawyer or representative of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission who is in attendance as a result of sub-sub-paragraph 252A(3)(d)(i)(A)”.(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 20 to 22) omit proposed subsection 252A(7).In order to facilitate the work of the House, I will not speak at great length about the amendments. These amendments have the net effect of further restricting the application of the strip search regulations. As I mentioned in my speech in the second reading debate, I am very unhappy with the way in which we are proceeding and with the cooperation by both sides of this House on having more and more punishment, more and more tough sanctions and more and more ignoring of basic human rights in relation to detainees. In that context, I am proposing that there be a series of amendments which would make for a fairer regime in relation to strip searching. They would not abolish strip searching, but they would make it very difficult to proceed with strip searching and would make strip searching a last resort, which is what it should be.Already, the minister has given powers to officers to engage in frisk searching. He has given officers powers to carry out screening with electronic equipment. Yet he also wants separate powers for strip searching. What we should be saying is that other methods should be used first if there are any suspicions. In the event that there continues to be some reason for a strip search after there has been a screening procedure—not before, not instead of, but after—then, in that situation, the provisions would apply, but with this very important qualification—Debate interrupted.Adjournment3017610000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! It being 5.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.EM6Stone, Dr Sharman, MPDr Stone—Mr Acting Speaker, I require that the question be put forthwith without debate.Question resolved in the negative.Bills30176R133930176Debate resumed. 17:30:0030176Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—I was referring to this situation: if we want to bring these rules into line with what happens under the Crimes Act, we are not. We are now giving powers to the officers looking after detainees that are in excess of those we give prison officers under the Crimes Act. Under the Crimes Act, when there is strip searching there is the possibility for someone to have their lawyer present. This is not allowed under these provisions. The only major change that has been made is that to strip search a person aged under 18 years requires the order of a magistrate. We do not require a magistrate at all for an adult, and we do not allow a lawyer or a person from the human rights commission to be present. We have the secretary or whoever else is told by some officer that they want to strip search this person. These correctional officers have been exposed time and again for their misbehaviour against refugee claimants. In these instances, these powers will be abused, Minister, you can be sure of that— just like the powers have been abused up to this point already. I am proposing that there be stronger powers. I am not saying that under no circumstances should strip searching be allowed, but it should be the last resort. A person's lawyer should be allowed to be there and a magistrate's order should be given— not the situation which exists in this set of regulations, which merely allow somebody else, another detainee, to be present. A question arises, and the minister might like to answer this question: what happens if the other detainee backs the account of the person being searched rather than the ACM officer? What happens then, Minister? What happens if, in the strip search, the other detainee says, `No, this is not what was found. No, this is not the way we were treated.' We know that certain ACM officers have been making up false statements against refugee claimants. They have been not only belting them up but also making false statements. The minister has not investigated these properly, and he has sent them off to the human rights commission and other bodies—fair enough. But then what happens when a report comes down from the Ombudsman—as has happened in the last 24 hours in relation to the unfortunate Pakistani man that was burnt to death? What happens? The minister gets up and attacks the Ombudsman. What sort of investigative regime is this?It is very unfortunate that this matter has been brought on at this late hour on the last sitting day of the week. We should be able to divide on these issues; we should be able to argue these issues through. However, because of the time, I want it recorded that there are alternative ways of doing this. The Labor Party said that it was going to put in tougher provisions. The provisions that have been put in are not that much tougher at all. If you want tougher provisions, why is it not required for there to be a lawyer present? Remember this: strip searching is the worst form of searching. It is taking a person's clothes off. This is what is involved here. We are talking about a situation where you can already search people in the normal way, and you can already use screening devices in the normal way. The minister wants even more powers for the officers who look after the detainees. Instead of examining the behaviour of these people in all the circumstances raised by me, by the parliamentary committee, by the Ombudsman and by the human rights commission, what does he do? He demands more powers for the officers to conduct searches. There is one thing that the honourable member for Bowman and I agree on, and that is this: what have all these tough measures we have put in place done to help us in this matter? They have not resolved the issues with respect to asylum seekers. We are still getting many asylum seekers, we still have the same problems as before. We need a new approach to these matters, and this bill certainly does not provide it. I commend the amendments to the House. (Time expired)Amendments negatived.17:35:0030177Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I present the supplementary memorandum. I move government amendment No. 2:(2) Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (before line 11), before section 252A, insert:252AA Power to conduct a screening procedure (1) A screening procedure in relation to a detainee, other than a detainee to whom section 252F applies, may be conducted by an authorised officer, without warrant, to find out whether there is hidden on the detainee, in his or her clothing or in a thing in his or her possession a weapon, or other thing, capable of being used: (a) to inflict bodily injury; or (b) to help the detainee, or any other detainee, to escape from immigration detention. (2) An authorised officer who conducts a screening procedure under this section must not use greater force, or subject the detainee to greater indignity, than is reasonably necessary in order to conduct the screening procedure. (3) This section does not authorise an authorised officer to remove any of the detainee's clothing, or to require a detainee to remove any of his or her clothing. (4) To avoid doubt, a screening procedure may be conducted in relation to a detainee under this section irrespective of whether a search of the detainee is conducted under section 252 or 252A. (5) In this section:conducting a screening procedure, in relation to a detainee, means: (a) causing the detainee to walk, or to be moved, through screening equipment; or (b) passing hand-held screening equipment over or around the detainee or around things in the detainee's possession; or (c) passing things in the detainee's possession through screening equipment or examining such things by X-ray.screening equipment means a metal detector or similar device for detecting objects or particular substances.Amendment agreed to.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—Mr Acting Speaker, I was on my feet.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—You are now—after the motion has been put.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—You did not notice me.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I looked at you and noticed that you were not on your feet before I put the motion.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—I wanted to move an amendment to that amendment.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I am loath to put the House in a position where we are appearing not to be fair but I paused, I waited, I looked at you and you did not rise; you did not move your amendment. I am sorry; we have to move on.17:38:0030178Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—by leave—I move government amendments (1) and (3) to (10):(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (lines 6 to 8), omit subsection (9), substitute: (9) To avoid doubt, a search of a person may be conducted under this section irrespective of whether a screening procedure is conducted in relation to the person under section 252AA or a strip search of the person is conducted under section 252A.(3) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 4 to 8), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) the strip search is authorised as follows: (i) if the detainee is at least 18—the Secretary, or an SES Band 3 employee in the Department (who is not the officer referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b) nor the authorised officer conducting the strip search), authorises the strip search because he or she is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for those suspicions; (ii) if the detainee is at least 10 but under 18—a magistrate orders the strip search because he or she is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for those suspicions.(4) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 8), after subsection (3), insert: (3A) An officer may form a suspicion on reasonable grounds for the purposes of paragraph (3)(a) on the basis of: (a) a search conducted under section 252 (whether by that officer or another officer); or (b) a screening procedure conducted under section 252AA (whether by that officer or another officer); or (c) any other information that is available to the officer.(5) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (after line 19), after subsection (6), insert: (6A) A power conferred on a magistrate by this section is conferred on the magistrate in a personal capacity and not as a court or a member of a court. (6B) The magistrate need not accept the power conferred. (6C) A magistrate exercising a power under this section has the same protection and immunity as if he or she were exercising that power as, or as a member of, the court of which the magistrate is a member.(6) Schedule 1, item 2, page 4 (lines 20 to 22), omit subsection (7), substitute: (7) To avoid doubt, a strip search of a detainee may be conducted under this section irrespective of whether a search of the detainee is conducted under section 252 or a screening procedure is conducted in relation to the detainee under section 252AA.(7) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 2), before “strip search”, insert “screening procedure or”.(8) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (line 4), after “in the course of”, insert “conducting a screening procedure under section 252AA or”.(9) Schedule 1, item 2, page 7 (lines 9 to 11), omit subsection (2), substitute: (2) A weapon or other thing described in subsection 252AA(1) or 252A(1) that is found in the course of conducting a screening procedure under section 252AA or a strip search under section 252A is forfeited to the Commonwealth.(10) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (line 15), omit “Section 252A of this Act does”, substitute “Sections 252AA and 252A of this Act do”.17:38:0030179Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—These amendments—Motion (by Mr Ronaldson) agreed to:That the question be now put.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—The question is that government amendments (1) and (3) to (10) be agreed to.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill, as amended, agreed to.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—I wish to record my opposition to the motion.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—It will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.30179Bill (on motion by Mr Ruddock)—by leave—read a third time.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr Theophanous—You did not recognise me again, Mr Acting Speaker. I wanted to speak on the third reading and I am very concerned about the way in which you are trying to railroad this matter through the parliament and I—10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I am sorry if you feel aggrieved. Resume your seat.Adjournment30179Motion (by Dr Nelson) proposed:That the House do now adjourn.3017917:40:0030179Emerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON83VRankinALP00— Let us recap on the sequence of events that were exposed today in the censure debate and during Question Time in relation to the sorry saga of a tax fraud perpetrated on the Commonwealth by the Queensland Liberal Party with the knowledge of the Minister for Small Business and subsequently, apparently and fairly clearly, with the knowledge of the Treasurer.On 23 November last year, the Minister for Small Business hosted a fund-raising function at the Picnic Point function centre in Toowoomba at which the federal Treasurer was guest of honour. The Groom FEC then entered into a fraudulent arrangement to obtain input tax credits for the catering of the Treasurer's fund raiser. It did this by reversing a transaction nearly a month after it had originally paid a catering company $9,090 for the dinner. It got a refund from the catering company and the Queensland secretariat of the Liberal Party issued a cheque instead to pay the bill. This allowed the Queensland Liberal Party to claim input tax credits while avoiding paying the GST. The Groom FEC perpetrated this fraud at the direction of Liberal Party state director Graham Jaeschke. The Liberal Party Queensland state director indicated that the scheme was under advice from the federal secretary, Lynton Crosby, and that the same fraud had been perpetrated by the Queensland Liberal Party in other federal divisions, including Lilley. The Minister for Small Business not only was advised of this fraud; he condoned it and, on 20 March, he advised a meeting of the Groom FEC, `If this got out it could bring down the government.'The Treasurer became aware of the fraud but he failed to refer it for investigation by the tax office or the Federal Police. Instead, the Treasurer covered up fraudulent tax evasion by the Queensland Liberal Party. On 20 December—RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr Nelson—Mr Acting Speaker, I ask you to examine the standing orders to see whether it is in order for the member to make serious allegations in relation to the behaviour of both the Treasurer and the Minister for Small Business before he proceeds any further.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I thank the Parliamentary Secretary. I have been listening carefully to what the member has been saying. I do not need to examine the standing orders on this question. The member is in order at the moment. If he becomes disorderly, I will deal with him.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—We know that on 20 December the treasurer of the Groom FEC personally took a cheque for $8,264.14 to the Liberal Party headquarters in Queensland and gave it to the state director, who then handed her a cheque for $9,090.55 to be taken to the catering company. The caterer responded that she found this irregular and had made a personal diary note of the transactions. People got nervous and got legal advice which threw serious doubts on it and said that this could be attacked by the tax office. It is against division 165, which deals with anti-avoidance. The state director advised the Groom FEC on 20 February that he had been acting on advice from the federal secretariat in regard to the Costello function. All of this documentation has now been made available.On 20 March, the Minister for Small Business was present at the FEC meeting. Remember, he said `I do not know what goes on with all these transactions'? He complained at that meeting about being named in a letter from the FEC treasurer to Lynton Crosby. The Minister for Small Business said, according to the documents that we have, `He had been carpeted by the federal Treasurer about the issue.' They are saying, the Minister for Small Business and the Treasurer, that they did not know anything about it. The Minister for Small Business says `I do not know anything about schemes,' schemes which are minuted in his own FEC meetings. The meetings took place in his office and at some of them he was present when concerns were expressed about the illegality of this scheme. And the Minister for Small Business said, `I didn't know anything about it.' That is what he was saying. And then the Treasurer implied as strongly as possible that he had no such discussion. We know that he did have a discussion with the Minister for Small Business because the documents that we have say that the Treasurer carpeted the Minister for Small Business on this matter.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—I rise on a point of order, Mr Acting Speaker. As you will be well aware, under standing order 76, members cannot impute improper motives or cast aspersions on other members. The member for Rankin has just said, `We know something,' when in fact he does not know. All he is doing is making an allegation. I suggest that you—10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—I thank the honourable member for Sturt for his contribution. The member for Rankin will, of course, not make imputations.83VEmerson, Craig, MPMr EMERSON—So the burning questions are: what did the Treasurer know and when did he know it? It is no coincidence that ultimately the Australian Taxation Office conducted an audit of the Queensland Liberal Party. It smelt a rat. Why did the Treasurer not give his knowledge to the tax office? Why did the Minister for Small Business not tell the tax office that there was a fraud against the Commonwealth perpetrated by his own FEC? The tax office had to find out about it by itself—(Time expired)3018117:45:0030181Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—Over the past three days, an institution in my electorate of Curtin has been in the national spotlight. Regrettably, this attention has not been of its own making or its own choosing. In fact, the circumstances by which Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital came to be on the front page of virtually every newspaper across Australia, on the half-hourly radio bulletins for several days and on the nightly news programs are most unfortunate, both for the hospital and for all those who work there.I do not wish to go into the detail of the unseemly episode that we have witnessed over the past few days with the story of the daughter of the Leader of the Opposition and her treatment at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, because the truth has come to light. We now know that it was not true, as was stated, alleged or implied by the opposition, that Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital turned Ms Beazley away from its emergency ward on 24 July. We now know that it was not true, as was stated or implied, that Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital had in some way failed to provide Ms Beazley with a hospital bed, that it had failed to treat Ms Beazley or deal with her appropriately or in a timely fashion when she presented, unannounced, at the hospital on a Tuesday morning in July, or that it turned her away to be ferried around Perth looking for a bed. Yet if you had seen, heard or read the press last Tuesday and Wednesday, that is precisely what you would have believed of Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital from the story being peddled around by the opposition.Truth has not been the only casualty in this sorry saga; the reputation of a very fine health and medical institution in my electorate has also been a casualty. I am one Western Australian parliamentarian who will go on the record to unequivocally defend the reputation of Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, not only in respect of its appropriate handling of Ms Beazley's case but in respect of its general reputation and standing. I wait for the Leader of the Opposition and the state Labor minister for health to do likewise. The hospital, its management, staff, surgeons and registrars have been inappropriately, unfairly and unjustly cast as players in this sorry Beazley saga. I am sorry that this has happened, for the hospital has a proud record of health care in Western Australia and it deserves to have placed on the record a number of facts that support its fine reputation.Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital is a progressive, fully accredited teaching hospital on a wonderful 28-hectare medical campus in Nedlands in my electorate. It has a distinguished record in patient care, teaching and research. It is a busy public hospital. Each year, it treats some 59,600 in-patients, 37,500 emergency presentations and 300,000 outpatients. Notwithstanding its size and complexity, it is a well-run, well-managed hospital and it has been widely recognised as such. In fact, the accreditation process with the Australian Council on Health Care Standards commended many of the services provided by Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital following an organisation-wide survey conducted in March of this year.During this survey, a team of six council surveyors conducted a site visit to evaluate every aspect of the hospital's performance, including how it relates to its patients and its clients, and of course including its emergency procedures. The results were extremely good—outstanding for such a large and complex organisation. On 3 July this year, with the state Labor minister for health I attended a presentation at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital when he presented the hospital with a certificate of four-year accreditation. That is the maximum period of accreditation that can be presented to a health care organisation in this country by the council. It reflects the hospital's commitment and dedication to providing and maintaining the highest level of care to its patients. The accreditation is particularly significant given that it reflects the standards of patient care at the hospital at the very time of this sorry Beazley saga. In particular, the hospital was commended for its emergency procedures and medical emergency team. It was commended on its planning and implementation of emergency procedures and the understanding that the medical teams have of the various threats and the appropriate responses in emergency. It is entirely appropriate that we end this week's parliamentary sitting with a vindication of the reputation of Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital, and a recognition of the efforts of the staff, doctors, nurses and management at Sir Charles Gairdner Hospital to provide high quality patient care and services for the benefit of the people of Western Australia. (Time expired)3018217:50:0030182Ellis, Annette, MPMs ELLIS5K6CanberraALP00—I want to speak tonight about the practices of Centrelink, and in particular the practice of breaching, which we all know is the penalty placed on those less fortunate clients of Centrelink who fall foul of the rules set by the government. The effect of these practices and policies on the people they impact on is just enormous, yet the people who are attempting to deal with a multitude of issues are at the same time faced with this ghastly practice by Centrelink at this government's direction. My electorate office is approached frequently by people who have fallen foul of the rules for a range of reasons and who, in most cases when they get to me, are facing a period with no income whatsoever. The Australian Council of Social Service has recently been talking about this practice. They had an inquiry and a report was released which lifted the lid a little on the outcome of these practices. A week or two back, ACOSS said that in the year 2000-01 there will have been approximately 35,500 third breach penalties of an eight-week period of no payment at all. That is a 159 per cent increase on the 13,600 penalties imposed in the previous 12 months.We have to ask: why is this happening and what does it mean? The people who are typically affected by the breaches fall into some general categories. They usually cover people with low literacy or numeracy skills, people with a mental illness and/or with an acquired brain injury, people from our indigenous community, people who may be homeless, and a lot of young people. There are also those who, with a multitude of issues confronting them, can fall into the problem of ill health and other family stresses, and find it extremely difficult to meet the unbelievable demands being put upon them by Centrelink. There is no way that I or anyone else in this House, I imagine, would be happy to condone any purposeful fraudulent activity by anyone against the system. That is not what we are talking about. There should be, have been and still are appropriate penalties and structures in place to attempt to deal with those people, but the ones who are suffering are those in the categories to which I am referring. They are facing a range of difficulties and stresses and are trying to deal with the overbearing compliance requirements set down by Centrelink—apparently, a Centrelink with no possible flexibility in facing some of those personal stories. I often wonder how the workers of Centrelink feel having gone through a lot of the evidence gathering from those people and having a real understanding of the stresses and the position they find themselves in and then having to have to impose a no-income period on them.I refer briefly to a case that came to my attention only in the past 48 hours. It involves a gentleman in my electorate who works with a non-government agency and who was dealing with a young girl who required assistance. She had no family support, was living in government accommodation, and had been in receipt of youth allowance. She has a very serious medical condition for which she is being treated by local specialists. She sought help from that agency because her allowance had been cancelled and she needed some food. She was under a notice of eviction at the time. She produced a letter from Centrelink, which had been sent a few days earlier, advising her that the cancellation followed unsatisfactory completion of the compliance form. She thought, I believe, that the breaching was for not attending interviews, although she could produce medical evidence to show that attendance at two interviews had been impossible.The point of the story is that that was a young girl who was living in circumstances that none of us would wish to be in. When inquiries were made, it was found that the breaches had been lifted, but nobody had told her—the letter was still sitting on her table at home and it was still reflecting that she had a no-income period facing her. Thank heavens, with some assistance from a non-government agency, that case has been solved. I am pleased to know that ACOSS has instigated its own inquiry into breaches and the practices of Centrelink. Centrelink, through the minister, were going to do an inquiry of their own. They should not be looking into themselves—they should not be inquiring into their own practices—someone from outside should be, and I endorse that inquiry totally. (Time expired)3018317:55:0030183Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I am pleased that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence is at the table, because I want to say how much I appreciated the work of Mr Burchett QC in conducting the audit. I could quibble with a couple of his recommendations, but that would be to miss the substantial body of work that the audit represents. I particularly want to place on record not only my thanks to those 483-odd people who made submissions to the Burchett audit team but also the methodology that they adopted in speaking to 2,500-odd troops and service men and women at different levels. What is most disappointing about this whole saga of Rough justice? is that it is now 1,255 days since Minister Bronwyn Bishop was first approached by Mrs Nishimura, alerting her to serious problems in 3RAR.Whilst I can say with confidence that the CDF Admiral Barrie has treated this whole issue very seriously and done his utmost to stamp out practices in the ADF, it is impossible for him to be successful without a clear signal from the defence ministers. We have not had a ministerial statement about 3RAR. We have not had a ministerial statement about Rough justice? We have not had a ministerial statement about the Burchett audit. How can the mums and dads of service men and women believe that the government is clearly committed to stamping out rough justice when there is such ministerial inertia and ministerial silence? All along I have said that the most important aspects of 3RAR and Rough justice? were restoring public confidence in the military justice system and then addressing the systemic problems that are uncovered; that is, firstly, the military police. I am pleased to say that there has been a change: the military police are now under a battalion and a single commander and they have some insurance from pressure from the units in which they may be placed. But it is still the case that in the military police reserves we have some of the best investigators in state police forces and in the Australian Federal Police, and they are not utilised. Clearly, it is appropriate that they should be utilised, particularly in significant cases.Labor members of the defence subcommittee stuck out their necks in a dissenting report advocating the creation of a director of military prosecutions because we had severe concerns about the competence of the ADF legal office and some of prosecution processes. I regret to say that it was a dissenting report, but since releasing that dissenting report the Judge Advocate General, in his report to parliament, has said that on balance he supports the creation of a director of military prosecutions. Mr Burchett, in his audit, has said that on balance he favours the creation of a director of military prosecutions. We deserve a clear statement from the government that they too support the Judge Advocate General, that they too support Mr Burchett, and that they too now support the dissenting report of the Labor members of the defence subcommittee.10000ACTING SPEAKER, MrMr ACTING SPEAKER—Order! It being 6 p.m., the debate is interrupted.18:00:0030183House adjourned at 6.00 p.m.Miscellaneous301833018330183Gillard, Julia, MPMs Gillard83LLalorALP00 to ask the Speaker:(1) What was the total cost of new landscaping work undertaken in the Parliamentary precincts within the last three financial years.(2) What was the total cost of the work undertaken during the life of this Parliament at the western end of the building in the two areas either side of the Ministerial wing. (3) What has been the usage by parliamentarians and parliamentary staff of the two areas next to the Ministerial wing.(4) Was a survey conducted prior to the commencement of work on the Ministerial wing landscaping to assess likely levels of usage.2001-08-23—————Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl) took the chair at 9.40 a.m.Statements by Members301853018509:40:0030185Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Today I wish to raise a case that concerns a young man who recently spent 10 days in jail for a minor offence. Upon release, this young man was not on parole or community work orders. He was free to rebuild his life, he was free to return to his family and, we hope, he was free not to return to the pursuit for which he was incarcerated. This young man, I will call him John, was desperate not to reoffend, so he went to a parole officer for assistance. Technically the officer should not help him because he was not an official client, but John was desperate. On his release, Centrelink paid him an advance of $159, which was half of his entitlement for the next payday. Two weeks later he got the balance of $159. That gave him a total of $318 on which to survive for four weeks; $318 for four weeks of accommodation and food meant that he had $79.50 a week. Centrelink advanced him another $100 to help him through the tough times, but this came off his next payment. It was a trap slowly closing in on him. The more Centrelink advanced him, the more they disadvantaged him in the long run.The rub is this: had he been in jail for 14 days, he would have been eligible for a crisis payment of $159. Because his crime was only 10 days worth, he was not eligible for a cent of crisis money, but a pro rata payment—say, 10 fourteenths of $159, which is $113—would have seen him better able to cope with the transition. He is surviving at the moment on food vouchers from charities and by staying in shelters—short-term crisis accommodation. Centrelink do want to help him, it is just that there is no mechanism available. His next loan is available in March next year. Centrelink say that, if he is having problems with accommodation, they can refer him for placement at one of the hostels available. He does not have to pay for it until he receives his payment. They can also offer him food referrals in the meantime. It all sounds very harsh and impersonal.When people are in jail they often lose their accommodation; family and friends can disappear. All manner of extra punishments are dispensed by society outside of the justice system. One small change to make crisis payments pro rata will help people like John survive. My message to John is this: stick with the food vouchers and shelter accommodation until you are back on your feet. I admire your will to seek help rather than to steal food so that you can eat and survive. This morning I would like to call on the government to immediately review the assistance packages that are available to people like John—I know there are many of them in our society—and to make it easier for people like John to stay out of jail and contribute to society.3018509:42:0030185Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I would like to add my support to the member for Forde's private member's business motion on seatbelts in school buses. I would like to paraphrase her motion. She highlighted (1) that the safety of children was paramount, (2) that a precedent existed in the coach industry, (3) that local and overseas studies confirm the need for seatbelts in school buses, (4) that hundreds of thousands of children travel on beltless seats to school and the like, and (5) that the state government should move to put safety first and require new and replacement buses to have seatbelts fitted.I pay tribute to the member for Forde's dedication on this issue. It is one that draws the natural support of people like me and my National Party colleagues who serve large regional and rural electorates, where the journeys to school and home again are often long ones on narrow and sometimes unsealed country roads. All parents and grandparents like me worry about kids until they are home. I think it is time the Queensland state government took some action on this issue. Seatbelts have been compulsory in cars since 1972 and we know they save lives. In aircraft we use seatbelts not only for take-off and landing but even when we are not moving around the aircraft cabin. If parents drove kids to school in their four-wheel drive wagons or maybe in the family minibus and did not ensure that they were wearing seatbelts, they would be breaking the law. What is more, we question their judgment. Why should children on school buses be any different? In 1992, the Australian Bus and Coach Association embraced a national standard of occupant protection for interstate and long-haul tourist and passenger buses. In all of this, we should not lose sight of the fact that many school bus operators are doing it tough. They are often small businesses operating on small margins and they do not need another cost impost. Clearly, the responsibility for school and interstate transport rests with the state government, and it should take a leadership role. The member for Forde estimates the cost of the conversion in Queensland to be somewhere between $322 million and $556 million.No-one is suggesting that that could be done overnight. It could be that, as one bus is phased out and a new bus comes in, they could be fitted with seatbelts. There could be a subsidy scheme when buses are being renovated. There are a range of measures that could be put in place so that progressively, over say a five- or 10-year period, all the buses could be converted. I think it is a small price to pay when you consider that the Queensland government is spending that much on the development of Lang Park and a footbridge across the Brisbane River.3018609:45:0030186Sercombe, Bob, MPMr SERCOMBEQK6MaribyrnongALP00—I would like to take this opportunity to raise the terrible circumstances in which a constituent of mine finds herself because of gaps and inadequacies in the Medicare system. I will also raise this matter in writing with the Minister for Health and Aged Care and I will provide him with more particulars. This lady—and I will give only her first name—has a very difficult medical condition. I will read a letter from the Continuing Dental Education Centre at the University of Melbourne concerning her. It says:I have had the pleasure of treating this delightful lady at the School of Dental Science ... Unfortunately she suffers from an incurable movement disorder which is caused by a chemical imbalance ... of the brain. This causes overactivity of the muscles in the affected area of the body. (The) syndrome ... affects the jaw, face and neck muscles, plus the larynx and pharynx affecting her breathing, eating, speech and, in particular, her mouth and facial movements. Coral also had a full set of dentures, which without warning were often expelled with great force due to sudden muscular spasms causing Coral much embarrassment and fracturing her dentures on several occasions. This problem also affected Coral's speech as she found herself trying to hold the denture in place with her tongue while speaking. Coral's condition thus made it very difficult for her to eat, speak, or even feel comfortable in public.The practitioner then talks about the treatment. He says:Coral has been kept under review since the procedure and the treatment is proving to have been very successful. The cost of implant treatment is very high relative to other avenues open to us. Neither the School of Dental Science nor the Dental Hospital are in a position to offer this treatment to Coral free of charge. Coral has been asked to meet the costs of the treatment, which although heavily subsidised are still substantial ($8000). The Health Insurance Commission regards this procedure as “Cosmetic surgery”. What a joke! This is clearly not cosmetic surgery. The Medical Benefits Schedule provides that:Medicare benefits are paid for professional services provided by doctors, some dentists ... A professional service must be reasonably necessary for the management of a patient's medical condition and must be clinically relevant. A clinically relevant service is a service provided by a doctor, approved dentist or optometrist that is generally accepted in the ... profession as being necessary for the appropriate treatment of the patient.I would suggest that the circumstances that I have outlined clearly fit that definition of what is to be covered by Medicare. If there is any remaining doubt, there is provision for ministerial determinations in this respect. Section 3C of the Health Insurance Act empowers the minister to determine an item and schedule fee for a service not included in health insurance legislation. I will be asking the minister for health to exercise considerable compassion in this respect, because clearly that level of charge is impossible for many people to meet. We are not talking about a large number of people—perhaps only 10 in Melbourne—with this condition. (Time expired)3018709:49:0030187Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAYHK6HerbertLP10—This morning, I would like to put on the public record my strong support and backing for the establishment of a rural health institute, with special focus on rehabilitation sciences, at North Queensland's James Cook University. James Cook University is the principal health sciences institution for Northern Australia. Northern Australia is an area where the allied health work force shortages are considered to be most significant. It already has a place in an unparalleled array of related academic experience, with special qualifications in rural and remote, indigenous and tropical health, and it has established extensive collaborative networks with health professionals right across the region, and that will provide a foundation for its teaching and research activities.The objectives of such an institute would be: to build a new centre of academic excellence in rehabilitation sciences with a particular focus on issues relevant to the communities of our region; to facilitate access for people in the region to tertiary training for a career in physiotherapy, speech pathology and other rehabilitation science professions; to produce graduates in physiotherapy, speech pathology and other areas of rehabilitation science who are likely to practise in the region and particularly in rural areas where the need is greatest. The member for Hinkler would know about the need to retain health professionals in regional and rural Australia. Further objectives of such an institute would be: to improve recruitment and retention of health professionals in the rehabilitation sector by providing professional development opportunities and facilitating professional networking and support activities; to establish a hub for the coordination of promotion of research and academic activity directed towards improving rehabilitation services in the region and the quality of the life of people and related physical conditions; and to build an intellectual and professional capacity in the region. Rehabilitation sciences have been identified as an area where serious regional health work force shortages exist and in which demand for these services is expected to increase dramatically in future years. It is the next logical step in building on the establishment of a medical school at James Cook University. That has been a marvellous event for North Queensland—KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—For all North Queensland.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—For all North Queensland, and with the establishment of the new general hospital adjacent to the medical school, we are building a centre of health excellence. The next logical step from a public policy perspective is to move to an allied health services unit, which I am strongly supporting for James Cook University and for North Queensland. KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—To keep those doctors in the country.HK6Lindsay, Peter, MPMr LINDSAY—The member for Hinkler is right. You get the health professionals trained in the regions and they stay in the regions.3018809:52:0030188Zahra, Christian, MPMr ZAHRA84HMcMillanALP00—Today I want to talk about public hospitals. This seems to have finally captured the attention of the federal government. It has captured our attention in the Latrobe Valley, West Gippsland and Pakenham for quite some time already. Thank heavens we have got a decent, compassionate and progressive government in Steve Bracks's administration in Victoria. What they have been doing is righting the wrongs in relation to public health in the electorate of McMillan.It is no secret that when the Kennett government were in power in Victoria one of their lasting legacies in that Latrobe Valley was to close down the Moe and Traralgon hospitals and Gippsland Psychiatric Services. The Kennett government built a private hospital which was to deliver services to the public right across the Latrobe Valley. This was a disaster in the Latrobe Valley; there are no two ways about it. It was an absolute disaster, and the Kennett government should be exposed as having no commitment to the public health needs of the people of the Latrobe Valley.What we have seen from Steve Bracks and the Minister for Health, John Thwaites, is a commitment to righting the wrongs of the Kennett administration in relation to public health in the Latrobe Valley. That is why they have purchased back that hospital and spent $12 million to buy back the public health infrastructure in the Latrobe Valley which was flogged off by Jeff Kennett when he was in power in Victoria. So it is great news for the people of the Latrobe Valley. Felix Pintado is the new CEO there. He has been doing a fantastic job. We have got a new board headed by the general manager of Latrobe Community Health Services, Val Callister. They have done a fantastic job in re-establishing Latrobe Regional Hospital at the heart of public health service provision in the Latrobe Valley, which is where it should have always been.Just last week I attended the opening of stage 1 of the works at the West Gippsland Hospital in Warragul—another great example of the commitment by the Bracks government to public health in the electorate of McMillan. Some $6.5 million was spent on this expansion, $4 million of which was committed by the state government. The rest was made up of previous allocations and a commitment by the Andrews Foundation, which has in so many different ways made enormous contributions to important works right across the electorate of McMillan. I congratulate them for their effort.It might be that the Howard government has only just discovered public health as an issue this week. Thankfully for us, in the electorate of McMillan, the state government led by Premier Steve Bracks has long understood its great importance to ordinary people living in my electorate. (Time expired)3018809:55:0030188Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—It is good that the member for McMillan has been able to highlight some of the works that are being done by the state governments, which are funded by the GST. Of the works he has talked about, I think $5,000 million from GST revenue has been given to the Victorian government so far to use exactly as he said: on public health and public schools. So it is great that he is highlighting the good work that the federal government is doing in that area.Today I would like to briefly highlight another area where the federal government is making great inroads: projects under the Natural Heritage Trust, something which the Labor opposition opposed. The Natural Heritage Trust, in 1996, had $1.5 billion, which has been extended in the 2001-02 budget by another $1 billion for a further five years. Some of the work that has been done in my electorate of Robertson under the Natural Heritage Trust is making a significant impact, particularly for the smaller groups—the bushcare and landcare groups. One example is the Bulbararing Reserve Bushcare Group, associated with the Avoca Beach Community Association. The bushcare group was given $11,000 under the Natural Heritage Trust and used that money to help restore an area of degraded vegetation and carry out the removal of weeds, and also to raise awareness of the group's activities and environmental issues in the local area. Another example is Cockrone Lagoon, at MacMasters Beach. The Cockrone Lagoon Foreshore Restoration Project was funded for $8,370 to restore an area of degraded vegetation beside the lagoon to act as a better nutrient filter and buffer between the houses and the roads on one side—again a great local project, involving lots of community volunteers. In the projects in both Avoca and MacMasters Beach, the signs we unveiled to celebrate the work that had been done were painted by local artists. That is unusual, even unique, and is very important.In contrast with the work that the federal government has been doing, the Carr Labor government in New South Wales has scrapped the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust. This is one of the most disgraceful acts by any government. The catchment management trust was an important coordinating body that was set up by the previous Liberal state government to address one of the greatest environmental challenges in New South Wales. This body was used to seek funds under the Natural Heritage Trust, through which many millions of dollars has been contributed to the catchment management trust. No replacement body has been set up by the Carr government despite calls to do so. It is an absolute disgrace that the Carr government has scrapped the Hawkesbury-Nepean Catchment Management Trust.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! In accordance with standing order 275A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Bills30189R134930189Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion by Mr Truss:That the bill be now read a second time.09:58:0030189O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'CONNORWU5CorioALP00—The purpose of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 is to amend the provisions of legislation within the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio to harmonise with the Criminal Code. The amendments will apply the Criminal Code to all offence creating and related provisions in the portfolio; delete some references to some general provisions of the Crimes Act and replace them with references to equivalent provisions in the Criminal Code where appropriate; apply strict liability to some individual offences or to specific physical elements of some offences; reconstruct provisions of the legislation in order to clarify physical elements of conduct, circumstances and results, and to clarify defences; remove or replace some inappropriate fault elements; and repeal some offence creating provisions which duplicate general offence provisions in the Criminal Code.There has been some concern expressed about the decision by the government not to apply the provisions of the Criminal Code regarding corporate criminal responsibility to legislation in this portfolio where such legislation already contains provisions relating to corporate responsibility. It is an approach that has been undertaken by the government in applying the Criminal Code to, for example, environment and heritage legislation. We will be monitoring how the amendments proceed throughout the full gamut of legislation in this portfolio area and probably, as usual, it will be left to the incoming Labor government and the incoming Labor minister to mop up some of the incompetencies of the government with respect to this type of legislation. We have had to do it before. We will let this one roll through the committee here and through the parliament, but we will be monitoring those concerns that we have with regard to the approach that the government has taken with this particular portfolio area. As I glance through these amendments, it is interesting to note the wide range of legislation in the portfolio that is affected by these amendments. There are several pieces of legislation relating to the use of chemicals, particularly the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Act, the Meat and Live-stock Industry Act, the Export Inspection and Meat Charges Collection Act, the Farm Household Support Act, the Fisheries Management Act, the Horticulture Marketing and Research and Development Services Act, the Loan (Income Equalisation Deposits) Act, the Meat Inspection Act, the Plant Breeder's Rights Act, the Primary Industries Levies and Charges Collection Act, the Torres Strait Fisheries Act and the Wheat Marketing Act. It certainly applies right across the gamut of legislation covered in the administrative orders of this particular portfolio area.I raise this point because it indicates how sophisticated farming is today in the modern Australian economy. Farmers are not only producers; they are also expected to be financial managers and people with an intimate knowledge of their marketplace. They are called on to have a wide range of skills in operating increasingly sophisticated farm machinery. There is a touch of the agronomist about everything that they do. The market that they produce for is, of course, becoming increasingly sophisticated. The consumers of today change their tastes on a regular basis and primary production in some areas does not have the physical capacity to adapt to the changes in consumer taste. For example, in the wine industry we have seen the growth of the consumption of reds, but there is a reasonably long lead time before the sector can adjust to these particular developments on farm. No sooner have they arrived at that particular point than the consumers' tastes move on to some other product or some other wine. It is a very difficult task that the modern farmer has in tuning into that sophisticated marketplace and predicting exactly what they ought to be producing in what quantities.This is a very important piece of legislation because, throughout farming practice in Australia today, there are criminal penalties involved in some of the actions that farmers engage in as they go about their business of producing for that sophisticated marketplace. Farmers need to be aware of those increasing pressures that are coming upon them and the sanctions that are there in the Criminal Code for behaviours that step outside of the law, particularly in that area of using chemicals in agricultural production. Once again, consumers are becoming sophisticated and they are demanding of the farming sector that it use fewer chemicals in production processes. I can recall the days on the farm when we used to hop on the tractor, which was open aired, and would rarely look at which way the wind was blowing. We would put the sprays on our crop without really having the finer skills of application. But, of course, those times have changed. Certainly, many of my father's generation died early. At that time the women in the local community lived much longer than the men. I suspect that that was due to some of the farming practices at the time when chemicals were being introduced. My father's generation was certainly not aware of the dangers of many of those chemicals, and indeed society was not aware. Of course, when the science did catch up with this area of agricultural production, it was too late for many of those farmers. So it is not surprising that we come now to a bill where a substantial part of the amendments relates to the application of the Criminal Code in the area of the use of chemicals. We will not be opposing this piece of legislation; we will be watching the amendments play out. There is no doubt that somewhere along the line, probably in a future parliament, we will have to revisit this legislation. However, at this point we will be supporting the legislation through this committee and the House.10:06:0030191Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—I thank the honourable shadow minister for so magnanimously supporting this Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001, even though in his earlier comments he talked about the opposition having to come back later and mop up some of the troubles that come from these amendments. When you are making an enormous change to any piece of legislation like this, you can expect to make some more changes, and I do not resile from that. He anticipates having to mop up the legislation. I would have thought that it was the job of the opposition to predict some of those problems and to actually discuss them in the parliament now. This is probably just another example of the laziness of the portfolio representative on the other side.I would also like to make some comments, similar to those of the previous speaker, about the difficulties and the sophistication of the modern farmer and the reason that this legislation is so broad ranging. In 1987 a committee was established to investigate, amongst other things, the need for provisions relating to criminal responsibility to be contained in a future act consolidating the criminal laws of the Commonwealth. This Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 amends existing statutes by inserting new provisions and amending existing provisions to harmonise various offences within those statutes and within section 2 of the Criminal Code Act of 1995.It is the intention of the amendments to ensure that relevant offences continue to have much the same meaning and operate in the same manner as they do at present. At present, many hours of practitioners and courts are wasted on litigation about the meaning of particular elements or the extent to which the prosecution should have the burden of proving fault elements. The application of the Criminal Code will improve the Commonwealth criminal law by clarifying important elements of offences, in particular the fault element.The major forms of amendment effected by this bill are: applying the Criminal Code to all offence creating and related provisions in the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio legislation; deleting references in this legislation to some Crimes Act of 1914 general offence provisions which duplicate the provisions of the Criminal Code and replacing these with references to equivalent Criminal Code provisions where appropriate; applying strict liability to individual offences or specified physical elements of offences where appropriate; and removing or replacing inappropriate fault elements and repealing some offence creating provisions which duplicate general offence provisions in the Criminal Code.As I have mentioned, there would not be terribly many farmers who would be interested in this bill or in how it directly affects them, but it does. Most farmers are hardworking, law-abiding citizens, but they do continue to have issues in relation to agriculture. One of the critical things I have raised in this chamber over and over again relates to some of the comments the previous speaker had made on the change in public attitudes to and perceptions of what restrictions should be applied to farming. I refer to restrictions on farmers, particularly those in the Nymagee, Tottenham, Hermidale and Nyngan areas, to sensibly clear their country so they are able to meet the demands that financial institutions have placed upon them with regard to debt servicing.These demands are a result of changing community expectations and aspirations which I clearly understand and sympathise with. In the past, farmers were told to go out and clear their country so they could produce food for city folk to eat and, in many cases, if they did not the penalty would be that they would have their land taken from them. This has now turned to a recognition in some areas that there has been overclearing, with a resultant effect on soil quality, native species of flora and fauna, and of course salinity and degeneration of the atmosphere. What has happened, however, is that an already small group in the community, farmers who own land that has not been substantially cleared—as a subset of farmers who have land that has been cleared, which in turn is a subset of our community—are paying a very high price for the change in community expectations. It is completely unjustifiable that they can have their livelihoods taken away from them in much the same way as the New South Wales government is threatening the livelihoods of irrigators who have millions of dollars worth of capital tied up, with the previous blessing of the New South Wales government. I understand the New South Wales government is going through a very similar process of clarifying penalties, as we are discussing here. Farmers had an expectation that they would be able to produce a crop with which to meet their financial obligations. But just as the New South Wales government—which is responsible for natural resource management—is restricting water use and thereby taking away the ability of farmers to derive a livelihood from farming, it is also taking away the ability of irrigators to earn a living by using the water that they understandably had an expectation they would have access to, after a long history of development.I do not believe that anybody is arguing that these changes need to be made and that state governments of both political persuasions over many years have overallocated water resources. This needs to be reined in but again, a small section of the community is paying for bad decisions by government and the misguided aspirations of the community in years gone by. I have spoken about the difficulties faced by these farmers many times before, but I would like to briefly discuss one of the salinity solutions which are being considered at the moment. Again, it reflects on the demands that are placed on the farmers. The Criminal Code applications we are talking about are a reflection of the wide range of legislation that farmers must contend with at the moment.While much work is being done on engineering solutions and the planting of trees, which have had limited success, the experiments with old-man saltbush, a species that was endemic to Australia before we all but wiped out large stands of this plant, have shown what a deep-rooted plant with an affinity for grazing can do for our damaged environment. Being a deep-rooted plant it can extract water at great depths, thereby addressing the cause of salinity. Contrary to popular belief that nothing can be done about salinity, in practice if the watertable lowers in an area and stays low, with the use of old-man saltbush, further rainfall will actually cleanse some of the affected soil by dissolving the salts and passing them back down through the ground whence they came. The plant produces excellent forage in dry times and creates a tremendous drought reserve which assists in stabilising landowners' income. I have actually eaten saltbush-fed lamb, and it is a magnificent product, certainly losing nothing in comparison with lamb fed on other diets. Because of its large surface area it also pushes carbon back into the soil more effectively than many other plant species. As the foliage is grazed and the roots die off, carbon is restored to the soil only to have the plant regrow, and cause for regrowth and more sequestration of carbon follows. The economics of this plant appear to be sound. Not only does stock fed largely on old-man saltbush thrive, the plant allows greatly increased carrying capacity; in some cases up to 200 per cent. It is known that low rainfall is not a problem for it, and with the potential for carbon trading—I am sure that the discussion about carbon trading will in some way be tied back to the Criminal Code applications we are discussing now and the laws surrounding them—the cost of implementing a program based on old-man saltbush could be repaid within a few years. Though it is an ancient plant and one that has been observed and used by a small number of people for several years, it is staging a remarkable comeback as we search more and more for answers to the problem of salinity in our environment. As we have mentioned, the arms of this act are extremely broad and they touch almost every part of every activity of farming, whether we are talking about farmers' choice of farming type, choice of chemical, use of chemical—the whole range. There is nothing, really, that a farmer can do that will not be touched by the provisions of this act. I welcome the opposition's support of the bill, though I point to the comments made by the previous speaker that they are generously allowing this bill to pass through the parliament with the expectation that they will come into government and mop up the problems. If they genuinely see problems, perhaps these should have been raised in this discussion. However, I do respect the comments that have been made in so far as, when you do make such an enormous change to legislation, there has to be a general acceptance on both sides that there will be some finetuning and tweaking of this as problems or difficulties arise in the ensuing years. Again, I welcome the opposition's support of the bill and I commend the bill to the House.10:15:0030193Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—The purpose of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001 is to amend provisions within the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry portfolio to harmonise them with the Criminal Code. The amendments will apply the Criminal Code to all offence creating and related provisions in the portfolio and will delete reference to some general provisions in the Crimes Act and replace them with references to the relevant provisions in the Criminal Code where appropriate. This is all very well and probably needs to be carried to ensure that those who offend in these areas are made liable and can be charged under the correct provisions, and also that some of the outdated provisions are revised. Within the fisheries portfolio, there are many incidents for which there is a need for such provisions.Fisheries in Tasmania have suddenly come under threat, if not through general poaching— and this was recently in the headlines because a Victorian in a very fast speedboat continually comes to Tasmania and makes off with some of our prized and very lucrative abalone stock, but we have got him now on the basis that he will be put in jail if he comes back—then through a more insidious poaching in the form of the Australian Fisheries Management Authority. You may say that they cannot be seen as being poachers because they are the regulatory authority, but what they have done to the south-east non-trawl fisheries in Australia is tantamount to poaching. AFMA have ignored and disregarded a memorandum of understanding between the state and the federal government which was set up to protect the sustainability of the blue-eye trevalla hook fishery. This MOU has just been forgotten and removed, and it now allows the trawl sector to target blue-eye and to have access to quota which was previously available only to the non-trawl sector. This will just destroy the fishing grounds.This is a fishery that could go on in a sustainable way and provide a series of fish, such as gemfish, orange roughy, barracouta, ling and blue warehou fish. This fishery was doing well, but then the fishers were suddenly faced with a quota that had been introduced. Returns proved that Tasmanian catchers were getting in excess of 80 per cent of the total allowable catch taken in this fishery. But when they dished out the quotas, Tasmania only received 43 per cent of the quota. That was the first blow that we received in this area.Now the industry faces extermination by AFMA because they have set a precedent by transferring 10 tonnes of quota from the non-trawl sector to the trawl sector. This second blow means that the fishery is likely to be decimated in a very short time. The blue-eye hook fishers rely heavily on leasing the quota through the year from within the non-trawl sector. This extra competition for the limited quota will send hook operators out of business. This means no year-round fishery for what is becoming a premium table fish in Tasmania. If you go to a Tasmanian restaurant they sell you blue-eye trevalla. It is the prime fish on the table and on the menu. Taking this out means that we will lose the full year-round supply, although we have the little fishers of Tasmania fishing in a sustainable way all year round and being able to supply fresh fish out of the sea on the same day it is on the menu for tourists and Tasmanians. With the trawl sector, it means fish will be dragged out, taken to New South Wales, maybe frozen, and then sent back. That is going to destroy the fishery as it has been structured.AFMA has placed too much emphasis on the legislative objective of economic efficiency to the detriment of its ecologically sustainable development objective. It has no legislative objective that takes into account the social aspects, such as what it means to employment and the small niche market that Tasmania has developed for this fishery, which I just spoke about. To my mind, this is criminal and the federal government ought to be brought to task for not even being aware of what is going on.I know that the state minister was shocked to hear the decision by AFMA. There has been no consultation with the state government of any kind. He told me that he was greatly concerned about this. He said that, quite frankly, this kind of transfer is not allowed under the terms of the MOU between Tasmania and the Commonwealth. These have played a very important role in getting on top of the scientific management of our fisheries in Commonwealth and state waters. He said his department has not been formally advised of the decision by AFMA, which is peculiar because management arrangements relating to blue-eye trevalla were included in the MOU between the two parties that supplements the OCS arrangements for fin fish resources in waters relevant to Tasmania. The state minister has already shot a letter off to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the member for Wide Bay, Mr Warren Truss—who has just joined us here—seeking an urgent review of the situation due to the enormity of the action. The minister must act quickly to ensure that the Tasmanian fishery is not wiped out for good. It is extraordinary that, in AFMA's apparent eagerness to depart from the management arrangements developed in good faith by the two governments, this has been done without pursuing a more sensible approach in consultation beforehand.Does the minister not have any control over these people? It appears that AFMA is at times more interested in the pursuit of its economic efficiency legislation objectives than in the best interests of the fishery. I understand that there is a policy review being undertaken of the Commonwealth fisheries policy which would provide a good starting point to have such issues raised. I would have thought that we might not have been making these decisions before we had the results of the review. But this decision by AFMA must be revoked so that proper consultation can take place and a proper decision can be made as to the sort of approach that should be taken in the best interests of Tasmanian fisheries and their fishers.I do not blame the South East Non-Trawl Association for their motion of no confidence in AFMA's handling of the non-trawl fishery. This expression of doubt is a shame because a lot of information and trust that have been built up over the years have just gone out the window. Australian fisheries must have information from those who fish to build a scientific picture of the stocks available and the sorts of problems facing the fisheries. There have been a few recommendations put into place to try to do this following a report on the industry from a House committee, which I was a part of, entitled Managing Commonwealth fisheries: the last frontier. It had many recommendations dealing with whole aspects of building up relationships between fishers and AFMA, especially on by-catch, so that we were not wasting resources and were getting truth into those logbooks, so those logbooks became a very good scientific base of catches and there was goodwill on both sides. Now we are starting to destroy all those sorts of things with this sort of action. We have a body that wants to make arbitrary decisions that have absolutely no relationship to the health and welfare of the Pacific fishery. To my mind, that is a crime and the minister should sort it out. No-one likes the regulator of anything, but they can earn respect and understanding if they act in a way that is in the public interest. The decision by AFMA is definitely not and should not be agreed to. I use this legislation to raise this terrible state of affairs and ask the minister to get onto this issue quickly to prevent any further damage.Going back to the bill, I feel that this government has failed to take the opportunity to bring up to date the provisions of the portfolio legislation relating to criminal responsibility. Once again, the minister is asleep at the wheel—we have Mr Truss here. The other bloke who runs around the country acting as minister does not seem to get a berth in this equation at the moment. I do not have a problem with the legislation as such, but I will be keeping an eye out to address any of the problems that might arise from it.I wish to go back to a couple of things. I got a fax from Mure's Fish Centre at the Victoria Dock in Hobart. George Mure was one of the people who set up the blue-eye trevalla fishery in Tasmania and champions it through his restaurants. He also smokes the fish and does other things with this fishery. The last paragraph in his fax to me said:The non-trawl sector will be fighting tooth and nail to save their industry. They will be looking closely as to which party supports environmental sustainability and which party will fight for a fair share of Tasmanian resources.I hope they will. Mr Mure helped start the industry in Tasmania and has been treated extremely badly. I have seen the press release from the state minister. His great concern, as I have mentioned previously, is the destruction of the MOUs between the state and the Commonwealth. This is a tragedy which is not going to assist anyone. These MOUs play a critical role in helping us to understand and manage our fish stocks on a scientific basis—because fish swim between state waters and Commonwealth waters—and to get an understanding between the state ministers and the Commonwealth ministers in managing different fisheries. That has been a major thing, and I believe we have been able to achieve a lot with that. This decision is serving to destroy the MOU system between Tasmania and the Commonwealth. That is a tragedy, it should be reversed and the minister should get on and do something about it instead of being asleep at the wheel. As I said, it is good to see that Minister Truss is here. The other bloke, Mr Tuckey, runs around the country masquerading as the minister for fisheries. No-one has any faith in him. Let us hope that this minister can take some action and sort this mess out.10:28:0030195Truss, Warren, MPMr TRUSSGT4Wide BayNPMinister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry10— This legislation, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001, makes some changes to agriculture, fisheries and forestry legislation in relation to the Criminal Code, but the debate has obviously been exceptionally wide ranging, as evidenced by the comments of the previous speaker. The member for Parkes spoke about some very significant issues concerning salinity in his electorate and in other parts of Australia and about the major initiatives that the government is taking to address these problems and to ensure that the quality of water in our nation and environmental issues are appropriately addressed. No government has done more than this one through the NHT and now through the national action plan to put in place a very significant national program of action to address these matters. In fact, the NHT is now the biggest environmental program anywhere in the world. It will extend over 11 years and has a budget of $2.5 billion. It has already assisted over 10,000 projects around Australia and has certainly provided wonderful impetus to harness the enthusiasm and the skills of local communities in relation to environmental projects to achieve real and very worthwhile outcomes at the local level. The previous speaker, the honourable member for Lyons, spoke about the trevalla fishery in Tasmania and the actions of AFMA in relation to those issues. Yes, AFMA are the regulatory authority, so it is not surprising that they do make decisions about management of particular fisheries. I was somewhat amused to see the honourable member endeavouring to defend the integrity of memorandums of understanding between Tasmania and the Commonwealth. Tasmania has an incredible record as being the state that is prepared to thumb its nose at MOUs whenever they do not suit Tasmania. Tasmania prefers to run its own course, irrespective of the content of any agreement it has signed with the Commonwealth. It is rather curious that Tasmania should be seeking to defend the letter of this particular one. Nonetheless, I do believe that MOUs should be honoured. The Commonwealth government enter into these things in good faith: we seek to implement faithfully the contents of those arrangements.In relation to these issues, I noted the uncharitable comments—let me put it that way—of the honourable member about the Minister for Forestry and Conservation, who is taking a lot of fisheries responsibilities and doing an excellent job. The 10-year review of fishing policy is a major government initiative. It has been 10 years since there was a review of the fisheries policy. I was happy to announce this review because I think that at least once a decade we should have a good look at whether we are heading in the right direction on industry affairs. Mr Tuckey has been driving that review and having important meetings around the nation to make sure that everybody associated with the industry has an opportunity to have input. It is a significant policy development period for the fishing industry. The industry is one in which there are always tensions and competing interests in relation to how particular stocks should be harvested in a sustainable manner. It is obviously of fundamental importance both to the fishing industry and to our nation. Our fishing policy should be based on sustainable practices, and that must always be given priority. That is the background under which decisions need to be made in relation to trevalla in Tasmania or, for that matter, in any other fishery in Australia.The particular piece of legislation before the committee does not specifically deal with fish or salinity, although those issues may be covered by some of the elements of the legislation. Firstly, the legislation deals with the application of the Criminal Code. There has been some criticism that it has taken a while for this legislation to come before the parliament. The reality is that these changes have been progressively implemented from portfolio to portfolio, and the AFFA portfolio is one of the last ones to have its legislation dealt with. It is routine in that context. I welcome the fact that the opposition have indicated their support for it. It essentially maintains the status quo. It ensures that criminal offence provisions in agriculture, fisheries and forestry will continue to operate in the same manner as at present following the application of the Criminal Code to all Commonwealth offence provisions on 15 December this year.Secondly, it ensures that the offence provisions are consistent with the principles of criminal responsibility and the standard approach to the formulation of offences contained in the Criminal Code, and that language used in offence provisions is consistent with the language of the Criminal Code. Further, it clarifies the principles that will apply to each offence. In particular, it specifically identifies any offence which is a strict liability offence and makes it clear whether the prosecution or defence has the burden of proving particular matters. These changes will provide certainty, clarity and consistency as to how the offences in agriculture, fisheries and forestry legislation operate. They will also make the prosecution of offences more efficient. I commend the bill to the Main Committee and thank honourable members for their participation in the debate. Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Bills30197R134430197Debate resumed from 27 June, on motion by Mr Williams:That the bill be now read a second time.10:36:0030197McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The opposition support the motion and the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001, as we did with the primary legislation, the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 2001. The consequential provisions bill is, one must say, a dry piece of legislation but nonetheless extremely important because it prevents the splitting of superannuation having detrimental taxation repercussions down the track. The bill seeks to amend a number of acts, including the Family Law Act 1975, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, the Small Superannuation Accounts Act 1995, the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997, the Superannuation Contributions Tax (Members of Constitutionally Protected Superannuation Funds) (Assessment and Collection) Act 1997 and the Superannuation (Unclaimed Moneys and Lost Members) Act 1999. The bill will ensure appropriate tax treatment is applied when a superannuation interest is split under the superannuation and separation reforms that were put forward with the consent of the opposition earlier this year.The bill makes a number of specific provisions. If the non-member's entitlement—that is, the entitlement of the divorcing or separating person who is not the member of the superannuation fund—is paid as a lump sum, it will be treated as a separate eligible termination payment for that non-member. If the non-member's entitlement is paid as a pension, it will be treated as a separate pension for the non-member. The undeducted contributions, the concessional component, the capital gains tax exempt component and the untaxed element of the post-June 1983 component will be split proportionately to the overall split. The non-member spouse's benefit will be assessed separately against his or her reasonable benefits limit. The capital gains or losses that may arise from the creation of the rights as a result of the splitting of the funds when spouses enter into a binding superannuation agreement, or where the agreement comes to an end, will be disregarded. The current capital gains tax exemption for payments made from a superannuation fund or from an approved deposit fund will be extended to non-member spouses. Finally, the capital gains tax rollover relief will apply to in-specie transfers between funds with fewer than five members.In addition to those technical provisions, the bill will provide for accounts held with the Superannuation Holdings Accounts Reserve to be split. The bill will also ensure that, if a surcharge assessment is issued after a split but in respect of a period prior to the split, then the fund that holds those surchargeable contributions for the member spouse will be liable to pay the surcharge. If no fund holds those surchargeable contributions for the member spouse, then the member spouse will be liable to pay the surcharge. The bill will ensure that payments to a non-member spouse will trigger payment of the surcharge debt account by an unfunded defined benefit scheme—or the member in the constitutionally protected fund—if the benefit payment would have triggered payment of the debt account if made to the member spouse. Finally, the bill will apply the same protection and rights to the non-member spouse under the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999 that are currently given to member spouses. Appropriately, the bill will commence immediately after the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Bill 2001 commences, which we understand is expected to be towards the end of 2002. There has been some discussion and some controversy as to whether these provisions will result in the possibility of contrived arrangements being entered into by couples seeking to divide superannuation and benefits. We believe, however, that those possibilities have been addressed in the primary legislation, as was noted in some of the speeches on the second reading which referred to the fact that significant penalties will apply in such circumstances and also to the requirement for a breakdown declaration upon separation. We think those possibilities will be addressed from the point of view of the justice that can now be administered to parties who are separating in circumstances where, increasingly, superannuation is a significant element of the resources gained by the couple during their marriage. The opposition, as we did with the primary legislation, fully support these measures.10:42:0030198Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—in reply—I would like to thank the honourable member for Barton, who is the only other contributor to the debate on this part of this important legislative reform package. As I have said on other occasions, passage of these family law and superannuation reforms is a very important milestone and is one that no other government has been able to achieve. I am also particularly pleased that the opposition has supported the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001, as well as the policy intention of the whole reform package. The package will overcome what has been regarded for some time by many as an anomaly in the family law system. One of the defects of the current law is that there is currently no mechanism for superannuation held in one person's name to be divided or transferred to the other. The Family Court has been limited to adjourning proceedings until superannuation is received, or merely taking superannuation interests into account as a future financial resource when it divides other property. After the passage of this legislation, the making shortly of other changes to regulations and the gearing up by the superannuation industry over the next 12 months, this unsatisfactory situation will no longer continue. I commend the bill to the Main Committee.Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time.30198Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.10:44:0030198Williams, Daryl, MPMr WILLIAMS7V5TangneyLPAttorney-General10—by leave—I move:(1) Schedule 1, page 3 (after line 10), after item 2, insert:2A Subsection 90ME(2)Repeal the subsection, substitute: (2) A payment is not a splittable payment if it is prescribed by the regulations for the purposes of this subsection. The regulations may prescribe a payment either: (a) generally (that is, for the purposes of all payment splits in respect of a superannuation interest); or (b) only for the purposes of applying this Part to a particular payment split in respect of a superannuation interest.(2) Schedule 1, item 19, page 13 (line 23) to page 14 (line 6), omit subsection (2), substitute: Payment splits under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations (2) There is also a roll-over if: (a) an interest in a *small superannuation fund (the first fund) is subject to a *payment split; and (b) as a result of the payment split, there is a transfer or roll over of benefits, for the benefit of the *non-member spouse, from the first fund to another small superannuation fund; and (c) the transfer is under provisions of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations 1994 dealing with superannuation interests that are subject to payment splits; and (d) in order to give effect to the payment split, the trustee (the transferor) of the first fund transfers a *CGT asset to the trustee (the transferee) of the other fund for the benefit of the non-member spouse. Note: CGT event E2 may apply to the transfer.(3) Schedule 1, item 19, page 14 (line 21 to line 26), omit subsection (6).(4) Schedule 1, item 20, page 14 (line 27 to line 29), omit the item.I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. Amendment (1) will repeal and replace subsection 90ME(2) of the Family Law Act 1975 with a provision in part 8(b), inserted in that act earlier this year by the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Superannuation) Act 2001. Subsection 90ME(2) contains a regulation making power to prescribe a payment in respect of a superannuation interest of a spouse as a payment that is not splittable.The proposed new subsection 90ME(2) will widen the regulation making power to ensure that the power extends beyond the power to prescribe such payments as not splittable generally to prescribing such payments as not splittable in relation to a particular payment split. The need to make the amendment has emerged in the drafting now being done of amendments to the Family Law Regulations and the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations, two of the other components of the government's family law and superannuation reform package.The reform package will enable separate or divorcing couples to agree, or for the courts to order, that a superannuation interest one of them holds be split. This split will initially be in the form of a split of future superannuation payments that the member spouse will receive, most usually on his or her retirement from the work force. However, where the member spouse's interest is in one of the more common accumulation style superannuation funds, a new interest for the non-member spouse will be able to be created under proposed amendments to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations. Where such a new interest is created it will be necessary to ensure that the non-member spouse is not able to effectively double dip by retaining both his or her new interest and his or her share of the member spouse's superannuation payments when they are eventually made. Widening the regulation making power as proposed by this amendment will fix this problem. Amendments (2), (3) and (4) will omit and replace proposed subsection 126-140(2) of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. The amendments also omit proposed subsection 126-140(6) and the proposed definition of interest split in subsection 995-1(1). The amendments ensure that there is a capital gains tax, CGT, roll-over relief, to give effect to a payment split, a CGT asset is transferred between small superannuation funds—that is, self-managed superannuation funds—and other funds with fewer than five members, under the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations. The need to make the amendments has emerged in the drafting now being done of amendments to the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Regulations. The amendments will give effect to the government's policy objective of providing appropriate CGT relief for in-specie transfers between small superannuation funds resulting from a payment split. I commend the amendments to the House. Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.Ordered that the bill be reported to the House with amendments.Bills30200R137430200Debate resumed from 8 August, on motion by Mr Slipper:That the bill be now read a second time.10:48:0030200Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERRRH4DenisonALP00—The parliament definitely appreciates this occasion to once again delve into the intricacies and complexities of the Customs Tariff Act 1995—an arcane piece of legislation of great bulk. But on this occasion, changes are being made for cosmetic and administrative reasons rather than for reasons of substance. The opposition does not disagree with this because it is part of an arrangement that Australia has entered into with other countries to ensure that our customs regime is in harmony with theirs. As a consequence of that harmonisation, there is a need for reclassification of various items under the Customs Act, so we have a substantial piece of legislation with many items which appear to warrant extended debate in the parliament. In practice, when one examines what is actually occurring, we are given assurances that the actual tariffs being imposed in relation to various items that will be imported into Australia remain unchanged, and that this is essentially a piece of administrative work being done so that exporters will be able to operate in a synchronised way with exporters of other countries, and that our customs regime operates in that way.0V5Slipper, Peter, MPRH4Kerr, Duncan, MPMr KERR—As the parliamentary secretary so correctly mentions, similar legislation has been introduced over the years by governments of all persuasions and colours. I have no envy of those who work in the technical and arcane world of customs designations. It is a very complex area. When, as shadow customs minister, one sits down to discuss these issues with those technically versed in these areas, one's mind rapidly becomes filled with detail which one feels perhaps one knows too much about. However, customs designations are extremely important in terms of Australia's economic place in the world and this is an important matter for this parliament. I am pleased to indicate that the opposition joins with the government in supporting this legislation. As a signatory to the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, Australia undertook to complete this task by 1 January 2002. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary is exactly the right person—although I could also test this proposition on the member for Curtin—to provide a detailed explanation of precisely what is included in item 178, which says that we are repealing the description and substituting `articles of apparel and clothing accessories (including gloves, mittens and mitts), for all purposes, of vulcanised rubber other than hard rubber'. If either of you wishes to elucidate on the nature of the products that are covered by that description, I am certain that this debate might be somewhat more interesting to the public of Australia than has hitherto been the case. I do not think it is within my very naive and innocent capacity to further elucidate to the chamber on the nature of those particular items.However, all joking aside, this is appropriate legislation. There are significant issues with the administration and management of the customs system which the opposition does differ from the government on in terms of administration and processing, particularly with some of the issues around the way in which technology is being implemented and some of the costs that are going on to the industry sectors. Those are complex issues. There are many different parties and they have different interests. However, there is, delightfully, consensus on this particular piece of legislation—and I look forward to hearing the member for Curtin explain a bit about the detail of the schedules and what they mean for this great nation. 10:53:0030201Bishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP83PCurtinLP10—I will start with what the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001 actually does. The bill results from the second review of the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System, otherwise known as the harmonised system. The harmonised system is a multipurpose classification system for the calculation of customs tariffs and the compilation of trade statistics across the globe. It was implemented in 1988 through the International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System. It is maintained by the World Customs Organisation and it is used to classify 98 per cent of goods exchanged internationally.In essence, the harmonised system is the international language of trade, allocating to transportable goods an international six-digit classification code, which is extended to 10 digits or eight digits by individual countries. To prevent confusion relating to stages of manufacture, classifications are based on economic activity or component material—the sort of material to which my friend opposite referred. The harmonised system is periodically updated, and the most recent review made its recommendations known in 1999. As a party to the convention, Australia is required to implement the changes in its customs tariff arrangements, effective from 1 January next year.The focus of this latest review—the second in the history of the harmonised system—is on the deletion of headings and subheadings relating to items which are rarely traded internationally. I think that is the answer to the member for Denison's question. The review also recommended amendments to the system to reflect changing industrial practices and technological updates. By way of example, new headings and subheadings will allow parties to the system to separately identify new products, such as certain waste categories. This bill implements the changes while ensuring that the changes do not alter existing duty rates and tariff arrangements, thereby ensuring that Australia's exporters and importers are able to utilise the most efficient nomenclature available for international trade purposes. Although the amendments made by the bill are technical and relate to means of classification, they are an important administrative improvement, with obvious economic benefits for a nation such as ours that relies so heavily on international trade.The bill does afford me the opportunity to survey the legislative and regulatory achievements of the coalition government in this important field. Australia's export sector is a significant contributor to Australia's economic growth and job creation. The exporters of goods and services employ some 1.8 million Australians. One in five Australian jobs depends on exports. The government is committed to the promotion of Australia's international trade interests—bilaterally, regionally and multilaterally—to achieve greater market access and improved export opportunities. Under the coalition, Australia has also led in efforts to build support internationally for a broad based new round of trade negotiations in the World Trade Organisation. At a regional level, we are committed to economic cooperation through APEC, with initiatives to reduce business costs and practical measures to speed recovery from the regional economic crises. At a bilateral level, the Market Development Task Force focuses on market access, development and promotion issues in a range of countries across the globe. At the same time, Austrade's advice and assistance is available to all Australian firms, with particular priority provided to the needs of small and medium size exporters and rural and regional exporters through such things as the Regional Trade Commissioner network around Australia, the Export Access program and the TradeStart offices. I am also pleased to note that in the past 5½ years the Export Market Development Grants Scheme has been extended, providing businesses in my electorate of Curtin with the confidence to plan their future export promotion activities. It is an opportune time to acknowledge the efforts of the Minister for Trade, the Hon. Mark Vaile, in his continuing support for the expansion and diversification of our export sector by devoting resources to important new markets in South America, Eastern Europe and the Middle East. On Tuesday evening I had the opportunity, along with other members of the government's policy committee on trade, to discuss trade issues with Lyall Howard from the National Farmers Federation. As an aside, I would like to place on record my appreciation of the important role played by the NFF in economic and trade policy over the past two decades. There are very few organisations in Australia that have so steadfastly advocated for the Australian national interest and for what is right and truthful in economic policy.9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—Other than the Liberal Party.83PBishop, Julie, MPMs JULIE BISHOP—Other than the Liberal Party—and often in difficult circumstances. As a consequence, the NFF has improved the lot of people in the developing world where the liberalisation of agricultural trade remains an issue of tremendous importance. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker Causley will be very interested to know that the barriers to agricultural exports from the developing world that remain in North America and Europe are barriers to the alleviation of the poverty experienced by almost 80 per cent of the world's population. There is a moral as well as an economic perspective to this matter. I echo Lyall Howard's approving quotation in the latest edition of Reform magazine—a magazine put out by the NFF. He quotes Mike Moore, who told a GATT meeting in 1988:There is an economic logic to agricultural liberalisation but there is also a moral imperative. A world where half the people starve and the other half diet is barbaric. Outside the arms race there is no more pressing issue for the world leaders to address than the insanity of world food production and distribution. It does not serve consumers in the developed world, farmers in the developing world, or ultimately farmers in the developed world, for the taxpayers of the OECD to make annual subsidies available to the agricultural sector that exceed the entire GDP of Africa.The trade liberalisation of the past decades has dramatically boosted the productivity of Australian businesses. The Australian economy is approximately $9.8 billion larger as a result of this liberalisation. In one way, we could say the annual income of the average Australian family is over $1,000 greater as a direct result. The worldwide lowering of trade barriers has helped to increase world trade equally dramatically. As a result, our exports have grown by 3½ times over the past 20 years and this means more jobs and growth for Australians. A tangible example of this growth is the Australian wine industry, with which many of my constituents have a particular involvement. More than 43.5 per cent of our wine sales are overseas—earnings of $1.5 billion. It is anticipated that this year, for the first time, more Australian wine will be sold overseas than in Australia.It is my firm belief that the further liberalisation of world trade not only will benefit Australians but also has the potential to greatly assist the developing world. I have great confidence that Australia will carry forward the campaign for further trade liberalisation into the next round of global trade talks, and I hope that agricultural trade reform is given the priority it deserves. I am heartened by the most recent comments of the Prime Minister, and his observation that:It is the cruellest and most grievous of international trading injustices that a nation of Australia's size, with such an efficient farm sector should still be penalised by world trade rules that corrupt agricultural markets. We have much to do in this area. I commend the bill to the House.11:01:0030203Slipper, Peter, MPMr SLIPPER0V5FisherLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Finance and Administration10—in reply—I would like to thank the honourable members for Denison and Curtin for their respective contributions to this very important debate. As was indicated by the honourable member for Denison, these matters are technical. They are items of legislation which are brought in regardless of which party happens to be in office at the time. He mentioned that, in his former manifestation as a minister of the Crown, he had occasion to introduce similar legislation.The purpose of the Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001 is to incorporate in the Customs Tariff Act 1995 approximately 800 amendments that have been initiated by the second review of the Harmonised Commodity Description Coding System, the harmonized system, by the World Trade Organisation. Australia's commodity classifications for traded goods have been based on the harmonised system since 1988. As a signatory to the international convention, Australia and other signatory countries are required to implement the changes arising from the second review, from 1 January 2002. The Customs Tariff Amendment Bill (No. 5) 2001 ensures that existing duty rates and levels of tariff protection for Australian industries and margins of tariff preference accorded to Australia's trading partners are preserved. The bill also aligns Australia's tariff structure with the international standard.Perhaps in jest, Mr Deputy Speaker, the honourable member for Denison referred to section 178 and the description which is to be included. It says:ARTICLES OF APPAREL AND CLOTHING, ACCESSORIES (INCLUDING GLOVES, MITTENS, MITTS), FOR ALL PURPOSES, OF VULCANISED RUBBER OTHER THAN HARD RUBBER:I suspect that he was being humorous, which is not something that the member for Denison is often accused of. But the changes are being made to include mittens and mitts in the description of gloves. The changes maintain the current treatment of articles of apparel made of the two various types of rubber. I daresay that, when the member for Denison reads the Hansard tomorrow, he will be very pleased that I have been able to elucidate the point that he raised and have given him the illumination on that aspect of the bill that he asked of me when he was speaking in the debate. Having said that, I am very pleased to thank honourable members for their support of this legislation. I commend the bill to the chamber.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment.Adjournment30203Motion (by Mr Slipper) proposed:That the Main Committee do now adjourn.3020311:05:0030203Burke, Anna, MPMs BURKE83SChisholmALP00—Today I want to talk about some wonderful events that have been happening in my electorate of Chisholm. During the three years of my term as the member for Chisholm, I have held a school captains' forum each year for all secondary school students within the electorate. This year we held that forum again, but we also determined that we would introduce a school captains' forum for the grade 6 students in the electorate. These forums were great occasions. I am pleased to say that the youth of today have a lot of things to say, but I do not think they actually get a lot of chances to say them. So it was wonderful to have all these young people present and for them to present me with their ideas. At the outset I would like to thank the three schools who hosted the forums: Syndal South Primary School in Mount Waverley, St Clare's Primary School in Box Hill North and Mount Scopus College in Burwood. We held the first forum in Mount Waverley for grade 6 leaders, and those present—and I thank those students and staff—came from Mount Waverley North Primary, Essex Heights Primary, Syndal South Primary, Pinewood Primary, Sussex Heights Primary, Glendal Primary, St Peter's Primary in Clayton, Christ our Holy Redeemer in Oakleigh and Holy Family in Mount Waverley. As you can see we had an eclectic bunch there from the local state and Catholic primary schools. That actually made for some interesting debate, with one student asking me why all the funding went to the state schools and not the Catholics, which did elicit quite a bit of response from several of the teachers present.The students were very forthcoming with ideas. They expressed their concerns about the leap from primary school to secondary school. Issues about bullying were present and were very concerning. We had a wonderful debate about the Big Brother program and why Sara-Marie should have won and not Ben. This was a really interesting discussion, because all the students actually had a view about this individual, Sara-Marie, being the one who was more prepared to be herself. I thought that said something about the youth of today—they were more interested in somebody who was actually open and honest and not playing the game. It was also a bit sad that literally every child in the room had a view about Big Brother but they probably did not have a view about lots of other issues. We discussed public transport, safety and the issue of peer group pressure, particularly in relation to smoking.Then at St Clare's, at the other end of the electorate, we had present Roberts McCubbin Primary School, St Benedicts, Mont Albert Primary School, St Francis Xavier, Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, St Clare's, Kerrimuir Primary School and Holy Redeemer. Again, a lively discussion was had. The students had come very prepared for this debate and raised with me the issue of the lack of amenities and facilities in the area. There was a great outcry for more public phones. Primary school students claim that they are being overlooked because they are not carriers of mobile phones and that in situations of emergencies there just is not a public phone available. I thought it was an interesting point.They were also concerned about the dirtiness around the Box Hill Shopping Centre and transport issues. They felt frightened going into this area, and this is a concern that continually gets raised in the electorate and we need to do more to promote the fact that Box Hill Central and the shopping district is actually a safe environment and we should be encouraging people back there. They raised with me issues about the lack of amenities, particularly the lack of things for kids to do after school.For our final forum, we had the senior leaders' forum. Attending were Kingswood College, Box Hill Senior Secondary College, Koonung Secondary College, Mount Scopus Memorial College and Avila College. I think the most amazing thing about these forums is that, although these students come from a great diversity of schools and backgrounds, the issues they are dealing with are absolutely similar—notably, the pressure and strain of the VCE and the fact that they are struggling to get through it all. I think we are putting an enormous amount of pressure on people at this stage of their lives. All of them recognise that this year is without doubt their most vitally important. If they do not make it this one year in their lives, the rest of their lives will be fundamentally down the toilet, as one student explained it. I think it is a bit tragic that we are putting so much pressure on these students at this time of their lives. I tried to point out that at 17 and 18 you are actually meant to also be having a good time. But they were balancing work, study and part-time jobs. Other issues raised were the environment, drugs, alcohol, peer groups, peer group pressure and its prevalence in school and how to deal with it, and again the lack of things for people to do in the immediate area—that drove people to particularly binge drink in youth. I was really impressed by the openness and honesty of all the students present at the VCE forum. Some of their teachers were there listening, but the students were able to present some refreshing ideas, and I think we do not listen enough to the youth of today. They also challenged me greatly, especially the grade 6 primary school student who wanted to know if I had been on any taxpayer funded rorts recently. They are the ones who are prepared to question and challenge, and I commend those forums to the House. (Time expired)3020511:10:0030205Bailey, Fran, MPFRAN BAILEYJT4McEwenLP10—I am really looking forward to taking part in this debate today. Firstly, I want to commend my colleague the member for Forde, who this week introduced a private member's motion in the House, which I am very pleased to say had very good bipartisan support. The motion my colleague presented to the House related to the safety of schoolchildren travelling on public transport, particularly on buses. We all know that by law seatbelts became mandatory back in the early 1970s for motor vehicles. The first thing parents who take their children to school in their car do is get the kids into the seatbelts. They then drive safely and deliver their children safely to school. If those parents cannot manage to drive their children to school and instead get them organised to go to school on the local school bus then those same children are often sitting in overcrowded seats and are not restrained by a seatbelt—and this is a grave anomaly. Throughout all of our states and territories we have laws designed to protect the safety of all of us, particularly our children, whilst in motor vehicles, but sadly in the case of transportation via the school bus there are no laws to protect our children.The member for Forde's motion went to the very heart of making sure that our children are delivered safely via public transport. It was a very responsible motion because it did not say that overnight all buses have to be fitted with seatbelts; it said that any new buses built and any buses that are refurbished must be equipped with seatbelts. I want to put on the record in this place that I wholeheartedly support the member for Forde's motion and support all of those who spoke in favour of that motion. It is a travesty that our children travel on buses where there are frequently insufficient seats. If seatbelts were fitted, each child would have their own spot, and it would be a very safe spot.Long before I even thought of pursuing a parliamentary career—it was I suppose the early days of what many people would describe as community politics—as a very young mum I would drive to the little township of Coldstream to pick up my children off the school bus. We had no bus transport to Yarra Glen or Dixons Creek—in fact, we still do not have bus transport to Dixons Creek. I can still remember quite vividly the day when I arrived to pick my children up off the school bus and saw my younger daughter Abby sitting on one of the steps leading out of the bus. I was horrified.There used to be nine or 10 of us who would pick up our kids off this bus. It was one of my earliest community political actions, if you like, when I organised a protest of all of the mums. We got Channel 9, Channel 7 and Channel 10 to come out to Coldstream and cover this case with the bus transport system at the time. They were fitting over 80 young students on these school buses.As the member for Forde has said—and as I have agreed—this is not something that we are proposing to have changed overnight. But, if we are responsible legislators in this place, we surely must be looking at having universal legislation across all our states and territories that is going to protect our children travelling on school buses in the future. I wholeheartedly support the introduction of seatbelts for our children on school buses. 3020611:15:0030206Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr LAURIE FERGUSON8T4ReidALP00—Political life is certainly full of surprises. I might have expected the previous speaker, the member for McEwen, to have taken this first opportunity to castigate coalition senators such as Senator Troeth for their performance with respect to support for a resolution from Senator Brown which Senator Brown described as being the end of old growth timber felling in this country. She likes to present herself as a strong supporter of the native timber industry but not a word has been heard castigating Senator Hill and coalition senators for going along with this rather preposterous, bizarre resolution from Senator Brown.I wish to speak today about the challenges facing the timber plantation sector at the moment. An important goal of Labor's—and I stress the word `Labor'—national forest policy statement of 1992 is to significantly expand Australia's softwood and hardwood plantation estate. The purpose in doing so is to provide an additional economically viable, reliable and high quality wood resource for the timber industry. In this regard, it is important to note that the national RFA process entails a greater reliance on plantations as a source of our wood and paper products. It is often overlooked that the Commonwealth-state RFAs have rightly led to over 2½ million hectares of old growth and high conservation value native forest being placed in the national reserve system. As a result of this and earlier conservation decisions, plantations already supply more than half of our national annual timber harvest.The opposition also recognises that increased tree planting by plantation companies and farmers will play a significant role in addressing the nation's key environmental and natural resource management challenges. The most obvious examples are in combating salinity and greenhouse gas emissions. The national forest policy statement recognised that various players can contribute to the expansion of our plantation and farm forestry estate, including traditional state forest agencies, established timber firms seeking to diversify wood supply, and farmers and plantation firms who raise investment funds through a public offer or prospectus. The scale of tree planting envisaged under Plantation 2020 Vision is to treble the plantation estate to three million hectares, and it is clearly beyond the capacity of the state forest agencies to raise the amount of capital required. The latest official data showed that Australia's plantations stood at just over 1.3 million hectares as of September 1999. In 1998 there were new plantings of 65,000 hectares and in 1999 nearly 95,000 plantings.It is clear that the tax office's recent crackdown on mass marketed tax minimisation schemes and the shambles of its private ruling system have greatly contributed to this situation where the rate of expansion has fallen substantially by severely undermining investor confidence in prospectus based plantation companies. This would be apparent to any reader of the financial pages of our daily newspapers. What is of most concern is that the misleading impression developed that there was a cloud over the tax position of reputable plantation companies with a valid tax office product ruling. In reality, this was not the case.I thus welcome the tax commissioner's public statement of 13 August that plantation managed investments with a valid product ruling are quite distinct from the schemes that are subject to the crackdown. Commissioner Carmody's statement confirmed that the ATO has not disallowed any deductions for investments covered by and acting in accordance with a valid product ruling. It indicated that investors thus have certainty about the tax consequences of such investments. In welcoming this clarification, I certainly acknowledge that tax office product rulings do not provide any guarantees of the commercial success of any managed investment scheme. These rulings are confined to their tax status. A separate agency, ASIC, regulates the operation of the managed investment sector. The opposition would always encourage potential investors to seek independent financial advice before investing in a plantation. In this regard, I am supportive of efforts by the group Australian Forest Growers to improve the provision of information to the market through mechanisms such as the proposed code of practice for forestry managed investment schemes and the accompanying investors guide to afforestation investment. I reiterate that recent events and media reporting have led to widespread public confusion and a resulting reduction in investor and lender confidence. This has directly impacted on legitimate plantation operators and on their contractors and suppliers. There was thus a clear need for the statement of clarification that was somewhat belatedly issued by the tax commissioner last week in such an area of crucial environmental requirement.3020711:20:0030207Neville, Paul, MPMr NEVILLEKV5HinklerNP10—I am proud to confirm today that the spirit of volunteerism is alive and well in my electorate of Hinkler. There is a little community in my electorate at the junction of the Bruce and Isis Highways known delightfully as Apple Tree Creek, and the community very much mirrors its name. It was once a community that had a full range of services, including the Huxley Sugar Mill, but sadly the vagaries of modern transport have meant that it is reduced to only a core of its original size. Nevertheless, it is a very beautiful place. It is indicative of many villages around Australia. It has a beautiful sportsground with a lovely 100-year-old band rotunda, a magnificent World War I memorial recently restored and rededicated by the Minister for Veterans' Affairs, a pub, a service station, from time to time tearooms and a truly magnificent park that is a favourite stopover for people accessing the Bruce Highway. But that is not the purpose of this story; the purpose is to tell you that my wife and I were honoured to attend a function in the little Apple Tree Creek Memorial Hall last Saturday night. The event was the Volunteers Ball. It was a ball to honour all the volunteers of the district and to acknowledge their contribution to the International Year of Volunteers.I suppose what sets Apple Tree Creek, in the Childers district in the Isis shire, apart from other communities is this entrenched ethos of volunteerism. It came out very forcefully that night. The walls were adorned with the banners of Rotary, Lions, the Red Cross, the CWA, the State Emergency Service, bush fire brigades and just about every other imaginable organisation that you could think of. It reflected the collective pride of that district and their can-do attitude to the difficulties that they face. That came through very forcibly, as you will all remember, in the backpackers fire at Childers 12 months ago.It was a lovely ball. The orchestra, led by Bev Lee of the Revelliers—as she calls them— put on a marvellous show in the Apple Tree Creek Memorial Hall, a typical hall with a beautifully polished floor. The community made a real effort on that occasion. One of the guests was Dudley Martin, the regional winner of the National Volunteer Awards. This very unassuming man from Childers has an incredible portfolio of volunteer organisations to which he dedicates his time, including the local pony club, Legacy, the Red Cross, the show society and the Blue Nurses.Also epitomising the spirit of self-help and volunteerism was 75-year-old Audrey O'Brien, who has been taking the tea and sandwiches around the hall at gatherings like this for 55 years. In fact, the hall has only been there for 52 years—she even did three years of this in the old hall, which was further up the road. It was like a typical dance in a country area. In the old days, of course, the basket came around with the cups in it. On this occasion, modern activity has taken us to the polystyrene mug. Nevertheless, that same spirit was there, and Audrey O'Brien was still doing it 55 years on. The chairman of the Apple Tree Creek Memorial Hall Committee, Robert Goding, was the MC for the night and did an absolutely marvellous job. Robert is a local plumber and former councillor of the shire. He and the secretary of the committee, Linda Rapley, did a truly magnificent job in setting the night apart. I thought that this small community was typical of what goes on in a lot of regional and rural communities. It deserved to be acknowledged. It showed that the spirit of volunteerism is alive and well and does not just exist in big cities and in provincial cities but goes down to the smallest villages—very ordinary people doing an extraordinary job.3020811:25:0030208Rudd, Kevin, MPMr RUDD83TGriffithALP00—On Sunday, 19 August, I was privileged to be able to attend the 11th Queensland Catholic Schools and Colleges music festival hosted at Villanova College, and also the vocal component of that festival hosted at Loreto College. Both colleges are located in my electorate of Griffith. There were some 5,000 student participants from across the state of Queensland. Sixty different schools participated in 200 separate events. This was a remarkable occasion that demonstrated the quality of musical achievement which has been reached across schools belonging to the Queensland Catholic school system.To host an event like this required an enormous volunteer effort. There were some 400 volunteers involved for the three days during which this festival was held. I would like to pay tribute to those who put in a particular effort. Mr Keith Druery, who was primary principal at Villanova for 25 years, initiated the festival some 11 years ago and is now its PR officer. He is most passionate about the continuation of this event because of the enormous contribution it makes to the musical development of our young people. I would like pay tribute to Darryl Williams, Director of Villanova; Alison Schrauf, the music secretary at the school; Richard Magnus, President of the Music Committee; Sandra Magnus, Secretary of the Music Committee; Ian Bacon, Treasurer of the Music Committee; Nancy Bacon, assistant treasurer; Bruce Bayliss, vice-president of the committee and coordinator of the canteen, and Gayle Bayliss; Chris Ebbage, coordinator of the canteen; Maria O'Connor and Cliona Mulcahy, who jointly coordinated at Loreto College; Anna Jack, who has worked tirelessly at the festival for many years; Trish Ryan, who assisted at the front desk of Villanova College for the entire weekend; Bruce and Christine Mellor, who assisted all these young participants with their warm-ups; Karen O'Shea, who assisted with the running of the canteen; Ray Ninnes, the past president of the committee, who compered and assisted in many areas; and Carmel Drake and Barry Zinglemann, who assisted with a huge amount of behind the scenes work. What is particularly remarkable about the contributions of Karen, Ray, Carmel and Barry is that they no longer have children at the college. When we look at the results of this festival, we see how well a number of our southside Catholic schools have done. Villanova College itself won some 18 medals: seven gold, seven bronze and four silver. Lourdes Hill College won some seven medals altogether. Loreto College won five medals. Iona College won three medals. Medals were also won by Mount Carmel School, Clairvaux McKillop, St Peters and St Paul and St Martins. I would like to pay tribute to Villanova College and to Loreto College for hosting this event, not simply because of the success of their respective colleges but because of their longstanding commitment to pulling this event together. The musical development of our young people is an important and central part of the overall academic development of the next generation of Australians. I commend the organisers of this important event. On Saturday, 18 August, I attended the 75th anniversary celebrations of the Morningside State School. The Morningside State School is an important primary school in my federal electorate of Griffith. I would commend all those who have been associated with its important anniversary celebrations. The anniversary celebrations were coordinated by Debra McQueen. Were it not for Debra's personal efforts on this score, these celebratory activities would not have been as successful as they were. Former noteworthy students from the school include Matt Foley, the current Queensland Minister for the Arts; Jack Houston, the former state member for Bulimba and former state Leader of the Opposition; and Sharon Humphreys, the Councillor for Morningside. In fact, Sharon is a second generation student at the school. Sharon's mother, Beryl Humphreys nee Dixon, wife of the former federal member for Griffith, Ben Humphreys, was also a student at that school. Others include Shane Lewis, the famous Australian swimmer, and some families who had been attending that school for several generations, such as the Amos family.The current committee of the P&C which also assisted with these celebrations is headed by president Roy Masters, vice-president Cherry Van Ryt, secretary Sandra Dawson and treasurer Victoria Jensen. Under the leadership of the principal, Pam Singleton, this has been a singularly successful event. The celebrations themselves included a rollcall on Saturday the 18th. We had four students from the original enrolment day of 1926, including the son of the then state member for Bulimba who took the petition to the state parliament to establish the school back in 1926. In the evening we had a dinner for some 250 former students, which I was pleased to address. I commend Morningside State School on their 75th anniversary celebrations and wish them well for the future. (Time expired)3020911:31:0030209May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Like the member for McEwen, I am pleased to support the member for Forde's private member's motion calling for the compulsory fitting of seatbelts on school buses. I have listened with interest to the other speakers on the motion and I endorse their views. For many years now, all new vehicles, cars, passenger vans, four-wheel drives, utes and long distance coaches have been required to be fitted with seatbelts. There are two exemptions to this requirement: school buses and regional charter buses. Most road users are required to wear seatbelts. Again there are exemptions, these being taxi drivers, door-to-door delivery persons, people with a doctor's certificate, and emergency services personnel in certain circumstances. Further exemptions are extended to those people travelling in vehicles that do not have seatbelts fitted, and school buses fit into this category. But generally most people are required to wear seatbelts. We have put students in a class of their own. Young people are having their safety compromised by being denied the best possible safety restraint; that is, seatbelts. This is inappropriate, first of all because a large population has been singled out for special treatment that compromises their wellbeing. It is inappropriate for another reason: there are peculiar risks associated with school bus travel. These risks come about in a number of ways. For example, the time spent travelling on school buses—the total exposure of travelling to and from school—is considerable, twice daily, five days a week. The bus is full of young people without the usual adult supervision. Also, the school bus environment has its own exclusive set of competing demands and distractions with noise levels that only high-spirited children excited at having survived another day at school can reach. These factors could have an impact on the drivers' abilities to perform to the optimum level. They can take away from his or her concentration and set up a scenario for an accident. Also, in the event of an accident the children's instinct to reduce its severity by adopting the best brace position just is not there. There are inherent and exclusive risks with school bus travel. Why are school buses not fitted with seatbelts? We have the argument about the allocation of scarce resources. Questions are raised as to whether seatbelts are the best way to go. There is rationalisation that the cost of fitting seat belts on school buses is prohibitive and the money could be better spent in educating parents and children and on improving our roads to make the travel safer and so on. While I sympathise and agree with many of the arguments, I think that anything less than a comprehensive approach, which includes seatbelts on buses, will not give children the necessary security and safety they deserve. I appreciate that much has been achieved to date with school bus safety. Education has played an important part and will continue to do so. For example, parents, teachers, bus drivers and children are more aware now than ever that crossing the road before or after school bus travel is clearly the major risk associated with school bus travel. Strategies have been put in place to decrease that risk. But no matter how comprehensively the matter of school safety travel is tackled it will not be sufficient if seatbelts are not made mandatory. Fatalities in a major crash could equal the number of passengers on the bus and a major bus crash is a probability. Over the past 14 years there have been 12 fatalities on school buses. There were eight in the one accident. Students were killed in Queensland in 1987 when a bus went over a cliff edge and rolled over several times. From that same accident there were 23 hospitalisations. I would only be hypothesising if I said that lives would have been saved if the students had been wearing seatbelts. But I do know that odds are in the passenger's favour if they are wearing a seatbelt. All I am advocating is that the same safety standards that apply to everyone else bar our children travelling on school buses are applied to them also. I commend the member for Forde for bringing an issue uppermost on most parents' minds to the House.Main Committee adjourned at 11.35 a.m.Answers to Questions in Writing30211The following answers to questions were circulated:30211(Question No. 2191)219130211Burke, Anna, MPMs Burke83SChisholmALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 29 November 2000:(1) Why were the drugs Aricept and Exelon used to treat Alzheimer's disease rejected by the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee for Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) listing in September 2000.(2) Will he include these drugs on the PBS and relieve many Alzheimer's sufferers and their carers from the financial burden of these costly but effective drugs.30211Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee rejected applications to list Aricept and Exelon on the PBS up until recently because it had not accepted that the cost effectiveness and health benefits measures for these medicines were adequate to support PBS listing for all patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease, or that prescribing criteria could ensure that pharmaceutical benefits were directed only to those patients most likely to benefit from treatment.The application considered at the September 2000 meeting was rejected because the Committee considered the prescribing criteria and guidelines proposed by expert clinicians attending an April 2000 stakeholder meeting were impractical and too complicated to administer. Although the criteria for initiation of treatment were appropriate, the Committee was concerned that the cessation of treatment rule would not target Aricept to those patients who experience an unambiguous clinical improvement on treatment. In rejecting the application, the Committee also encouraged the manufacturer of Aricept to re-submit a listing application which proposed a simpler cessation of treatment rule and also included descriptions of the meaning of improvement resulting from treatment with Aricept in terms of the impact on a typical Alzheimer's patient and their carer. (2) Subsequent applications to list Aricept and Exelon on the PBS were considered by the Committee at its meeting held on 30 November - 1 December and have recently been approved for PBS subsidy following a recommendation from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The PBS listings aim to provide affordable access to these medicines while ensuring that subsidy is directed in ways that will achieve the best outcomes for those who will benefit most. This involves consideration by prescribing doctors of clinical factors such as diagnostic criteria, disease progression and treatment responses.The terms and conditions of the PBS listings for these medicines were advised to all doctors and pharmacists in late January.30211(Question No. 2351)235130211Danby, Michael, MPMr DanbyWF6Melbourne PortsALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 7 February 2001:(1) Is no further funding available for community drug rehabilitation programs from the National Illicit Drug Strategy.(2) What will happen to the proposed third round of the community drug rehabilitation program.(3) How many grants from the first or second rounds were made to drug rehabilitation agencies in the electoral division of Melbourne Ports.30211Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No further funding under the National Illicit Drug Strategy Non Government Organisation Treatment Grants Program is available. Funding under the Program has been fully allocated to 133 treatment services nationally.(2) There will be no third funding round as funding has been fully allocated under the Non Government Organisation Treatment Grants Program.(3) Five grants, to a total value of $1,779,704 over four years, were made to the following drug treatment services in the Melbourne Ports electorate under the Non Government Organisation Treatment Grants Program: · Self Help Addiction Resource Centre Inc· Windana Society (two projects)· Inner South Community Health Service· Ngwala Willumbong Cooperative Ltd.30212(Question No. 2529)252930212Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 5 April 2001:(1) In light of the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are four times more likely to develop meningococcal disease than other Australians, what steps are being taken to rectify this matter.(2) What new policy developments are being implemented to ensure that Indigenous Australians receive the same level of medical care, and subsequently enjoy the same level of health conditions as other Australians.(3) As meningococcal disease is closely linked with socio-economic conditions, is the Government implementing initiatives to ensure an increase in standards of the socio-economic conditions of Australia's Indigenous population.(4) Does the Government have any active targets with regards to health standards amongst all of Australia's Indigenous communities; if so, to what degree is the Government succeeding in reaching these targets.30212Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) State and Territory Governments have developed specific prevention and treatment plans for their Indigenous populations based on the local epidemiology of meningococcal disease and access to health services. National data for comparison are currently not available because of low identification of Indigenous people in many areas. However, some studies do suggest that rates of meningitis are higher in Indigenous people. Communicable disease surveillance systems have been designed to collect data on the Indigenous status of persons diagnosed with meningococcal disease so that the burden of this disease in Indigenous Australians can be monitored and appropriate control and preventative action taken. My Department, through the Communicable Disease Network Australia, the Public Health Laboratory Network and the National Public Health Partnership, is nearing completion of a revision of national meningococcal disease guidelines. These new best practice guidelines contain specific information on the prevention and management of meningococcal disease in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. The revised guidelines will be made widely available to health care workers and the public once they have been finalised. (2) The Government's key advisory body, the National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Council is oversighting the development of a National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Health Strategy to build on the existing 1989 National Aboriginal Health Strategy. This is a significant development that brings together all partners in working collaboratively to improve the health levels of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Over the past five years a systematic planned approach to realising long-term goals in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health has been developed and implemented. Systemic achievements include: the formalisation of cooperative arrangements between parties through the Framework Agreements in each State and Territory; regional planning to identify needs, gaps and priorities; more primary health care services; improvements in the capacity of the primary health care system, through health workforce training, availability of strategies to address some of the most significant health issues and better use of technology. The Government's major focus in Indigenous health is on increasing the access of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to comprehensive primary health care. Experience gained from the Aboriginal coordinated care trials combined with regional planning processes are now informing the rollout of the Primary Health Care Access Program, the Government's major initiative in this area. In addition, specific health issues are being targeted in areas such as sexual health, eye health, hearing health, chronic disease management, substance use, social and emotional wellbeing and immunisation. (3) Refer to answer provided by DORATSIA to Question 2530. (4) The Government's key indicator in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health is the same as that for all jurisdictions in line with the agreed set of National Performance Indicators. National Performance Indicator 1.1 is increasing life expectancy at birth and is for a 20 percent reduction in age standardised all causes mortality rate ratios over ten years. However it must be understood that changes in this indicator will be demonstrated in the longer term. In the shorter term there are many areas where individual programs are showing positive results. For example, the rate of infant deaths has dropped from over 20 times higher than the non-Aboriginal rate to now being around three to five times higher.30213(Question No. 2530)253030213Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr TheophanousQJ4CalwellIND00 asked the Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs, upon notice, on 5 April 2001:(1) In light of the fact that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are four times more likely to develop meningococcal disease than other Australians, what steps are being taken to rectify this matter.(2) What new policy developments are being implemented to ensure that Indigenous Australians receive the same level of medical care, and subsequently enjoy the same level of health conditions as other Australians.(3) As meningococcal disease is closely linked with socio-economic conditions, is the Government implementing initiatives to ensure an increase in standards of the socio-economic conditions of Australia's Indigenous population.(4) Does the Government have any active targets with regards to health standards amongst all of Australia's Indigenous communities; if so, to what degree is the Government succeeding in reaching these targets.30213Ruddock, 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) Refer to the answer provided by the Minister for Health and Aged Care to question 2529.(2) Refer to the answer provided by the Minister for Health and Aged Care to question 2529.(3) The Government has committed a record $2.39 billion in funds for Indigenous people, including $327 million in new initiatives in this year's Budget. The details of these funds, including the improvements they are achieving in socioeconomic conditions for Indigenous people, are set out in the Budget Statement of 22 May 2001, Our Path Together, by the Hon Philip Ruddock MP, Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs.(4) Refer to the answer provided by the Minister for Health and Aged Care to question 2529.30213(Question No. 2778)277830213Ferguson, Laurie, MPMr Laurie Ferguson8T4ReidALP00 asked the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, upon notice, on 28 June 2001:(1) Further to the answer to question No 1898 (Hansard, 30 October 2000, page 21677), how much of the announced one-off funding of $20 million for the Defence Force Reserves was actually spent in 2000-01 on (a) subsidies to employers of reservists and to self-employed reservists, (b) accreditation of reserve training, (c) reserve survey, (d) reserve swipe card technology (e) communications and public awareness strategies and (f) expansion of the Defence Reserve Support Council.(2) Has the Department of Finance and Administration agreed that Defence could roll over all unspent funds referred to in part (1) above from 2000-2001 to 2001-2002.(3) What is the funding allocation for (a) 2001-2002 and (b) 2001-2003 for (i) subsidies to employers of reservists and to self-employed reservists, (ii) accreditation of reserve training, (iii) reserve survey, (iv) reserve swipe card technology (v) communications and public awareness strategies and (vi) expansion of the Defence Reserve Support Council.30213Scott, 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) $2,414.10 (b) $682,137.42(c) $204,739.39(d) Nil(e) $16,509.47(f) $111,042.70(2) The Department of Finance has agreed to the roll over of all funds unspent, after adjustment for agreed hand-back amounts.(3) (a) Funding allocations for 2001-2002, including funds rolled over, are:(i) $19.8 million(ii) $3.6 million(iii) $0.5 million(iv) $1.0 million(v) $1.8 million(vi) $0.7 million(b) The funding allocation for 2002-03 will be determined within the normal Defence Budget Submission process.