2001-08-2739110REPS3021502001-08-27—————Mr SPEAKER (Mr Neil Andrew) took the chair at 12.30 p.m., and read prayers.Miscellaneous3021512:30:0030215Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from moving forthwith—XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. I would draw your attention to standing order 101, and I would also draw your attention to page 546 of House of Representatives Practice. The relevant part of that states:Since the introduction of the modern form of private Members' business in 1988, only in the most unusual circumstances has other business been given priority at the time—Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Government Whip has the call.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—I will start again. It states:Since the introduction of the modern form of private Members' business in 1988, only in the most unusual circumstances has other business been given priority at the time for private Members' business—and I refer back to standing order 101 in relation to the order of business on Mondays—and this has always been by agreement, not merely by government decision ... Sometimes, when the House has not met on a Monday of a sitting week, special arrangements have been made to enable some or all of the items normally dealt with on a Monday to be considered later in the week.Mr Speaker, I would respectfully submit to you that private members business in this House is absolutely sacrosanct. I would respectfully submit to you that that has always been the view of the opposition. I would respectfully submit to you that we have done everything in our power to ensure that private members business in this House is not interfered with. I would respectfully submit to you again—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Government Whip has made his point.XT4Ronaldson, Michael, MPMr Ronaldson—Thank you, Mr Speaker.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—On the point of order, Mr Speaker: we would not move this lightly, but these are unusual circumstances. This is a minister who, on the face of it, has lied to the parliament.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat; he will not advance an argument.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I also wish to address you on the point of order in the same manner as the Chief Government Whip has addressed you. He quoted from House of Representatives Practice and said, quite correctly, that private members business should not be lightly intruded upon and that that should only be done in exceptional circumstances. I would put it to you that without question this goes to protecting the prerogatives of this House, in ensuring that the executive are honest with it and take the first available opportunity to come into the House and correct the record when they have demonstrably said things that were wrong and they might need to come in and explain how possibly they could not have understood the circumstances at the time and therefore might inadvertently have misled the House. We would be very interested to hear that explanation. We expected, when we came in, that the Minister for Small Business would be here and therefore there would have been no need for us to move a motion. We would happily have given him leave to make a statement. But he is not here when he should be here, and the prerogatives of this House require protection by you and by the government. Therefore, this motion ought to be able to be pursued.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will speak to the point of order. I would remind the Chief Government Whip that, while private members business is fundamentally important, it is scarcely absolutely sacrosanct. There are facilities to allow the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to do as he has done this morning. There is no facility under the standing orders that allows a division to be exercised on the matter raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. I would have thought that it would be more opportune for this matter to have been raised, as the standing orders provide, at a time today when private members business was not before the House. That would be the time following question time, or during question time if necessary, or prior to petitions; clearly petitions, under the standing orders, fall into the same category. For that reason, I would have expected this matter to be pursued in the period sometime after 2 o'clock and prior to grievances. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Mr Speaker, are you ruling that we cannot move this now?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I call the Deputy Leader of the Opposition.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I move:That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition moving forthwith—That given—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat.RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr Nelson—Mr Speaker, notwithstanding your previous remarks, is it in order for the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to move a motion at this point?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—My understanding is that there is nothing under the standing orders which prevents the Deputy Leader of the Opposition raising this matter at this time. That is the reason I had not interfered. What I am indicating is that, in terms of House of Representatives Practice, it would be more opportune for it to be raised after 2 o'clock. There is no provision under the standing orders for the matter raised by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to be voted on until there is no private members business before the House. There is provision under the standing orders, of course, for other resolutions to be dealt with if that is what the government so desires.WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—Mr Speaker, I raise this not only as a point of order but also as a matter of convenience for the House: obviously, there will be a fracas this afternoon over the matters that the opposition wishes to raise. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—What is the point of order?WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—For the convenience of the opposition—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the House will resume his seat. What is fundamental in this House is the opportunity for everybody—the Leader of the House or the Deputy Leader of the Opposition—to be heard in silence. The same courtesy as I expected to be extended to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition will be extended to the Leader of the House. WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—The point I wanted to make was that, subject obviously to what is proposed, the normal view of the government is that it would be necessary only to seek leave not to move a suspension. We would normally allow the opposition the opportunity to move a substantive motion. If the Deputy Leader of the Opposition moves his motion now, he cannot speak to it and we cannot divide on it. The fact is that it only gives us an irrelevancy to be dealt with this afternoon. DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr CREAN—I move:That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from moving forthwith—That given the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the matter of the Queensland Liberal Party's compliance with the GST law which have arisen since the House rose on Thursday, 23 August, the Minister for Small Business be required to come into the House immediately to fully account for the various discrepancies—RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr Nelson—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I ask you, firstly, to consider that this is unnecessary and that there are conventional and appropriate forms of the House for raising this kind of matter. Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would remind all members on my right of the courtesy that ought to be extended to all members.RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr Nelson—Mr Speaker, I ask that serious consideration be given by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to private members business by members from both sides of the House.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to the standing orders that suggest that people moving motions should not be interrupted in the process of doing so unless the motion itself is out of order. The motion is clearly not out of order. WI4Reith, Peter, MPMr Reith—We are still entitled to a point of order.WU5O'Connor, Gavan, MPMr O'Connor—That wasn't a point of order.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I am responding to what was purported to be a point of order from the parliamentary secretary. The appropriate response to the point of order he raised is to say that members who are seeking to move a motion are, in the normal course, given the courtesy of being entitled to read that motion to the House and then, should there be something amiss with the motion, the matter can be dealt with.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—As the Manager of Opposition Business is aware, I have not in fact interrupted the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MPMr Tuckey—Mr Speaker, I wish to take the opportunity to reiterate that, when there are matters relating to the nature of the business before the House, the fact of life is that question time is one of the most appropriate times to deal with them. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation, I thought I had already made that point to the House. There is nothing that the chair does or should be able to do to prevent members from moving motions. The chair attempts to facilitate members in the matters they raise before the House under the standing orders. The time allotted to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition has expired.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—He hasn't moved his motion yet.12:42:0030217McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN5I4FraserALPManager of Opposition Business00—I move:That so much of the standing and session orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from moving forthwith—That given the discrepancies and inconsistencies in the matter of the Queensland Liberal Party's compliance with the GST law which have arisen since the House rose on Thursday, 23 August, the Minister for Small Business be required to come into the House immediately to fully account for the various discrepancies—RW5Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr Nelson—Mr Speaker, given that the Manager of Opposition Business is seeking to move a motion to suspend standing orders which seems to be consistent with the motion that was attempted to be moved by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I ask that serious consideration be given to the fact that this is encroaching into private members business and that there are—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Bradfield will resume his seat. I have already indicated to the House that, while what is being attempted is unusual, it is not outside the standing orders. If it does not suit the government to facilitate the motion at this time, there are forms of the House that allow them to deal with it. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—To continue with my motion:and inconsistencies which have emerged in his account of this matter, and to fully and truthfully explain to the House his knowledge of, and involvement in, this GST scam.This is the issue that the House wishes to have heard if it is going to protect its proper rights and obligations. It is important not only that we protect private members business but that the House protects its prerogatives against the executive, and the most fundamental of those is that the executive must truthfully account to the House. It is during question time that we get the primary opportunity to pursue that matter. It is during question time that ministers are required to honestly account to the House. The Prime Minister's code of conduct makes it clear that, if a minister has, as he claims, inadvertently misled the House, he should take the first available opportunity to correct the record. This is the first available opportunity, and we want the minister to come in here and correct the record. He has on a number of occasions gone into the public arena and argued—DG4Fischer, Tim, MPMr Tim Fischer—Mr Speaker, on a point of order: you said that this matter should be stood over once the motion has been moved. The motion has clearly now been moved.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Manager of Opposition Business is abiding by the standing orders and has the call. 5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMULLAN—The minister went on television and sought to explain why what he said in the House was true, and showed the world that it was untrue. He then, strangely, at 9 o'clock on Friday night put out another press release that said, `Not only was what I said to the House untrue, but what I told the 7.30 Report was untrue as well.' We think it is possible that there is a fourth version. We want to hear one version that has some relationship to the truth. This is not a light matter. Many parliamentarians get attacked by a lot of people about whether or not they tell the truth, but nobody lightly argues with the principle that ministers must account honestly to the parliament. Nobody lightly undermines the principle that our Westminster system depends upon ministers accounting honestly to the parliament. That is called accountability. It lies at the heart of the Westminster system. This is accountability about a matter of political inconvenience to the government. The argument is that everybody should have to pay the GST except the Liberal Party.Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the member be not further heard.12:51:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 72Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.Andren, P.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.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gambaro, T.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Jull, D.F.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.Nehl, G. B.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.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.Worth, P.M.63Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.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.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.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.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.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.12:55:0030219Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—I second the motion. The Minister for Small Business is here. He should now tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth—Motion (by Mr Reith) put:That the member be not further heard.12:56:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 71Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.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.Fahey, J.J.Fischer, T.A.Forrest, J.A. *Gambaro, T.Georgiou, P.Haase, B.W.Hardgrave, G.D.Hawker, D.P.M.Hockey, J.B.Howard, J.W.Jull, D.F.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.Nehl, G. B.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.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.Worth, P.M.64Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.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.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.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.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.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.Question so resolved in the affirmative.In division—KV5Neville, Paul, MPMr Neville—Mr Speaker, I do not know if the tellers are aware that the member for Calare has left the House.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I thank the member for Hinkler for that information. I do not know whether the member for Calare reported to the member for Maribyrnong. The matter has been covered. In accordance with standing order 193, the division on the original question stands deferred until the grievance debate has been concluded or has been postponed.Committees30220302203022012:59:0030220Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on the National Crime Authority, I present the committee's report entitled The law enforcement implications of new technology, together with evidence received by the committeeOrdered that the report be printed.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—The report I am tabling today is the outcome of some 12 months of careful examination by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Crime Authority of the issue of the law enforcement implications of new technology, with particular reference to the use of technology in the types of cross-jurisdictional investigations in which the NCA is primarily engaged. The inquiry was commenced in June 2000 under the chairmanship of the former member for Aston, Mr Peter Nugent, who was known for his background in the computing and information technologies industries. I regret to say that, having been the committee's chairman only since May, I may not have made the same contribution to the committee's inquiry that he would have. The committee received 28 submissions to its inquiry and held five public hearings with a range of expert witnesses. On the committee's behalf, I wish to express our sincere appreciation to all parties for their cooperation with and their valuable contributions to this important inquiry.The inquiry arose from the committee's recognition that emerging technology was proving to be a double-edged sword for law enforcement in Australia. Not only are criminals the beneficiaries of the enhanced range of opportunities that our high-tech world is increasingly delivering; that same technology may equally represent an opportunity for a more effective policing effort. While there is nothing particularly new about this concept, the rate of development of new technology over the past few years has been exponential, with the growth of the Internet in particular raising numerous challenges.Fingerprinting is one notable example. Exactly 100 years ago, English criminologist Edward Henry was credited with creating the first set of fingerprint records. We all know how valuable fingerprinting is to the law enforcement armoury. Until very recently, the fingerprinting process involved printers ink, a roller and a slab. Matching a fingerprint taken from a suspect to one taken from a crime scene was a slow and uncertain exercise. Now, through the wonders of the latest live scan technology, a clear and undistorted record of fingerprints and palm prints can be electronically transmitted to a central database for instant matching. When the suspect is already in custody, such speed of response may be crucial.While criminals will happily grab with both hands every opportunity that new technology presents, policing has not always been given an equal chance to match their efforts. Some of this constraint may be financial—which is largely inevitable, when one considers the demands made on the budget, whether at the Commonwealth level in relation to agencies such as the NCA or at the state and territory level in relation to their police services. Of more interest to the committee's inquiry, however, were legislative constraints that act to unnecessarily stifle the NCA's capacity to match the resources of the highly organised crime groups that it is pursuing. I placed stress on the word `unnecessarily' for good reason: the committee is well aware that it cannot be assumed that new technologies of crime control will necessarily be used responsibly by law enforcement agencies. In particular, the committee was mindful that some of the emerging technologies, particularly in the field of electronic surveillance, carry downside risks, not least from human rights and privacy perspectives.The committee's report is in three distinct parts. These can be conveniently styled as examining the new technology issue in the following hierarchy: policing within Australia, policing across national borders and the global policing debate. Taking the latter two aspects first, it was clear to the committee that considerable attention is being paid around the globe, at the national level and at multilateral forums, to the borderless nature of the Internet. Electronic commerce is rapidly becoming an entrenched part of normal commercial operations and, not unexpectedly, whole new techniques of what is termed `e-crime', or `cybercrime', have developed. The committee found that the global law enforcement community has made a start in debating how best the e-crime threat should be addressed. While it applauds such endeavours, the committee is not so naive as to suggest that international agreement is just around the corner, if the precedent of tax havens is any guide. The committee found that Australia is actively involved in these debates and, while its contribution is clearly respected, it seems likely that the big players of Europe and America will determine the policy parameters which smaller countries such as Australia will be expected to follow.It is a different story with the use of technologies by law enforcement agencies within Australia. While the operations of agencies such as CrimTrac and the Australian Bureau of Criminal Intelligence suggest that meaningful cooperation can be achieved within our federal system, it was with some disappointment that the committee found that Australian policing, and the NCA in particular, is hamstrung by an inability by Australian governments to agree to a nationally consistent approach to multijurisdictional investigations. The criminals will, of course, exploit any such loopholes to their advantage.I commend the report to the House. In conclusion, I would like to add a personal vote of thanks to my colleagues on the committee for their contribution to this important inquiry and to the staff of the committee's secretariat, Mick McLean and Barbara Allen, for their invaluable assistance. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Does the member for Cook wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?13:05:0030221Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I move:That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be make an order of the day for the next sitting, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.302213022113:05:0030221Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—I seek leave to table the report that I was denied tabling due to the actions of the opposition earlier on today. Mr Speaker—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—I can't hear you now. The time has expired.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—Mr Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate my speech in Hansard.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Under the guidelines for Hansard, you cannot incorporate a speech. You can seek leave to table your speech.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—I seek leave to table the report and my speech.Leave granted; debate adjourned.302213022113:06:0030221Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—On behalf of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relations, I present the report of the committee entitled New Zealand committee exchange.Ordered that the report be printed.6K6Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON—This exchange visit to New Zealand took place between 12 and 15 June 2001. This was the first time the Employment, Education and Workplace Relations Committee has been selected to go to New Zealand under the program which is sponsored by the Australian and New Zealand parliaments. I specifically want to thank the Speaker of the New Zealand parliament, the Hon. Jonathon Hunt MP, for hosting the exchange. I am sure I can speak for all of the members of my committee who went to New Zealand when I say that the visit was a very positive experience and a resounding success in every respect.We had expressed a particular interest in dedicating the visit to education matters and issues relating to the committee's current inquiry into boys' education. Our New Zealand hosts had made great efforts to meet this request. We met a wide range of people involved in education, from the relevant ministers and shadow ministers to practising teachers, researchers and education officials. They were all well informed and keen to talk to us about boys' education and about education more generally. People gave very generously of their time and their knowledge. We were also offered practical support on our own inquiry into the education of boys in the form of relevant research and information. The visit began with a very comprehensive briefing by representatives of the Ministry of Education, which drew on both Australian and New Zealand material and was very useful background for the rest of the visit. Another useful briefing was provided by the New Zealand Council for Educational Research, which touched directly on some of the more contentious topics which arise in the boys' education debate.We had the opportunity to visit a government boys' school, Wellington College, to discuss education and boys' education issues with the deputy principal, some of the subject masters and the principal of a neighbouring coeducational school, Onslow College. Often the best evidence in education comes from the teachers and principals working in schools. This school visit was a rare and valuable opportunity to discuss issues of common interest with those directly involved and to get a real life perspective on how a different administrative and funding framework works in practice.Other highlights of our exchange visit included the two opportunities we had to meet with our parliamentary colleagues on the New Zealand Education and Science Committee. That committee has been conducting an inquiry into reading and literacy, which are critically important in early education for all children and, of course, are important issues in boys' education. Our discussion began with a sharing of ideas on literacy and boys' education, but it branched out to cover a wide range of other educational and related social issues. At our second meeting with the Education and Science Committee, we talked about an even wider range of topics, including the nature and future of the economic and political relationships between Australia and New Zealand.This brings me to the real value of these committee exchange visits, which of course extends much further than simply the information one gets to bring home. At the reception at the Australian High Commission to mark the visit, one of our New Zealand colleagues made a very welcoming speech. She said that the relationship between Australia and New Zealand is closer than ever before and closer than that between any other countries, because we are `family' and we do not need to worry too much about formalities and we can freely say what we want to say. This remark captured the spirit of the visit—we were warmly welcomed everywhere we went, our discussions were relaxed and open and we greatly enjoyed each appointment. I hope that the committee exchange visits continue long into the future because they help maintain the closeness between our two countries.On behalf of the committee, I want to thank every person we met at our appointments. I know from their preparation that they all committed much more time to the visit than the time we actually spent with each other, and we acknowledge and appreciate their efforts. Other people who deserve our recognition and appreciation include the Acting Australian High Commissioner to New Zealand, Ms Lyndall McLean, who hosted the reception to mark our visit, and Mr Max Simmons of the New Zealand Visits and Ceremonial Office for coordinating and conducting us through an excellent program of appointments.Finally, I want to thank each of my fellow committee members who went on the exchange. Their participation, cooperation, goodwill and good humour made an enormous contribution to the warm and friendly nature of the visit and to its success. I was proud to lead the delegation. The visit was constructive, and I will remember the experience with great pleasure. I commend the report to the House. 13:11:0030223Sawford, Rod, MPMr SAWFORD3J4Port AdelaideALP00—I commend the remarks made by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Workplace Relation on the report entitled New Zealand committee exchange. Due to the time constraints, I will need to truncate this speech somewhat.New Zealand has a deservedly high reputation as far as the teaching of literacy is concerned. Australia has taken literacy deficiencies seriously only in the last 10 years. However, when education is compared between the two countries, similar patterns emerge. Like all aspects of human behaviour, education is a trinity of rationale, process and outcome. If the rationale is wrong, there is no chance of a correct process and outcomes achieved will be confused, with coherence being impossible. As it is in Australia, there was a vast difference between what was said on the record compared to off the record. In Australia, I give credence to off the record comments, and it was the same in New Zealand. As it is in Australia, many people involved or concerned about the actual delivery of educational services admit to being intimidated from expressing their own views. Damage to respective careers was always given as a reason. Similarly, this appears to be the case in New Zealand. If this situation is as widespread as I think it is in both countries, that is a great pity and a backward step in the development of the two nations' democracies. But why are the current orthodoxies espoused by education bureaucrats in both countries the way they are? As the South Australian curriculum statements actually admit, curriculums in both countries appear to be based on a theory called constructivism. This is very strange, for constructivism is an art movement—painting, actually—or a kind of art making use of various materials combined into forms that do not depict anything. `Do not depict anything', coming from educational bureaucracies and half of academia, seems to be a message that is repeated by good principals and good teachers who run good schools, for they quietly but deliberately ignore the orthodoxies espoused by those very same bureaucrats and academics.There are very good reasons why good principals and good teachers who have formulated active, structured and measured learning programs and who can quantify improved learning outcomes to anyone in straightforward language are successful. They are balanced: they include, they do not exclude. It was the same in New Zealand. They weigh up the pluses and minuses of everything. They do not favour one school of thought against another. Practical people use strategies that work.An examination of the orthodoxies presented by teachers in Australia and New Zealand by education bureaucrats can be described as only presenting one half of a possible curriculum. Let me give the House some examples: include synthesis but not analysis; rely on qualitative research but ignore quantitative research; use disaggregated information but not aggregated information; embrace nurture but reject biological differences; promote collaboration but discredit competition; encourage groupings but discourage individualisation; promote continuous assessment but scorn examinations; and so on. That is not inclusive. There are positives and negatives about all the matters I have raised. For example, collaborative learning is not always positive: it can reduce learning to that of the lowest common denominator. Similarly, competition is not always negative: it can positively challenge students to learning.The exchange between the committees of Australia and New Zealand was particularly productive, and I think it fulfilled the goals of the Australian parliament. It certainly reaffirmed my interest in educational direction and development. On behalf of all the delegation members, I thank the people who organised it. (Time expired)10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! The time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Forde wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion?13:15:0030224Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—I move: That the House take note of the report.I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 102B, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting, and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.Private Members' Business302243022413:15:0030224Southcott, Dr Andrew, MPDr SOUTHCOTTTK6BoothbyLP10—I move:That this House notes:(1) 14 June 2001 marked the sixtieth anniversary of the start of the Soviet Union's mass deportations of Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians from their homes, to Siberia and other foreign destinations;(2) during the night of 13 to 14 June 1941, thousands of Baltic residents of all ages were arrested by armed men, taken to railway stations, loaded into cattle-wagons and deported, and these mass deportations continued, on and off, until 1953;(3) precise numbers of the Baltic deportees are difficult to determine, with conservative evidence showing that all together, over half a million local residents of all ethnic origins were deported from the three Baltic States by 1953;(4) these innocent people had committed no offences, were arrested and imprisoned as “political prisoners” and as “enemies of the people” and less than half survived deportation;(5) Baltic immigrants to Australia have contributed significantly to our country, its culture and its diversity; and(6) the sad events that are solemnly commemorated on 14 June by Baltic people across Australia, and across the world, stand in stark contrast to the robust democracy that all Australians enjoy and that we commemorate in this, our Centenary of Federation Year.This motion is important for several reasons. First of all, it is a side of Australian history which most Australians would be dimly aware of but would be unaware of the exact details, the question being put: how did the Baltic communities arrive in Australia? Secondly, it is important because it goes back to the very first days of Australia's policy with regard to refugees. When looking back at that period, I do not think it is drawing too long a bow to say that the support within the Australian community for accepting refugees goes back to the forties and fifties when Australia accepted refugees from Eastern Europe.It is worth going back to that period and finding that, under Arthur Calwell, we did accept refugees but we also retained control over the selection of who came and control over the numbers. I feel that, in part, is responsible for the current debate we are having about illegal immigrants in detention centres: there is, in the minds of some in the community, confusion about those who are illegal immigrants as opposed to refugees. People just do not accept that someone can go through two review tribunals and two different levels of appellate court and still not be found to be a refugee; they still think that they are refugees.The census statistics from 1996 show that there are 2,830 Estonian-born Australians, 8,023 Latvian-born Australians and 4,223 Lithuanian-born Australians. On average, they are about 70 years of age. That fact reflects that many of them would have come out to Australia when they were in their 20s or younger. Relative to their proportion, the Baltic communities have produced four times as many graduates as has the Australian population. They include many famous Australians. Sir Arvi Parbo, the former chairman of Western Mining Corporation, came out from Estonia in his 20s. He arrived in Australia in 1949 from a displaced persons camp in Germany. He graduated from the University of Adelaide with a first class honours degree in engineering. Professor Janis Priedkalns came from Latvia. He graduated from the University of Sydney in veterinary science. He was actually my professor of anatomy at the University of Adelaide. Bruno Krumins, the former head of the Multicultural and Ethnic Affairs Council in South Australia and currently the Lieutenant-Governor of South Australia, also came from Latvia. Teisutis Zikaras is from Lithuania, a famous sculptor whose sculptures can be seen around Melbourne and Sydney. The motion reflects the suffering that the Baltic states experienced under the communists. They also suffered under the Nazi occupation. When the Red Army retook the Baltic States at the close of the war, many Estonian and Latvians fled to Sweden or to Germany. After World War II, many of these refugees included professional and educated people. In 1947, Australia agreed to accept 12,000 to 20,000 displaced persons but did insist on the right to select the migrants. The first ship of 843 migrants from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania arrived in Fremantle on 28 November 1947. They were accommodated in a former military camp at Bonegilla, near Wodonga, and did two years labour at the government's direction. Why did they do that? They did it to be free. It is worth reflecting now, 50 years on, that some of this echoes our current experiences as well.This motion is about crimes committed against humanity, crimes that were committed in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania by the communists and also by the Nazis. When negotiations between the Western states and the Soviet Union broke down in 1939, the communists sought an agreement with the Nazis. Hitler and Stalin agreed on a nonaggression treaty and a secret additional protocol. The secret protocol divided Finland, the Baltic States and Poland between Germany and the Soviets. From September 1939, Stalin forced the Baltic governments to accept pacts of mutual assistance. The pacts involved Soviet forces on sovereign soil. The pacts emphasised the independence of the Baltic States. A month later, the Russian communists attacked Finland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and installed puppet governments. This was the start of their cruel and barbaric regimes.What followed was a travesty. Elections were held with the results announced before polls were closed. The new governments applied for admission to the Soviet Union. On 21 July 1940, all three capitals' parliaments were placed under heavy Soviet military guard. The parliaments adopted a Soviet style constitution and requested to join the Soviet Union. At the end of 1940, arrests and deportations numbered about 200 to 300 per month. The great wave of deportation came on 13 and 14 June 1941, barely a week before the German invasion. Anti-Soviet elements were sent to Soviet camps. This included members of non-communist parties, persons expelled from the communist organisation, police officers, members of the military, high government officials and capitalists.About 38,000 people were deported within 24 hours from the three Baltic states. Families were separated, and it often took days before transport on the boxcars and cattle trucks to Siberian camps began. The transport often lasted a month. Most infants, the sick and the elderly died during the transport to the Soviet gulag. The survival rate for those deported was 39 per cent. A considerable number returned from Siberia after Stalin's death, but many were shot by the secret police, the NKVD, either immediately after arrest or as the Germans advanced. The discovery of the bodies, many with torture marks, was made in 1941. The mass deportations were carried out by the Blue Caps of the NKVD, described so well by Solzhenitsyn in Gulag Archipelago. Armed NKVD, militia and communist party cadres raided towns, flats and farms. I quote here a description of what would happen: `A knock on the door, a harsh command: “Police here”; reading of warrants of deportation.' Then families were given half an hour to an hour to pack their belongings and leave their homes.This occurred just before the German invasion of 27 June 1941. It is hard to be precise as to the exact numbers. The President of Latvia recently talked of tens of thousands. I think it is easier if we talk about the order of magnitude. Certainly when the Germans arrived in the Baltic states there were 11,000 names in Estonia, 16,000 names in Latvia and 21,000 names in Lithuania which had been prepared for the deportations. Some, rather than being deported, were murdered by the secret police—it is estimated the numbers were some 2,185 in Estonia, 1,355 in Latvia and 1,400 in Lithuania. Overall, the estimated total number executed, deported and conscripted during 1940-41 is 124,467. As I have said, the President of Latvia said in a speech that tens of thousands of Latvian citizens died, including 3,000 Jews. So the real experience of the Soviet regime was one of violence, restriction of democratic freedoms and brutality against class enemies. All three republics were depopulated during and after World War II. An accurate assessment of the numbers is difficult. Preliminary estimates are that the three Baltic states lost about 20 per cent of their populations from executions, killings in war, deaths in Siberia and flights to the West under Soviet, German and then Soviet rule. The postwar years were also a time of enormous population loss, more deportations, executions and guerrilla warfare. It is also difficult to determine the total numbers incarcerated and sent to gulags during the entire course of Soviet occupations or sent to administrative settlements in distant parts of the Soviet Union. An estimate for the number of Latvians mass deported in 1949 is 43,000. Well over 10 per cent—200,000—of the pre-war population of Latvia were victims of Soviet repression, which included the gulag camps, forced resettlement and other forms of political persecution.I am moving this motion because the people who came here as refugees and displaced persons from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia have made a terrific contribution to the Australian community. The history of these states is a sad one. They are now independent countries, and have been for 10 years, but the people who came from those countries to Australia were seeking freedom. Australia has a tremendous tradition as one of the longest continuous democracies in the world, a country which can trace uninterrupted self-government back to the 1840s and 1850s. I welcome the contribution that the Baltic communities have made to Australia. As I have said, their numbers are small, but their contribution has been immense.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Is the motion seconded?A8WPearce, Christopher, MPMr Pearce—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.13:25:0030226Quick, Harry, MPMr QUICKAV5FranklinALP00—Laba diena ponas Kalbeti! As esu linksmas kad mano familia turi lietuviska istorija! Good day, Mr Deputy Speaker! I am happy that my family has a Lithuanian history and background! That is what I just said in my poor Lithuanian. I would like to thank the member for Boothby for raising this issue, which is one we also spoke on on 24 November 1997. The wonderful thing about this great country of ours is the way that multiculturalism has affected so many of our families. Like so many in this place, I was brought up as an Anglo-Saxon youngster, brainwashed into believing that our sanitised view of history was the one and only point of view. Attending school in the forties and fifties, watching newsreels at the Saturday matinee, my life as a youngster was scripted along the lines of `the good versus the bad'.It was not until the 1950s, when I was living in Port Augusta and attending the local high school, that I first came across kids from families from the first wave of Europeans escaping the many war-torn countries, the names of which we studied religiously in our geography lessons. I well remember learning the names and the order of the Baltic states from top to bottom: Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. But it was not until 1974 that part of all this actually had some meaning for me. I happened to meet a young Lithuanian lass and subsequently married her and was invited up to Sydney in 1974. About that time, the Labor Party was in power and Gough Whitlam made a decision which I thought was rather stupid at the time and which had an enormous impact on those from the Baltic countries. That was Labor's recognition of the Soviet annexation of the Baltic states. I can remember listening to the discussions and I could understand a few words, because when you become enmeshed in another civilisation you realise that you need to learn some words and phrases so that you can take part in discussions.The history of these countries is fascinating reading. I had the pleasure in 1994 of spending three days in Estonia, three days in Latvia and three days in Lithuania. That was when the Russians had finally left after 50 years, and I was able to walk in these countries and see parts of them, along with Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians who were also seeing for the first time huge expanses of their countries. They had never seen these areas before because they had been locked away in military bases. The estimates were that there were well over 400 military bases in each of these countries. The lakes, mountains and strategic areas of their countries had been locked away since 1944. I saw the tears in the people's eyes and experienced with them the joys of freedom and democracy. In Lithuania I went to the Hill of Crosses, a place I think every person in the world should go and see. It is a hill where literally millions of crucifixes were planted and, despite numerous instances of Russians coming in and taking the whole lot away, the next morning they would be back there again, day in and day out, year in and year out. It is an absolutely amazing place to see the faith of the Lithuanian Catholics. I went to the television station at Vilnius and saw 12 or 13 crosses in memory of young people who had lain down in front of Soviet tanks to try to delay the Soviet occupation of that television station when, in the early 1990s, Lithuania declared its independence from the Soviet Union.I went to those countries and realised that they had a life-and-death choice. To talk to my mother-in-law and her family, they had a choice—pro-Soviet or pro-German. There was no other choice; you had to choose one or the other. With the annexation of the Baltic states in the Hitler and Stalin pact, if you were pro-German, you disappeared into Russia. When Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, if you were pro-Soviet, you disappeared into Germany. If you managed to survive those two, when the Russians came back in again and you were pro-German, you either had to flee into Germany or you were captured and taken into the gulags in the Soviet Union. It was a life-and-death choice. For us, in our sanitised version of the 1940s, as I was growing up and watching television, it all seemed very simplistic. We supported Stalin and we were against Hitler. The Estonians, Latvians and Lithuanians—they are wonderful people—faced a dilemma that most of us will never experience, thank God. As the honourable member for Boothby said, they are small in number but they have contributed amazingly to our culture, our way of life and our environment. In 1997, I spoke of Olegas Truchanas, the wonderful environmentalist. He was probably the first environmentalist in Australia. The fact that the south-west of Tasmania is a world heritage area is a tribute to his photos and endeavours back in the sixties and seventies. As for mining, the honourable member for Boothby mentioned Sir Arvi Parbo.As the member for Boothby said, it is a part of history that most of us never seem to get involved in unless, as part of our electoral life, we are invited to a Lithuanian, Estonian or Latvian festival. As I have said, I was privileged to go on a delegation to those countries. As you probably realise, Mr Deputy Speaker Nehl, I can understand more Lithuanian than I can speak. I have mentioned in another place that one thing that worries me is that my wife speaks fluent Lithuanian. When we go around to the mother-in-law's place here in Canberra, nothing but Lithuanian is spoken, and I am expected to try and understand it. The shame is that my two daughters, Sarah and Hannah, can understand Lithuanian, but the links are being broken. The third generation do not take up the language, and that is a disappointment to me. Bearing in mind our multiculturalism, very few third-generation children from mixed marriages, in the best sense of the word, are carrying on this heritage. Membership of the Lithuanian clubs in Sydney and Canberra is declining. My mother-in-law came out with her husband and her family in 1949. She is approaching her 80th year. She is lucky to have been back to Lithuania a couple of times, but the links are being broken. Opportunities to bring out her family are diminishing. Her grand-nieces and grand-nephews find it difficult to come out to Australia, for a variety of reasons.In summary, I thank the honourable member for Boothby for raising this issue. Sixty years is a long time. All that happened two weeks before my birth. I was born on 28 June; it happened on 13 and 14 June. As a member of a Lithuanian family here in Australia and also with a Lithuanian family back in Lithuania, I look forward to going back again. It is a beautiful country with a wonderful language and an amazing history. It was a very powerful country until the Polish people intermarried with the Lithuanians, Catholicism came in, and the place was put into turmoil. One disadvantage of being an Estonian, Latvian or a Lithuanian is that you are squeezed between two great power blocs: the Russians on one side and the Germans on the other. It is a bit like the people in the Middle East: if you are between the Assyrians and the Egyptians, wave after wave, one way or the other, comes through. I urge all members of this place to read the history of those wonderful countries and to delve into what happened in 1941, but to see both sides—the Russian and the German sides—because both were as bad as each other. Last year, I visited Auschwitz, the concentration camps and all that that entails. It is part of history, not of our country, but of the world, and we should be well aware of it. 13:36:0030228Pearce, Christopher, MPMr PEARCEA8WAstonLP10—I rise today to speak to this motion due to its relevance to the Aston electorate. The motion outlines the fact that 14 June 2001 marked the 60th anniversary of the start of the mass deportation of the Baltic peoples from their homes to Siberia and other foreign destinations. It was during June 1941 that many thousands of Baltic residents from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania were removed under duress and taken to various locations in readiness for deportation. Whilst the precise number of Baltic people affected by this action is unclear, I learnt through my research on this matter in a publication titled The Baltic Dilemma by Edgars Dunsdorfs that it is estimated that, on a single night, over 25,000 people from both Estonia and Latvia were removed, with the number of people from Lithuania not known.I referred to the relevance of this matter to the electorate of Aston. In fact, two major local government areas, the City of Knox and the City of Whitehorse, both of which fall within the Aston electorate, represent respectively the second and third highest proportion of Latvians living in Victoria. In the case of the City of Knox, we have the Latvian Retirement Village situated right in the heart of Aston in Wantirna South. It is my understanding that this village is the only Latvian retirement village in Australia which provides retired Latvians with a safe and secure place to live. Over the years, and in particular as my role as a councillor in the City of Knox, I have visited this facility and I have had the pleasure of meeting several of the residents who are most active in our local community.The motion talks about how the Baltic immigrants to Australia have contributed significantly to our country in terms of our culture and diversity. I could not agree more with this point. In November 1947, the first of the Baltic peoples arrived in Australia. Since that time, these people have become an integral part of the Australian community and have played a very important part in our postwar development. As an example, as the honourable members for Franklin and Boothby highlighted, Aston is proud to have as one of its residents Sir Arvi Parbo. Sir Arvi was born in Estonia in 1926 and settled in Australia in 1949, having come from a displaced persons camp in Germany at the age of 23. Across the last 52 years, Sir Arvi has made an outstanding contribution to the cultural and business community in this country. He has risen to hold some of the highest levels of office in many of Australia's largest corporate organisations, including being chairman of Western Mining Corporation Ltd.Combined with his great contribution to the business world, Sir Arvi has contributed in a very significant way in supporting many charity and community groups throughout the years. For example, he is currently patron of the Strathdon Community Redevelopment Fundraising Committee which is raising funds for this great retirement village and nursing home which is again located in my electorate of Aston. Whilst I have referred to Sir Arvi as a well-known example, a great many other people from the Baltic nations who have come to join us here in Australia have contributed in many diverse areas over the years, including working in hospitals, the building industry and the agricultural and transport industries. There is no doubt that the peoples of the Baltic nations have indeed contributed much to Australia's maturity and, as I understand that there are members of the Baltic community in the House today, I want to thank them and their fellow peoples for everything that they have done. I commend this motion to the House. 13:40:0030229Danby, Michael, MPMr DANBYWF6Melbourne PortsALP00—I am pleased to second this motion moved by Dr Southcott and also supported by the members for Franklin and Aston. I consider it an honour to speak in the memory of the Baltic victims of Stalin. The murders of thousands of people under that other form of totalitarianism, Nazism, is well known. There was a very moving program about that on SBS recently prepared by the family of another very successful immigrant to Australia, Mr Sherman of Equitilink, whose very ancient uncle Chatzchiel still lives in Lithuania, only surviving because of his skill as a lexicographer.This is a remarkable year for a number of anniversaries. While we are very aware of those anniversaries that affect us as Australians directly, such as the Centenary of Federation and the 50th anniversary of the ANZUS Treaty, there are many other major anniversaries of significant historical events of which we are completely oblivious. One such anniversary is the 60th anniversary of the round-up, deportation and, in many cases, deaths of some two million women and children in 1941 from the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia at the hands of Stalin's goons, then in league with Nazi Germany. As the member for Boothby outlined, in the secret clause of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, the generalissimo of the Soviet Union, Stalin, showed he was determined to get control of the three Baltic states. For almost half a century, it could be said that the history and suffering of the people in these countries somehow slipped down the democratic world's memory hole. For most of the time, small groups of anti-communists who referred to their homelands as captive nations were regularly mocked and generally dismissed as quaint defenders of a lost cause. This was especially the case among some members of the Left both in Australia and in the Western world. This is a sad fact. People like me in the opposition honestly believe that it is never too late to say sorry for a profound injustice. I believe that it is proper for those who denigrated our fellow citizens from the Baltic nations to acknowledge that injustice. It was very moving to hear the personal experience of my colleague the member for Franklin about his involvement with the Baltic communities through his family, and his heartfelt comments about his experiences of being there as they were liberated as communism disintegrated.The subjugation of the people of the three captured Baltic states was close to Stalin's heart. He took personal interest in seizing the Baltic republics. It is notable that when the British Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, was there at the height of the Soviet leader's weakness in December 1941, he even pressed the British leader then. The people of these Baltic states were part of the Russian Empire from the 1700s to 1919, but they had little in common with Russia either in language or history. Estonia and Latvia are principally Lutheran and Lithuania principally Catholic. Like most cities of the Baltic, Riga was founded by German merchants in the 12th century. From 1919 to the beginning of World War II, these states enjoyed a brief interlude of independence and democracy. From 1939, Stalin instigated one subterfuge after another and extended Soviet control. With the defeat of Finland and the signing of the Nazi-Soviet pact, Stalin accused the Baltic states of being pro-Allied. From June 1940 he moved in Soviet troops in stages and under threats. Then in June 1941, the mass deportations to Siberia began and the horrors multiplied.The persecution of the Baltic people by Stalin and his NKVD ought to be remembered. One of my most moving experiences was to meet the great sovietologist Robert Conquest, who also wrote about the Ukrainian terror and famine of the early 1930s. He wrote a masterful book, The Harvest of Sorrow. We should know about the victims of the deportations from the Baltic countries 60 years ago, just as we know about the Ukrainian terror. Our fellow citizens who came to Australia and whose families came to Australia from the horrors of Stalinist captivity to freedom in this great country deserve our understanding and respect. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 1.45 p.m., the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 101. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Statements by Members302303023013:45:0030230Kernot, Cheryl, MPMs KERNOTXW4DicksonALP00—Some months ago I came into contact with the members of the Hercules Road State School P&C Association that is based in the electorate of Petrie. They told me that they had given a petition to their local member, Ms Teresa Gambaro. She said that the petition could not be tabled in parliament because of its format. I asked them to give me a copy of it and that I would seek to have it tabled on their behalf—they say in the hope that it can be used and was not a waste of time. The petition, signed by 141 people, is concerned with the school funding legislation being considered by the federal government. It says:We call for the federal government to provide a fair and equitable distribution of Commonwealth funding and to withdraw the proposed state grants bill 2000 legislation. We believe that it is the primary role of governments to provide the highest quality public education system. This will only happen if public education receives a fair and equitable share of federal government funds. We believe that the proposed federal legislation will severely disadvantage public education and will increase education inequities. In 2003 state schools will receive 35 per cent and private school 65 per cent of federal funding. We believe this gives private schools massive funding increases at the expense of state schools.I put this onto the record on their behalf because their local member was not willing to do so.3023013:46:0030230Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I rise today in regard to a recent poll taken in my electorate that shows that one in four people in the electorate of Cook regard the most serious issue confronting the electorate as that of crime. This, according to the pollsters, was amongst the highest that they had seen in the state of New South Wales. Clearly, there has been a substantial loss of confidence in the policing in the area and in the state government's ability to handle the policing. The recent exchange of gunfire over the main street of Cronulla between two opposing gangs does not help the confidence in the area.The Police Commissioner, Peter Ryan, despite his $450,000 a year income, did not bother to come and see what the real situation was in that area. There has been a substantial loss of confidence, and the fact that we used to have 48 officers at the Cronulla police station but we now have a centralised program where the police are located at Miranda, with constant travel between two stations, has meant that the Cronulla station has been somewhat denuded of staff. There has also been a significant drop in morale, and there are 36 police officers on sick leave from Sutherland command at the moment. Morale is low, the number of young constables resigning is high and nothing is being done to reverse this situation. This is despite the fact that the New South Wales government were given $8.3 billion last year from GST revenue alone—more than enough to help them fulfil their obligations. (Time expired)3023013:48:0030230Gibbons, Steve, MPMr GIBBONS83XBendigoALP00—I am angry at the decision by the Nestle company to close its Maryborough plant and export 140 Australian jobs to New Zealand. This government must urge Nestle to stay. Nestle's self-serving excuse is that it needs to remain internationally competitive. This is sugar-coated language for naked corporate greed. Nestle recorded gigantic profits exceeding $3.4 billion in the first half of 2001, and its Maryborough work force helped create that wealth. So did the taxpayer subsidy its Allans predecessor received from the Cain Labor state government to set up in Maryborough. Central Victoria has recently faced job losses totalling nearly 450 at Vectus, Rocklea and Goninans in Bendigo and now at Nestle at Maryborough. The Howard government has not lifted a finger. I also fear for jobs at Thompson, Kelly and Lewis at Castlemaine with the sale of its rail section, and at ADI in Bendigo with the government's stalling of the Bushmaster production. No wonder that a multinational company like Nestle behaves so appallingly when the Liberal-National Party coalition government set the example. I cite the former Kennett state coalition's privatisation obsession, which resulted in the closure of the Bendigo railway workshops, and the Howard government's privatisation of ADI Australia, with further Bendigo job losses. For the coalition, the only bottom line is the top dollar for private corporations; workers are just a cost and they do not count. It is a code for social vandalism. It is time Nestle and the government recognised that workers do count.3023113:49:0030231Hardgrave, Gary, MPMr HARDGRAVECK6MoretonLP10—I rise to express my concern for the Lebanese community in Australia. On Friday night a candlelight vigil was held around Australia, including at the Australian Lebanese Association Hall at Tarragindi in my electorate. I would also like to express my concern, along with those who attended that meeting, about what is still continuing on in their old country.Their desire is for a democratic, independent and sovereign nation in Lebanon—aspirations I am sure that are supported by Australian values. I attended and lamented the use of military enforcement to contain views contrary to those in power. I believe we all should support the rights of people to peacefully express their viewpoints and of those who aspire to peacefully organise themselves as a nation of people. The gathering sought to advance a truly independent Lebanon by forgiveness. There is no doubt hotheads have no place in the march to peace and self-determination. The complication of religion used to divide rather than unite people can only be overcome by forgiveness. The use of retribution cannot solve such crises.I congratulate the United Australian Lebanese Movement for their proactive and peaceful approach. The Lebanese community have made some great contributions to Australia, and recent heinous crimes by some young thugs should not bring down their status as great Australians of long standing. I lament the lack of real democracy in Lebanon and hope peace will prevail as forgiveness triumphs. The world needs to know that Lebanon is not the master of its own destiny and that many aspire for this to change. Moreover, the entire region of the Holy Land needs such peace. I am pleased to lend my support and encouragement to those who seek freedom of speech and of opinion and to reinstall democracy, independence and sovereignty to Lebanon. (Time expired)3023113:51:0030231Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—Today I would like to introduce to the Australian people a young bear on a mission. This is Leuk, the leukaemia bear. He has a very important role to play, starting next Monday, which is the beginning of Leukaemia Week. We are seeking for as many Australian families as possible to adopt Leuk. The Leukaemia Foundation across Australia does a wonderful job. Approximately 6,000 people a year are diagnosed with leukaemia. Not only do they need to fight the disease; they need support for themselves and for their families and loved ones during the time of treatment. The Leukaemia Foundation provides support by visiting patients while they are in hospital and, very importantly for country people, it provides accommodation. We need to give all the support we possibly can.We all know that new drugs are constantly being discovered. They improve the quality of life for patients; they also can increase the number of survivals. Leukaemia is a disease which mainly strikes young children. I encourage the families of Australia to make a home for Leuk.3023113:52:0030231St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I rise today to congratulate a number of people who were involved in the announcement that was made on Friday by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, the member for Gwydir, and me over the establishment of the Australasian-Pacific Aeronautical College in Tamworth. Many people were involved in the collaboration to put together a program and a project to the government and it was ably led by the Mayor of Tamworth City Council, Warren Woodley, and his councillors, who were very vocal and very supportive in making sure that this project got to the highest levels of government. Can I also add to that my appreciation to Patrick Maher, who is the Chairman of the New England Northwest Area Consultative Committee, who also played a pivotal role; Mike Montgomery, who is the Chair of the New England Northwest Regional Development Board, and his group of board members, who were also very enthusiastic about the project coming to fruition in Tamworth; Gary Pollock, who is the Director of the New England Institute of TAFE, which of course has a pivotal position in training aircraft maintenance engineers and licensed aircraft maintenance engineers; Qantas Link, which was Eastern Australian Airlines and before that East-West Airlines, which started in Tamworth; and BAE Systems, British Aerospace, which operate a significant flight training centre in Tamworth. (Time expired)3023213:54:0030232Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—The Commonwealth Bank will close a branch in my electorate next month and I have set up a feedback form on my web site to allow residents to respond. I would like to read some of those responses. Bernadette Hanna writes:As a mother with the use of one car only in our household, I have depended on having a branch within walking distance from my home. Although the other branches are only about 4kms, it is not accessible for customers such as myself. I am also very disappointed to realise my children will grow up in a society where they are forced to communicate with a machine rather than face to face contact. A machine cannot replace a friendly smile wishing you a good day.Carmen Attard writes:I am very angry that they are going to close down this branch. I will now have to catch the bus to Blacktown to do my banking. Kings Langley may be the next closest branch, but is not in a convenient location for people like myself who don't drive or elderly people.C. McDowell writes:Closing this local branch would affect the local business and the people of the area. Especially the elderly and the disabled who are most affected. People before profits, as without the people you would have no bank.John Nolan writes:Is the bank going to reimburse me for the petrol to drive to their other branches when I can walk to the Marayong Branch?(Time expired)3023213:55:0030232Lloyd, Jim, MPMr LLOYDIK6RobertsonLP10—Yesterday I had the pleasure to attend, along with almost 15,000 other Central Coast people, the Stand Alone rally in support of a Central Coast NRL first division rugby league team. This rally was very tangible evidence of the support on the Central Coast for a stand-alone team. As I said, almost 15,000 people turned up on what was not the most pleasant of days to watch some excellent local rugby league. The main reason they were there was to drive home to the NRL the fact that we need to have our own stand-alone team.All elements of the media on the Central Coast got behind this rally: the CentralCoastExpress, 2GO and Sea FM radio stations and the SunWeekly newspaper. The main driving force behind the rally was Mayor Chris Holstein, who is absolutely passionate about getting a stand-alone team. We also had as a special guest businessman John Singleton, who is also strongly behind the efforts that we are making to have this stand-alone team.This rally was held at Grahame Park's North Power Stadium. This is a magnificent stadium and a magnificent facility for the Central Coast. The Central Coast worked long and hard to get the $12 million from the federal government to make it a reality. Once we got the $12 million from the federal government, the state government provided $12 million. We have a magnificent facility. We now need a stand-alone team. (Time expired)3023213:57:0030232Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—The 420-page draft report by the Productivity Commission titled Priceregulationofairportservices released last Friday further demonstrates the absolute contempt and dishonesty of the Howard government in its determination to sell off Sydney airport for the maximum billions of dollars and at the same time failing to honour its promises to fix Sydney's airport noise problems. Further, the conduct of another of the government's servile agents, the ACCC, has also demonstrated that the entire strategy from the government is to direct all financial, environmental and ministerial imperatives towards fattening the lamb for the kill to maximise the sale price of Sydney airport. As a member of this House for nearly three years, I have witnessed the public interest being totally slaughtered by the conduct of this government in its promotion of the Precision Runway Monitor system, TAAATS, changes to the slot system and so forth, while unanimous public interest factors were torpedoed. The ACCC has ruled that Sydney's aeronautical charges should be split from non-aeronautical charges, thus enabling a split-till system whereby the prospective airport lessee companies can increase revenue in light of the fact that I understand some 60 per cent of airport revenues over the next 50 years will come from the shopping centres, restaurants, car park and other businesses associated with Sydney airport. This government's conduct over the sale of Sydney airport is criminal and the airport must not be sold until the relief of aircraft noise is guaranteed for the people of Sydney.3023313:58:0030233Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—I would like to respond to some very dishonest statements made by the member for Dickson earlier on. She said that I had misrepresented a petition on behalf of Hercules Road State School. She said that the petition was presented to me and that I failed to present it to the parliament. The petition was indeed presented to me and it was in an incorrect format, as advised by the Clerk of the House. I was then advised by the clerk that I would have to present it to the Leader of the House, who also deemed it to be in an inappropriate form for presentation to the House.To come into this House and accuse me of not presenting a petition for the Hercules Road State School is incomprehensible. The member for Dickson would be best served looking after her own electorate rather than spreading misinformation about my electorate. I do my best to serve the people of my electorate. Coming into this House and making dishonest statements about me not presenting petitions is beyond the pale. It is clearly an attempt by the Queensland Teachers Union to continue to muckrake in my electorate. I did meet with the Queensland Teachers Union representative, who happens to be a member of the teaching staff of Hercules Road State School. This is blatantly a misrepresentation by the member for Dickson.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 2.00 p.m., in accordance with standing order 106A, the time for members' statements has concluded.Questions Without Notice302333023314:00:0030233Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, is it not the case that the tax audit of the Queensland Liberal Party which you have requested will not be able to examine the following matters: whether your ministers misled the parliament; whether the Treasurer failed in his duty to alert the Australian Taxation Office to this GST scam; whether Minister Macfarlane failed in his duty to do the same or to act to shut down the GST scam; whether any Liberal Party officers, federal or state, have acted improperly or possibly unlawfully in advising on and arranging the GST scam; and whether this GST scam arrangement has spread beyond Queensland to other Liberal state divisions?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—Is it not also a fact that the outcome of this audit will become public only if the Queensland Liberal Party allows it? Prime Minister, will you undertake to ensure that your referral of this matter to the tax office will not inhibit full parliamentary scrutiny of the conduct of your ministers and officials?30234Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—It is open to the parliament to question and scrutinise the conduct of any minister; that is the role of parliament. I want to make it clear that my referring this matter to the tax office was not designed in any way to prevent questions being asked of me, questions being asked of the Minister for Small Business or questions being asked of the Treasurer. I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that in no way is this some device to close down discussion on this issue; rather it is an earnest of our desire to get to the bottom of this matter if there is anything untoward. It is our belief that the audit is a very good thing. It is our belief that the audit will enable the tax office to examine all of the activities of the Queensland division of the Liberal Party since the commencement of the GST legislation on 1 July. I take the view that branches of all political parties must comply with the GST legislation, and I would invite the Leader of the Opposition to allow an audit of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party. I ask the Leader of the Opposition: why don't you put Bracks in the dock? Why don't you allow a tax audit? Bear in mind that this question was asked of me by a man who last week deliberately misled the Australian people about the hospital system in Western Australia. This is a man who is up on his hind legs attacking the reputation of my minister, when he himself quite deliberately and shamelessly misled the Australian people last week.The tax audit has been requested by me as an earnest of my willingness to have every aspect of the GST tax affairs of the Queensland division of the Liberal Party examined. I have nothing to hide. The division tells me it has nothing to hide. The tax audit will be conducted.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—That is why you ordered an audit.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I have called the audit. They can interject as much as they like. We have called the audit. He refuses to have an audit of Bracks.CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—No wonder!ZD4Mr HOWARD—No wonder, indeed, as the Treasurer interjects. If you are really so interested in transparency, why don't you have an audit of the Victorian branch of the Australian Labor Party? May I make one other point, Mr Speaker? I was asked yesterday, by one of the media outlets through my press secretary, whether I would make the results of the audit by the tax office available. My response was that that would be a matter for the tax office and the Queensland branch.Opposition members interjecting—ZD4Mr HOWARD—Don't get too excited: I know you think you are on the verge of something big here, but I would not get too excited. I want to make it clear—and I have made this perfectly clear to the Queensland branch—that I think the results of the audit should be made public.3023414:04:0030234Gambaro, Teresa, MPMs GAMBARO9K6PetrieLP10—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. There have been reports of a boat foundered in international waters necessitating a rescue at sea. Does this have any implications for Australia?30234Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—I thank the member for Petrie for the question. I think all members of the House will be aware of news reports indicating that a Norwegian vessel, the Tampa, which is a fairly large container vessel, took on board several hundred people from a vessel which had foundered in what I am told was the Indonesian search and rescue area of responsibility in area defined by international law as `the high seas'. Those souls were taken on board by the Norwegian vessel. The Norwegian vessel then intended, as I understand, to set sail for the nearest point of possible disembarkation, which was an Indonesian port by the name of Merak. I am also informed that preliminary arrangements had been made by the Indonesian authorities to receive these people on their disembarkation from the Norwegian vessel at Merak. Subsequently, so media reports indicate, and as testified to on the radio this morning by the captain of the Norwegian vessel, under duress from some of the people picked up, the captain changed his plans and an indication was evinced to sail to Australian waters. We have communicated with the captain, and we have also communicated with the Indonesian and Norwegian governments. We have indicated to the captain that permission to land in Australia will not be granted to this vessel. We believe that there are special circumstances in this case, particularly the background that I have described, that justify the action taken by the government. We have told the Norwegian government and the Indonesian government that this is a matter to be resolved between the government of Indonesia and the government of Norway. It is, so I am told, a matter of international law that the ship's master had an obligation, given the circumstances of the rescue of the people involved, to head for the nearest point of possible disembarkation, and that was an Indonesian port. We have indicated to the ship's captain—and we have also indicated this to the Norwegian authorities and to the Indonesian government—that Australia stands ready to provide any humanitarian assistance that may be required on the vessel, including the landing of food and medical supplies and the provision of a doctor or doctors or paramedics, if that is necessary. We have also indicated to the government of Indonesia that we would be prepared to make available financial assistance, either through an international agency or directly, to the government of Indonesia to assist the Indonesians in relation to the reception and processing of and caring for the people who have been taken on board the motor vessel Tampa.This is a very difficult and sad situation. From the very beginning, Australia has sought on all occasions—particularly under the administration of my current minister, who I think has done an outstanding job in an incredibly difficult situation—to balance against the undoubted right of this country to decide who comes here and in what circumstances, a right that any other sovereign nation has, our humanitarian obligations as a warm-hearted, decent international citizen.Australia has a record in relation to caring for refugees of which every member of this House should be proud. No nation in the last 50 years has been more generous or more decent in relation to refugees than has Australia. Of all of the debate that has gone on about this issue, nothing I think grieves people on this side of the House more than the allegation that in some way we have been insensitive to people who are seeking to be classified as refugees. But that does not mean that we are abandoning in any way our right to decide who comes here; nor shall we ever abandon our right to refuse to allow people to be landed in this country in circumstances where that would not represent the best so far as Australia's national interest is concerned. We have taken this decision based on a proper understanding of our rights under international law. It is the right decision to take in Australia's national interest. I hope that, amongst other things, it sends a message to people smugglers and others around the world that, whilst this is a humanitarian, decent country, we are not a soft touch and we are not a nation whose sovereign rights in relation to who comes here are going to be trampled on.Distinguished Visitors3023510000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Dr Liam Fox, a member of the United Kingdom House of Commons and Shadow Secretary for Health. On behalf of the House, I extend to Dr Fox a very warm welcome.Honourable members—Hear, hear!Questions Without Notice302353023514:10:0030235Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—Briefly with your indulgence, Mr Speaker, we support the government's actions in regard to the motor vessel Tampa. They seem to us to be appropriate and in conformity with international law.Government members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would remind all members on my right, including the member for Blair, of the right of everybody in this House to be heard without interruption.PE4Mr BEAZLEY—My question is addressed to the Prime Minister and follows the answer that he gave to my last one. In the light of your reference to an ALP fundraising function, isn't it a fact that your fifth anniversary function held in March this year in Melbourne had a split charge of $200 for the dinner and $800 for the donation? Has the Liberal Party instructed its divisions to cease these practices, as we have instructed ours? In view of your call yesterday for this practice to be investigated, will you be forwarding the tax details of your fifth anniversary dinner to the tax office? 30236Howard, John, MPMr HOWARDZD4BennelongLPPrime Minister10—First of all, by way of indulgence, could I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his expression of support for the action that the government has taken regarding the motor vessel Tampa. I express the hope that the opposition will now withdraw its objections to legislation in the Senate so that we can send yet a further signal—a very clear signal—to those who would seek to trample on our sovereign right in this area that that is not acceptable to either side of Australian politics.In relation to the function, I do remember that function. It was a magnificent celebration of five years of coalition government. Of course I do not know the arrangements but, Mr Speaker, I will tell you what I will do: I will do a deal.Opposition members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The same courtesy as should fundamentally have been extended to the Leader of the Opposition obviously belongs to the Prime Minister.ZD4Mr HOWARD—I will do a deal with the Leader of the Opposition. I will ask the Victorian branch of the Liberal Party to consent to an audit of its GST tax compliance, if he does the same thing with the Victorian Labor Party.3023614:13:0030236Draper, Trish, MPMrs DRAPER0L6MakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Would the minister outline Australia's response to the current influx of boat arrivals?30236Ruddock, Philip, MPMr RUDDOCK0J4BerowraLPMinister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs and Minister for Reconciliation and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs10—I thank the honourable member for her question, and note her continuing interest in these matters. I will quietly outline the issues that we are dealing with and some of the reasons for the movement that we are seeing and, in the spirit of cooperation that has already been offered by the Leader of the Opposition, point to the measures that could have an impact on the nature of the arrivals that we are experiencing. I foreshadowed quite clearly that the continuing phenomena of unauthorised arrivals by boat was something that we would see for some time. There are large numbers of people who have moved into Indonesia in expectation that they will be smuggled into Australia, and in expectation that when they get here they will get certain outcomes. The fact is that the relative attractiveness of Australia over other countries where people can be safe and secure is very much affected by the nature of the decisions that are taken in relation to them. I would like to point out to my friend the honourable member for Bowman why that is the case.I have already made known that there are quite significant differences in the outcome when decisions are taken by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on asylum claims in Indonesia and the outcome that is achieved in Australia if they happen to get here. For Afghanis—and bear in mind they may or may not be Afghanis; we have evidence to suggest that a significant proportion may be Pakistanis or in fact have residency rights in Pakistan and other countries—84 per cent get their claims up here in Australia. Why the difference? There are two reasons for the difference. One is that in Australia over a period of time the law has been the subject of development by judicial decision making. I saw some comments by the honourable member for Bowman which said on a radio station in South Australia today:... but I've got to say to you that 75% of every one that can find their way onto our shore on a boat are given refugee status—75%. So there's no question of appeals for them.That is so. Their cases are dealt with by the tribunal that has to apply the law that has already been determined by the Australian courts and has constrained the way in which it can make its decisions. That is the nature of the jurisprudential model.R36Albanese, Anthony, MPMr Albanese—The law, is it? 0J4Mr RUDDOCK—The law develops here in a way it does not develop elsewhere. There will be two pieces of legislation that will give the opportunity to the opposition to state their position in relation to these questions. The first one deals with the law— that is, the extent to which people are able to access our courts and get different outcomes to those outcomes that they would get if they were making their claims elsewhere and they were assessed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.You can by way of a privative clause—and I have explained this to honourable members before—limit judicial review. It means decisions would be taken by tribunals that would apply the same convention that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is applying. We would get different outcomes in that situation.7T4Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio—How do you know that?0J4Mr RUDDOCK—Because you would be applying the law—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister need not respond to interjections.0J4Mr RUDDOCK—and they would be lawful decisions in accordance with the convention that the United Nations is dealing with. I will come to that, because there will be some further legislation introduced tomorrow to give some guidance to decision makers in this area—some guidance that will restore the refugee convention to the same convention that is applied internationally and which does produce different results.Let me make this point in relation to the privative clause: under the privative clause, which we use in numerous legislation here in Australia already, we limit the right of Australians to be able to access the courts, because people have been given appeals to administrative bodies. Most of that happens in the industrial relations area. The Labor Party are saying that they oppose this measure. They have opposed this measure, and they have foreshadowed all along that they oppose this measure—and no amount of prevarication by the honourable member for Bowman, as evidenced on radio today, suggesting, `We might still look at it,' can disguise the fact that they have opposed it all the way down the line. That is what they have done. In relation to this matter, they are giving people who are coming to Australia unlawfully an entitlement to access our courts in a way which we do not give Australians to access our courts where administrative tribunals have been set up.What would we be doing differently, if we were to implement a privative clause, to that which other countries are doing? I noticed recently there were some suggestions that New Zealand was better at dealing with these matters than we are. I picked up on 21 August a copy of the Dominion newspaper, in which the senior liaison officer of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Hans ten Feld, was quoted. He makes it very clear that the problem in dealing with asylum issues is how long you take to resolve those matters. If you give people the opportunity to go to the courts, they take a much longer period of time. Many hundreds of people that we are detaining today are still being detained because they are exercising that right to take their decisions, which have been a rejection by the department and a rejection by the independent merits review tribunal, to a court. We know that when they go to the court only one per cent of people get a different outcome.This is not a situation in which the decisions are being taken incorrectly by those tribunals. The fact is that the article, in regard to the UNHCR commenting on this aspect of Australia's policy, went on to say:... its multi-step appeals system meant claimants could be held for years, he said. New Zealand's two-step system of an initial decision made by the Immigration Service's refugee status branch followed by appeals to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority was quicker and cheaper.In other words, the international way of dealing with these matters means that you do not introduce judicial review, which you know delays decision making, exacerbates the concerns that people have, and fuels the arguments that are being put now that people are anxious about their situations in detention and are becoming increasingly more difficult to manage.The fact is that there will be some further legislation—besides the legislation dealing with the privative clause—dealt with in the parliament in the next week. That legislation will restore the application of the refugee convention relating to the status of refugees, will more carefully define what is meant by persecution, and will make it very clear when you have a court deciding that, if a person cannot get the job of his choice in his home country which befits his qualifications, that can constitute persecution leading to a refugee outcome. If that decision is upheld in every case—no doubt we will appeal it but that will take time—you can imagine how few cases you can reject. The fact of the matter is that one of the significant determining factors—and it is in our hands how we deal with it—is the relative attractiveness of Australia over and above other countries where people can put their claims and have them dealt with. One of those significant factors that makes Australia more attractive is the extent to which people are more likely to get their claims up here than if they are considered by the international body. The figures that I have given bear that out. It is a very tragic situation when people believe that they can put pressure on us, as we are now seeing people being put under pressure, under duress, in relation to being trafficked into Australia: `If you do not give us what we want, we will threaten you or we will threaten ourselves.' That is a very difficult situation to deal with. I very much regret that in delaying so long in dealing with these matters we have created an environment where as many as 2,500 people are sitting in Indonesia believing that it is more attractive to get to Australia to put their claims than to have them dealt with by the international body, the UNHCR, which does protect people in Indonesia.3023814:24:0030238Beazley, Kim, MPMr BEAZLEYPE4BrandALP00—My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, do you recall being asked last Thursday in this House whether you knew about the Groom GST scam? In your answer you said:I am not aware of anything untoward that has been done in the FEC.Have you seen the comments by Liberal Party stalwart David Watts yesterday, who said:I think that statement was dangerously untrue.Minister, given that you have now admitted that you knew about the GST scam as early as 18 December last year, isn't Mr Watts right and didn't you mislead this parliament?30238Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—The Leader of the Opposition asked me whether I have misled the House and I am happy to address that question. Last Thursday the opposition made a number of allegations against me and tabled documents that they claimed supported these allegations. Last Friday, after examining the documents tabled by the opposition and refreshing my memory from minutes of meetings and diaries, I issued a detailed statement outlining the circumstances surrounding that issue. I table a copy of the statement. I remind members of the House that in parliament on this matter I said: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 with regard to the financial operations of the FEC.PE4Beazley, Kim, MPMr Beazley—What a big smile!LS4Ferguson, Martin, MPVU5Griffin, Alan, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Leader of the Opposition! I remind the member for Batman and the member for Bruce of standing order 55. They might care to refresh their memories in the next five minutes.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—I would like to provide some details regarding the operational aspects of the Groom FEC finances as well as my involvement in the administrative and financial matters handled by the Groom FEC. Like most members of the House, I do not involve myself in the day-to-day financial affairs of my FEC. My position is that it needs to meet its legal, financial, tax and other obligations. It is my understanding that the Groom FEC has always sought to do so and I consider this is, in fact, supported by the documents tabled by the opposition last week.Let me talk about the actual circumstances surrounding this matter. On 23 November I was delighted to host a function involving the Treasurer. CT4Costello, Peter, MPMr Costello—It was a good function.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—It was a good function. It was held at the Picnic Point function centre and was well attended. Catering was provided by Picnic Point, and the documents tabled reveal that the total account was $9,090.55, including a GST component of $826.41. As the documents tabled show, an invoice was made out to the Liberal Party, PO Box 777, Toowoomba, and a receipt was issued for the payment of that amount. The account was paid by Mrs Watts on behalf of the Groom FEC the day after the dinner. The account was paid in full, including the GST. Subsequently, in December, I understand from a discussion that I had with Neville Stewart, a member of the FEC and Queensland state executive, that accounts over $2,000 were to be paid by the Queensland division of the Liberal Party. I understood from the discussion that the arrangements were based on advice received from the Queensland division. My attention has since been drawn to minutes of a meeting of the FEC on 21 November, a copy of which I table. In those minutes it was noted that the chairperson notified the treasurer, Mrs Watts, that C. Galtos and G. Jaeschke, state president and state director, requested that tax invoices for the dinner be forwarded to them. While I attended this meeting, I was not there for all of it, as I arrived late after attending the launch of a retirement village in my electorate. Mrs Dellys Kelly, who attended that FEC meeting, has informed my office today that she has a diary note stating that, on my arrival at that FEC meeting, I apologised for being late.As I have indicated in the statement I issued on Friday, on 18 December I received a telephone call from Mrs Margaret Watts expressing her concern about the process proposed by the Queensland division for the settlement of the account for the fundraising dinner held on 23 November. I informed Mrs Watts that the FEC finances were an organisational matter to be determined by the FEC executive. I did this because I had confidence in the Groom FEC executive. I was aware that a meeting of the Groom FEC executive was to take place the next day. As members may be aware, the next day it was announced that I was to be appointed as the Minister for Small Business. I am still grateful to the Prime Minister for that; it has been very enjoyable, I have to say!As well as attending the meeting of the Groom FEC executive, I had to deal with other matters. For example, I was receiving calls from friends and colleagues as well as from the media. I was also being interviewed by a journalist. While the documents tabled last week show that I attended the FEC executive meeting, I was understandably not in attendance for all of the meeting. There was a range of issues discussed at the meeting, as set out by the meeting agenda and minutes tabled last week. I was not present during the discussion of financial matters. That has been confirmed to me in a number of statutory declarations that I have, and I table those documents.The document tabled last week relating to this meeting confirmed that in the memorandum to members of the Groom FEC executive, signed by Mrs Watts, Mrs Watts outlined a conversation she had with Graham Jaeschke regarding accounts over $2,000. The notes of the accounts dated 19 December also show that Graham Jaeschke had also raised this with the FEC chairman. The notes then went on to outline how this process would apply to the Picnic Point dinner. Additionally, I note that the notes to accounts indicate that, if the FEC executive agreed to the proposal, Mrs Watts was prepared to finalise the arrangement the next day. The minutes also note that there was a discussion in relation to GST and the ABN issues and the meeting undertook to request further advice as soon as possible from the state director `on the policy for claiming GST on campaigning or, if there was not a current policy, how far away is it?'At a subsequent meeting of the FEC, on 23 January, the minutes of the 20 December meeting were amended to specifically note that the concerns raised by Mrs Watts were correctly recorded. Further, it was noted `after much discussion and on the advice of Neville Stewart, Queensland vice-president, that the FEC should accept the direction of the secretariat on this matter'. These documents show that the Groom FEC received verbal advice from the Queensland division that bills over $2,000 were to be forwarded to head office for payment. The minutes of the December meeting—both the original and those amended at the request of Mrs Watts—record discussion in relation to the GST and make it clear that Mrs Watts's concerns were raised and discussed and a decision was reached to abide by the verbal advice received from the Queensland division and that clarification was being sought from the Queensland division on the policy for claiming GST. Subsequent to the December meeting, I took leave over the Christmas period prior to taking up my appointment as Minister for Small Business. As best as I can recall, the next time this issue was raised with me was after the 23 January meeting of the FEC, which I did not attend. I was advised by the chair that at this meeting Mrs Watts had announced her resignation. Mr Speaker, this paragraph is particularly important. The minutes of the January meeting also show that the executive again sought advice from the Queensland division on this issue and also took the precaution of seeking formal written advice from a local accountant. This advice was sought by the FEC executive to ensure that the FEC would meet its tax obligations, not avoid them. This advice was sought at the formal direction of the executive. Additionally, at this meeting the executive resolved to freeze the funds in question—a sum of $826.41—until the issue was resolved. Following the January meeting and before the February meeting, when the Queensland division realised they had made a mistake with their advice to the Groom FEC they advised the Groom FEC and apologised in person—Graham Jaeschke attended the meeting on 20 February—for the confusion at the FEC meeting held on 20 February.It was then the Queensland division's responsibility to amend its December quarter BAS return to the amount of $75.12 when it lodged its March quarter BAS return, as is the procedure under GST law. The Queensland division also disclosed this discrepancy voluntarily to the ATO. At all times, the Groom FEC acted on the basis that the advice from the Queensland division was correct and, when told of a mistake by the Queensland division, the Groom FEC accepted that advice immediately.I made my statement to this House the other day that I was not aware of anything untoward that had been done in the Groom FEC, based upon my understanding that the Groom FEC had at all times acted in an appropriate manner. I was not aware of the mechanics of the process initially proposed by the Queensland division to settle the account for the dinner. Comments made by Mr David Watts on ABC television yesterday support this. The statement that I made, that I was not aware that anything untoward had been done in the Groom FEC—that is, my FEC—was correct. I was not aware of anything untoward that has been done by the FEC. In fact, I think they have acted on the basis of advice at all times.As I outlined in my statement issued on Friday, at the FEC executive meeting of 20 February an auditor's report for the period 1 July 2000 to 23 January was tabled. This report did refer to the issue. The auditor's report said:As this was entirely a branch function there appears to be no reason why the Queensland Division should be involved.The Groom FEC accounts were subsequently audited for the period 1 July 2000 to 31 March 2001. The auditor's report covering this period does not raise any concerns in regard to the financial operations of the FEC as, by the time of this audit, the matters in relation to the GST had been dealt with. My statement that the books of the FEC had been audited was correct, as is my statement that I am not aware that the auditor had any concerns in regard to the financial operations of the FEC.5I4McMullan, Bob, MPMr McMullan—I request that the minister table the document which he just read into the Hansard.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Was the minister quoting from a confidential document?WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr Ian Macfarlane—Yes.3024114:40:0030241Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. Would the minister update the House about the welfare of Diana Thomas and Peter Bunch, the two Australian aid workers currently being held in Afghanistan? What steps are being taken to aid the release of Ms Thomas and Mr Bunch?30241Downer, Alexander, MPMr DOWNER4G4MayoLPMinister for Foreign Affairs10—First, I thank the member for Cook for his question and recognise his interest and the interest of other members in the fate of Diana Thomas and Peter Bunch, who are, as the member said in his question, the two Australian aid workers who are currently incarcerated in Afghanistan. I have told the House before that I am very concerned about the fate of these two Australians, and we are doing everything we possibly can to try to get them released. I do welcome confirmation by the International Committee of the Red Cross that its representatives, which included two doctors and a nurse, were yesterday able to visit the Australian aid workers, as well as the other German and American aid workers, in Kabul. The Australian High Commission officials are currently seeking an urgent debriefing from the International Committee of the Red Cross for a detailed account of the visit, and we are very anxious to hear, through the Red Cross, of the health and welfare of the Australians. I am able to confirm, though, that personal care items which were taken by the Australian Consul, Alastar Adams, to Kabul last week have now been passed to Ms Thomas and Mr Bunch.The Australian High Commission in Islamabad has been advised that our consul will be issued today with a visa, again to travel to Afghanistan. The consul hopes to travel to Kabul later today with the German and the American consuls—on, I understand, a United Nations aircraft. Indications have been received from authorities in Afghanistan that it will be possible for the consular representatives, including the Australian consul, to have access to Ms Thomas and Mr Bunch. The government, though, as I said, does remain deeply concerned for the welfare of Diana Thomas and Peter Bunch, and we will continue to do everything we can to secure their release and also, in the meantime, to gain consular access to them. We are working very closely with the Americans and the Germans and also the United Nations.Honourable members may be reassured that my department is retaining very close contact with the Thomas and Bunch families. I know I speak on behalf of all members of this House when I say that those families very much have our sympathy and support. Our consul in Islamabad will today carry messages from the families to Kabul, messages which he hopes to be able to convey personally.3024114:43:0030241Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is to the Minister for Small Business. Minister, on Thursday you told the House there was `nothing untoward' about the Groom FEC, a claim you repeated again today. How can you say there was nothing untoward when we now know that you were rung on 18 December by your branch treasurer and told of the scam? Wasn't that untoward? You attended a branch meeting the next day where the scam was approved. You attended a further meeting on 20 March where the scam was again discussed. You were aware of the February accounting advice that said the scam contravened the tax act. You were aware that your branch treasurer resigned in February over the scam, and you knew Mrs Watts had written to the Treasurer about the scam. Minister—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to his question.DT4Mr CREAN—Minister, given all of this, didn't you mislead the House when you said, `I am not aware of anything untoward that has been done.'DK6Hockey, Joe, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Financial Services and Regulation will exercise a great deal more restraint. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will return to his question, not to the preamble.DT4Mr CREAN—All right. Given all of that, Minister, didn't you mislead the House when you said, `I am not aware of anything untoward that has been done by the FEC'? Didn't you have full knowledge, didn't you cover it up and, as part of the cover-up, didn't you mislead the House? 30242Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I did not mislead the House, and I just provided in my previous answer a detailed explanation of why that is so.3024214:46:0030242Andrews, Kevin, MPMr ANDREWSHK5MenziesLP10—My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Would the Treasurer advise the House of any recent independent analysis regarding family incomes? How do the incomes of families today compare with those in previous years?30242Costello, Peter, MPMr COSTELLOCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—I thank the honourable member for Menzies for his question, and I acknowledge his long-time interest in tax arrangements for helping families and children. When this government was first elected, in 1997 it introduced a family tax initiative which was an increase in the tax-free threshold for families of $1,000 for each child. That gave families with children additional income by way of tax cuts or, if they preferred, through the payments system. In addition to that, we introduced for a single income family an increase of $2,500 in the tax-free threshold, which gave the single income family additional help. When we reintroduced further tax reform on 1 July last year, we introduced additional benefits for families which increased family assistance in this country by $2.4 billion. The family tax initiative doubled the tax-free threshold for children and for single families, and we gave families an opportunity to take that either by way of tax cuts or through the payments system.On the weekend some of the newspapers reported modelling which had been done by NATSEM, the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling. NATSEM has not always been a friend of the government. In fact, during the tax debate, as I recall it, work done by NATSEM was relied upon by people who were opposing the government in its policies. So, when you find an institution which has not been particularly friendly to the government which reports information like this, it is especially significant.NATSEM did an analysis which compared the situation of families between 1996, when this government was elected, and 2001 after the introduction of the new tax system. It found that a single income, two-parent family with two children on average weekly earnings gained $88 per week, largely as a result of family assistance. It also found that a sole parent—you will hear the Labor Party claim from time to time that the government has been hard on sole parents—two-child family totally reliant on government assistance gained $59 a week over the last five years. Those families are $59 a week better off. That is very interesting when you actually compare what happened to that same group of families between 1982 and 1995. Remember, under this government, the single income family got an $88 a week increase and the sole parent family got a $59 increase. What happened between 1982 and 1995? NATSEM concluded:The losers during this period were children living in couple families where only one of their parents worked. Single-income families showed a 4 per cent drop over this period.So under 13 years of Labor, the disposable income of single income families declined by four per cent. After five years of coalition government single income, two-parent families are up $88 a week and sole parent families are up $59 a week. This is the side of the House which has always supported families with children.Then you add into that the following: interest rates for families were 10½ per cent when the government was elected and they are 6.8 per cent now. Compare that with the interest rates under Labor. Compare also the abolition of the financial institutions duty, another cut for families, and this government's record of achievement in relation to tax reform has made families better off and redressed some of the policies of the Labor Party which did, and were designed to, make them worse off during the period from 1982 to 1995.3024214:51:0030242Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Small Business. I ask him: do you recall telling the House last Thursday: 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.Minister, didn't you admit later that night on the 7.30 Report that what the Groom FEC did was `non-compliant with the legislation'? Minister, wasn't the statement you made last Thursday untrue? Haven't you again been demonstrated as having misled the House?Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! The question has been addressed to the Minister for Small Business, not to the Leader of the Opposition or to the Prime Minister or to the Leader of the House. The Minister for Small Business. 30243Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I have learnt not to take at face value anything the Deputy Leader of the Opposition says. I will check the transcript of the interview that I did on the 7.30 Report, but I believe all matters raised in his question were covered by my earlier answer.3024314:52:0030243McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care.SJ4Tuckey, Wilson, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Forestry and Conservation! The member for Corangamite has the call and will start his question again.VH4Mr McARTHUR—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister update the House on the Howard government's record of increasing the Commonwealth's investment in Australia's health care system? Is the minister aware of any comments claiming that the states have primary responsibility for public hospitals? Does this tell us anything generally about responsibility in politics?30243Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the member for Corangamite for his question. Last week in the House we had the Leader of the Opposition holding up a graph and saying the following:Doesn't this chart, based on official Australian Institute of Health and Welfare figures, show that the proportion of total public hospital expenditure met by the Commonwealth has been declining under you? Doesn't this show that, if you had continued to match the states in funding 45 per cent of public hospital spending—the percentage as at 1996—our public hospitals would have received another $200 million a year?Since the Leader of the Opposition held up that graph, I have had a chance to look at it. I can give the Leader of the Opposition an answer to his question, and it is an emphatic no. As I suspected, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare on this data set is always a couple of years behind because the states are inordinately slow in providing the data on which this analysis is made. In fact, the last year of the official AIHW figures that were held up by the Leader of the Opposition is 1997-98. They are three years old. So, far from showing anything about the government, they in fact show something very substantial about the last health care agreements with the states signed by the Labor government in 1993. They show that when that agreement was first signed the Commonwealth was funding 49 per cent of hospital expenditure. That dropped to 45 per cent over the life of the agreement. Other funds came from private health funds and from other private sources. So the data set that the Leader of the Opposition held up is in fact an extraordinarily good analysis of the failure of policy under the previous Labor government and the two-year extension into the life of this government by which we were bound.One of the things that made it particularly difficult for states under the previous health care agreements signed by the Labor Party was the drop-out in private health insurance. The hospitals were under pressure because of this, as shown by a statement from the then Labor minister for health, the member for Fremantle, on 29 March 1995 in this place when she said:Yes, there is more pressure on public hospitals because of the decline in private health insurance. After all, the health care agreements had been predicated in 1993 on the fact that, if there were a drop of more than two per cent in private health insurance, the agreements would be reviewed and there was the expectation that additional resources would be provided. That, of course, never happened under the previous Labor government. So the states had to pick up the load, and their share over the life of that agreement went from 40 per cent to 47 per cent. If you wish to compare that to the current health care agreements, you cannot use the data that I tabled, because we do not have the ability to take out non-hospital expenditure that appears in the states' budget papers as hospital expenditure, something only the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare can do—thus the `apples and oranges' that I mentioned in the House. But you can look at the relative increase in expenditure at the Commonwealth and state levels. The Commonwealth's increase in expenditure since we signed the new agreement in 1998 is 7.3 per cent a year; the states' increase in expenditure is 3.8 per cent a year.The honourable member for Corangamite also asked me about relative responsibility for health care. We did have a look to see what was on the record and we have been able to come up with a number of comments. The Prime Minister in this House last week of course mentioned the Premier of Queensland, who said the states run the hospitals. But this was not the first time a Labor figure has said it. We can start as far back as Dr Blewett in 1986 when in Hansard he said:... the administration of the public hospitals is primarily the responsibility of the States.Brian Howe, in a radio interview on PM in 1992, said:The states obviously have to administer the hospital system.The member for Fremantle in 1994 said:The states are principally responsible for the state of the hospitals.The fact is everyone other than the Leader of the Opposition seems to understand very clearly where responsibility lies here. This is hardly surprising if you have a look at the Leader of the Opposition's record in government for his own portfolios and the responsibility he took for the failures during that time. He was defence minister when we signed the dud subs contract, a $2.24 billion contract that is now costing us $5.5 billion, and he has refused to take responsibility for it. He was minister for communications between 1990 and 1991, when we had the chance to get some real competition by dividing Telecom and OTC, an option he did not take because the unions did not wish him to do it. He was Minister for Finance for 18 days in 1991, and I can inform honourable members he did not have the chance to mess anything up on that occasion. But he was Minister for Employment, Education and Training between 1991 and 1993, when unemployment hit 11.3 per cent and youth unemployment 34.8 per cent, and it was again someone else's responsibility. And he was Minister for Finance between 1993 and 1996, when we had a $10 billion black hole, which also was not his responsibility. So the answer to the honourable member for Corangamite's question is absolutely clear: when it comes to responsibility, it is anyone's except the Leader of the Opposition's.8I4Martin, Stephen, MPDr Martin—Just like MRI.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I can find no reference in the standing orders that excludes the member for Cunningham from standing order 55.3024414:59:0030244Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Small Business. I refer to the only new fact in his long, rambling answer: a reference to verbal advice from Messrs Jaeschke and Galtos. Minister, given Mr Jaeschke's memorandum of 14 June 2000, addressed to all units of the Queensland Liberal Party, makes it clear that unregistered subunits of the party cannot claim back GST credits, I ask: when did you first become aware of the verbal advice from Mr Jaeschke and Mr Galtos to subunits to transfer invoices over $2,000 to head office, and when did you first become aware that the advice recommended a breach of the GST law, with which all other small businesses have to comply? Why didn't you do anything at that stage to close down the breach?30244Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I have, in an earlier answer, made a very extensive statement about the conversation that I had with Mrs Watts— Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the member for Bruce!WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—in regard to her concerns. I was advised by Neville Stewart a day or so before that that this method existed—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What method?WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—that the method that Mrs Watts rang me about existed—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—Explain it.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked his question.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—I advised Neville Stewart that it was an issue to be discussed by the FEC.3024515:01:0030245Barresi, Phillip, MPMr BARRESIZJ6DeakinLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister update the House on the Howard government's record of restoring balance to Australia's health care system? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies in this area?30245Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for Deakin for his question. Trying to get some balance back into the health care system has been one of the biggest challenges the Howard government has faced. Getting some balance back is important, because choice in health care, as with choice in education, is one of the fundamental things that Australians value. The 30 per cent rebate has been one of our fundamental successes. That was shown by figures that were released last week by the Private Health Insurance Administrative Council, which I previously mentioned in the House. Those figures show that over the previous 12 months episodes in private hospitals are up 17 per cent and money paid by private health funds is up $792 million, or nearly 17 per cent. That is backed up by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, whose figures from 1999-2000 show that one in every three hospital patients now is a private patient, and that in that year private hospital services went up 8.1 per cent and public hospital services went up 0.3 per cent. So a much greater share of the increased demand for hospitals is now being taken by the private sector.The other thing that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare shows, and which has had no publicity, is that there has been much comment about people having insurance and electing to use public hospital treatment. That is, after all, someone's right under the way we run our health care system, and I do not criticise it, but I observe that 10 years ago 45 per cent of people in public hospitals who had private health insurance were opting not to use it. The figure today is 13.5 per cent, which is a very dramatic decrease that gives a consequent increase of revenue into state hospitals.The honourable member also asked if I knew about any alternative policies. It is 344 days since Cathy Freeman won the gold medal for the 400 metres in the Olympics and 334 days since the Leader of the Opposition announced a $2 billion decision by the Labor Party, one that has not had a subsequent press release. On the weekend we had some elaboration as to why the opposition has been so reticent in coming forward about that $2 billion decision. In an article by Paul Kelly in the Weekend Australian, he stated:Labor's shadow health minister Jenny Macklin has had deep worries over the policy consequences of Labor's decision.that being the decision to keep the 30 per cent rebate. It is hardly surprising that the Labor Party attempt to say one thing—not put out a press release, not clarify what their position is—and at the same time maintain deep concerns over the future. The Australian public should similarly have deep concerns. The simple fact is that we saw the elaboration of this in Aston during the by-election. We saw the Labor Party say that they would not abolish the 30 per cent rebate and that they would not means test it. But we have not had a commitment not to reduce it, we have not had a commitment not to grandfather it, and we have not had a commitment not to take it off extras. The fact is that the Labor Party are looking for a way to get out of the 30 per cent rebate, and we have every right to continue to assert that. 3024615:05:0030246Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Small Business, and I refer to his earlier answer. Minister, just what was the method that Mr Stewart outlined to you before your conversation with Mrs Watts?30246Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—The method that Mr Stewart and Mrs Watts spoke to me about related to the instruction from head office that accounts over $2,000 were to be sent to head office. I was not in a position to have an intimate knowledge of the process, and that statement was confirmed by David Watts yesterday on the ABC.3024615:06:0030246Elson, Kay, MPMrs ELSON6K6FordeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Will the minister update the House on steps the Howard government is taking to ensure that people suffering from cancer receive the treatment they need from well-qualified and trained specialists?30246Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for her question. One of the real challenges that we have had is to try and get cancer services into rural areas, because there is some evidence that people in rural areas are getting different treatment from people in city areas. That is a challenge because the best estimates we have are that you need a catchment of about half a million people to provide practical facilities and have a throughput that will enable people who are using those facilities to maintain their skills. Even with that caveat, I have recently been able to approve new facilities at Wagga Wagga in New South Wales and Nambour in Queensland. They are two machine facilities for the treatment of cancer.However, in the end, it is not a long-term solution because, given Australia's enormous geography, no other country has the challenges we have in providing cancer treatment to a population, and particularly an ageing population as in rural Australia. In last year's budget, we were able to fund a joint trial with Victoria where we can look at the provision of cancer services through a single-machine facility, and I am pleased to say that we are going to go ahead in Ballarat, Bendigo and Traralgon to see if a single-machine facility is able to provide the level of service, training and continuing education for the medical profession, the radiologists and physicists who are needed to run these machines.This is a complex area and one that states and territories have been grappling with for some time. It has come up at most Commonwealth-state health ministers' meetings we have had over recent years, in formal or informal discussions. As I have mentioned in the House, it is disappointing that the College of Radiologists, which were funded by the Commonwealth for $100,000 to attempt to come up with a strategic plan to fix this, instead chose to use the money to provide an audit and then attempt to highlight what were the most alarmist issues raised out of this audit, without any balance. Not only did the audit fail to take into account the work being done in the states; its findings were also unsubstantiated and, according to my department, in some cases were based on biased data.As I said in the House last week, one of the problems here is that, even if you had extra machines and facilities, you do not have the trained people to run them. Again, this is largely an issue that has fallen to state and territory level, but the Commonwealth has decided to take some leadership in this area. I have announced that we are going to have a wider review than has been done previously and, rather than just looking at the hardware and at the doctors, we are going to look at the area where there is probably the greatest difficulty and the greatest bottleneck, and that is in the technicians running the machines and the area of nuclear physics.The technicians are often left out of the debate in this regard. They are not particularly well remunerated. Overseas they are doing a greater part of the planning and treatment, and I want to see if that is possible in Australia. I am pleased to say that the New South Wales health minister has agreed to put a person of his choosing on this committee to get some good federal-state linkages, because in the end it is a federal-state issue that is going to have to fix it. This review has extensive terms of reference. I am pleased to be able to say that Professor Peter Baume, a former minister in the Senate, a professor of medicine and the Chancellor of the Australian National University, has agreed to chair it. The inquiry will report back by March next year and will set the scene for how we go forward with this issue. 3024715:10:0030247Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Small Business and it refers to his two earlier answers in relation to the method associated with the scam developed by the Queensland Liberal Party. In relation to that method, didn't Mrs Watts call the scheme `cheating' and advise you accordingly? Didn't she also advise the Treasurer of her concerns and his office referred those to you? Why did you, as Minister for Small Business, do nothing to close off a scheme which was rorting the GST and which no other small business can access? Isn't this double standards and negligence, as well as misleading?30247Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I believe that I have answered that question in the answers to questions I have supplied to this House today.3024715:11:0030247Forrest, John, MPMr FORRESTNV5MalleeNP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister update the House on how the Howard-Anderson government has taken medical education to rural and regional Australia? Is the minister aware of any alternative policies?30247Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for Mallee for his question. Since 1996, we have worked very hard on issues of rural medical education for a very simple reason: I am firmly of the view that the drop-off in country kids going to medical school is one of the big reasons why we have difficulty attracting doctors to rural areas. While this is a long-term solution, it will not work in the absence of short- and medium-term solutions. In the end, if someone had started to act on this 10 years ago, we would not have the challenges that we have today.When we came into government, around eight per cent of the 1996 med school intake was from kids from a rural background. With 45 per cent of those kids going back to country areas, we had perhaps only four or five per cent of that total intake that we could reasonably expect to go back to rural Australia. We have worked hard to get the numbers up, and one of the ways we have done that has been through university departments of rural health and clinical schools, something we flagged initially in the 1996 election policy and which we have expanded since. We have established 10 clinical schools in regional and rural Australia and 10 university departments of rural health.I can give the honourable member an idea of some of the successes of this. Adelaide University Rural Clinical School is based in the electorate of Grey at Whyalla. It recently appointed a deputy director, Dr Andrew Thornette, who will be an associate professor of rural primary care at the new clinical school. The prospect of five years ago attracting someone like this to work in Whyalla was absolutely unthinkable. The new University of New South Wales Rural Clinical School in the Greater Murray area attracted Professor Mohamed Khadra, a senior urologist, in 1999 as the foundation chair of the clinical school. He has been able to continue to work as an urologist at the same time as running the Greater Murray clinical school. This year, this school is taking 12 full-time fourth year medical students who will supplement 58 medical students doing part rotations through rural New South Wales. The university department of rural health at Launceston has just established two more rural health teaching sites at Dover and Flinders Island and it plans a third one on King Island. These sites are in addition to the ones already operating at Scottsdale, Queenstown, St Marys, Smithton and Sorell. These places now have medical students where they could never previously have contemplated attracting a medical student. The Broken Hill university department of rural health has established specific criteria for training Aboriginal health workers who can now stay in their communities and complete a university degree. This university department of rural health has been recognised by the New South Wales Premier awards and the Baxter award for excellence in health care. A centre for remote health in Alice Springs has developed the Out of Alice program, which sends medical students out to remote areas for six months at a time as part of their training. None of this was happening five years ago. All this innovation in medical education is attracting more students from country areas into medical school. It is one of the reasons why nearly a quarter of all our medical students who entered med school this year came from a rural background—a figure we expect will increase next year when country students will actually be overrepresented in medical training. We have not just focused on doctors; we are also trying to get nurses out into rural areas. The member for Eden-Monaro tells me that 25 extra nursing places have recently gone to Bega.I was asked if I knew of any alternative policies on medical education in rural areas; I do not. We checked on the shadow minister, including her press releases, to see whether in 2½ years she had made any comments on this, and we can find nothing. We have no idea what the Labor Party would do were they to be in government.3024815:16:0030248Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Small Business. I refer to his reliance during question time today on David Watts's interview on the ABC yesterday. Isn't it a fact that David Watts also went on to say:Ian ... could have stopped it probably at any time. Minister, isn't David Watts right? Why didn't you, as Minister for Small Business, shut down the Groom GST scam and report it to the tax office, when this is precisely the advice you and the Treasurer have been giving all other Australian small businesses?9V5Pyne, Chris, MPMr Pyne—Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Besides the fact that this question contains imputations, epithets and ironical expressions, standing order 146 states, `A question fully answered cannot be renewed.' I think the Minister for Small Business has made it very clear that he has answered all these questions already through question time.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Minister for Small Business gave a comprehensive and lengthy statement to the House in response to a question. His statement was entirely in order under the standing orders. I do not believe that it covered the detail sought by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, so I have not ruled the question out of order.30248Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—I was not the Minister for Small Business when this method was first raised with me.Honourable members interjecting—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has asked his question and the minister will be heard in silence.WN6Mr IAN MACFARLANE—In terms of the remainder of the question, I believe that I have answered that question already.3024815:18:0030248Schultz, Alby, MPMr SCHULTZ83QHumeLP10—My question is addressed to the Minister for Health and Aged Care. Would the minister inform the House about the Howard government's achievements in improving care and services for Australians with mental health problems?30248Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr WOOLDRIDGE8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—I thank the honourable member for his question. Mental health is one of the great hidden problems in society. Some estimates are that up to 20 per cent of Australians in a year will experience a mental health or substance abuse problem. The World Health Organisation predicts that by 2020 mental health problems will be the second greatest burden of illness in the Western world, second only to cardiovascular disease.With that said, I am pleased to report to honourable members that I believe that Australia leads the world in its approach to mental illness and its specific initiatives aimed at assisting people with mental illness. Some of these have been under way for a substantial period of time. The National Mental Health Strategy had its genesis in 1992. It was first funded in 1993. I am pleased to be able to say that in 1998 the Howard government committed an additional $300 million to fund the second National Mental Health Strategy. That $300 million goes straight to the state and territory governments and $28 million to national level activities. This has been supporting a substantial shift from institutional care to community care—something that is the envy of most Western nations. The second thing that we have done is fund the Beyond Blue initiative. We committed $17 million to it, which has been matched by state and territory governments. It has been very successful, and I think it will end up changing community attitudes towards mental illness. Beyond Blue has some very simple approaches and some very simple aims. It hopes specifically to raise resilience amongst schoolchildren and to develop greater understanding and awareness of postnatal depression. Also, it has conducted a series of public awareness fora, the most recent last week using Australian Rules football.Also, in this year's budget we committed $120 million to change the way general practice approaches mental illness. Something raised with me time and time again by GPs is that the nature of the Medicare schedule does not allow them to spend enough time with people with mental health problems. So we can offer people chemical treatments for depression, but we cannot offer people cognitive behavioural therapy, which is a non-chemical based treatment. The initiative is going to do three things. It is going to give GPs skills in diagnosing illness and providing basic treatments. It is going to encourage GPs to make links with psychiatrists and psychologists, and for the first time ever in a limited way Medicare is going to fund psychological treatment, as well as psychiatric treatment—that is, we will fund the medical as well as the non-medical. And, thirdly, it is going to give GPs assistance in early diagnosis and intervention.Australia is sufficiently recognised that we have had a number of international people come to have a look at our National Mental Health Strategy and the way we approach mental illness. The most recent was Dr David Satcher, the US Surgeon General, before launching his own Surgeon General's report on mental illness. The only country in the world he chose to visit to look at mental health issues was Australia.The honourable member also asked me if I knew of any alternate approaches to this problem and I would very much like to be able to report that I do. Indeed, on 22 July 1999, the member for Jagajaga in a speech to the Nurses Federation outlined her major areas of policy development, one of which was policy to tackle the special needs of mental health. Two years, one month and five days later, we still do not have any detailed policies from the opposition as to how they would approach mental illness, what they would do differently or indeed what they would do at all if they were in government. Mental health issues have enjoyed bipartisan support in this House. I look forward to being able to give some bipartisan support to the opposition if they are ever able to come up with a policy.3024915:24:0030249Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—My question is again to the Minister for Small Business and it relates to his last answer. Minister, given that your defence now is that you first became aware of the scheme before you became a minister, contrary to what you told the House last week, why didn't you at any other stage after having been sworn in as the minister seek to close it down, especially given that what we now have is mounting evidence that this was a matter of constant controversy within your FEC, including a resignation from your branch treasurer and the fact that the Treasurer's office had referred it to you? Minister, why didn't you try and close down the scheme—HK5Andrews, Kevin, MPMr Andrews—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Under standing order 144, this comment from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition contains nothing but argument and it should be ruled out of order on that basis. It contains epithets, it is contrary to a number of provisions of standing order 144 and, beyond that, it has been fully answered.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will come to his question. DT4Mr CREAN—Why didn't you try and close down the scheme at any stage after you became a minister and refer the matter to the tax office, when this is precisely the advice you and the Treasurer have been giving others around the country if such information is made available?30250Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—In answer to the question, I had confidence in the advice being given to the FEC by head office and I had confidence in the steps being taken by the FEC to ensure that they met their full tax obligations.Censure Motion302503025015:25:0030250Crean, Simon, MPMr CREANDT4HothamALP00—by leave—I move:That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition from moving forthwith—That this House censures the Minister for Small Business for:(1) misleading the House generally on Thursday 23 August with inaccurate and deceptive answers regarding his knowledge of, and involvement in, the Queensland Liberal Party GST scam;(2) misleading the House, in particular on Thursday 23 August, with regard to when he first became aware of this GST scam and what he did about it;(3) not correcting the record at the first available opportunity as required by the minimum standards contained even in the Prime Minister's discredited Ministerial Code of Conduct;(4) not acting in accordance with his duties and responsibilities as a Member of Parliament and a Minister when first advised of this scam in December last year—and instead participating in the cover-up of this GST scam; and(5) not imposing on the tax affairs of the Queensland Liberal Party the same rigorous scrutiny which he and his government are demanding of Australia's small businesses, which he is charged to represent in the government.The charges are threefold today against this minister: one, that he has misled the parliament; two, that he has failed to act when information was drawn to his attention; and three, that he is prepared to condone double standards.The double standards so far as the business community is concerned are these: we have a simple new tax system—everyone else pays it except the Liberal Party. The simple new tax system is that everyone pays it except the Liberal Party. The second bit is that the minister himself will not help small business but he will help himself. He will be involved in a scam for his own FEC fundraising that is not available to small businesses around the country. This minister goes around the country saying, `The GST will close down the black economy,' but not within the Liberal Party. In fact, he is complicit in not only understanding and condoning but also covering up the growth of a black economy in his own party. That is what this government stands accused of in terms of its double standards.But let us go to the question of the `nothing untoward', which was supposed to be his great defence today. He would not even table the document, having read from it copiously, but we think we have got the gist of it. There is only one bit of new evidence that appears in it, and that is some subsequent advice that came from Mr Jaeschke. I will come to that in a minute.On the issue of misleading, the minister said last Thursday in the parliament that he was not aware of anything untoward in relation to the affairs of the Groom FEC. This is despite the fact that he was rung on 18 December by his branch treasurer, who told him of her concerns. Didn't you think there was something untoward then, Minister? The very next day, the minister attended a meeting—it was held at his home—where the issue was discussed and approved. Didn't you think, Minister—from the discussions at that meeting—that there was something untoward that required you to do something? The minister attended another meeting on 20 March where the matter was again discussed. He told us in the parliament today that he knew of the scam arrangements whereby a cheque to the caterer for the Costello function was repaid so that head office could claim the GST input tax credits. He was aware that his own fundraiser was going to be better off to the tune of $826. Didn't you think, Minister, that there was something untoward about a nice little arrangement that said to the Groom FEC, `You cannot claim the input tax credits'—which is effectively what you have done—`unless you pay the GST'? There is something untoward about that, Minister. The minister was also aware of accounting advice, because he referred to it in his statement today, that said that the scam contravened the tax act. There is no point hiding behind his explanation about what internal auditors might have done. The FEC sought and paid for accounting advice. This was so serious that the FEC had to pay something like $250 for the accounting advice. This was no small item of expenditure—it was almost a third of what the rort was supposed to be producing by way of a benefit for the FEC. But the executive were so concerned that they actually commissioned accounting advice. They thought it was untoward. They were trying to get you to focus on it, Minister, but you told the House that, from all of the information available to you, you thought that there was nothing untoward. You also knew that Mrs Watts was so incensed that your own party was taking her concerns seriously that she resigned. Don't you think that shows that she thought there was something untoward? It is true that not every one of us who is a member of a branch is expected to know the fine details of all the accounts. But I will tell you what: everyone on our side would know if their treasurer had resigned in protest about your inaction; and that is what she did. Don't tell me that you had no understanding of what the problem was and that you did not think there was anything untoward. But that is what you told the parliament: you had no knowledge of anything untoward in relation to it. You have admitted that you knew that this same person, Mrs Watts, wrote to the federal Treasurer and that the matter was taken up with you. You have since admitted that. A person not only resigned but also wrote to the Treasurer, and the Treasurer's office raised the matter with you—and you still do not think there is anything untoward? This beggars belief, Minister. That is why you have misled the House. What you have been involved in is a complete understanding not only of the scam but also of concerns within your party about the scam. We read in one of the newspapers on the weekend that you said you thought this issue would go away because some journalist had raised it with you but had indicated they were not going to pursue it. So concerned are you for probity and responsibility in discharging your duties that your attitude is: if it doesn't get out in the media, we can cover it up. The problem for you is that there are decent members of your branch, and these are no Johnny-come-latelies; these are people who have been members of your branch for many years. One of them has been a member for 52 years—and it is no small matter when someone resigns after 52 years. That person's wife, who is the treasurer of the branch, resigned because you would not do anything. You go around the country saying, `The GST is a simple new tax;' you go around the country saying that it is going to close off the black economy; you go around the country saying, `If you have any examples of people rorting it, let me know and I will follow them up.' And yet you do nothing. You also knew, Minister—to add to this `no knowledge of anything untoward'—that the matter had been referred to the federal secretary of the Liberal Party. We know that because the minutes of February tell us that Mr Jaeschke was claiming to rely on advice from the federal secretariat. But when it was pointed out to him that the accountants' advice directly contradicted the advice he said he was relying on, including from the federal secretariat, he found a convenient excuse to leave the meeting very quickly, so embarrassed was he by the advice that your branch had commissioned and paid for. That is why you have misled the House, Minister. There is a litany of evidence now, including from your own mouth, that shows that you had full knowledge of this. You cannot come into this place and say that you cannot be expected to be across the technical details and that that absolves you. You knew of the scam, you condoned the scam, you failed to act when the scam was drawn to your attention, and then you hoped that you could cover it up. It is on those grounds that you should be sacked: you misled this parliament last Thursday when you said you knew nothing about it. The second issue goes to the failure to act, and this is terribly important in this case. We have a minister and a Treasurer saying by way of taunt to us, `If the member for Hotham has any advice, let him come forward and I can guarantee that we'll follow it up.' But the Treasurer has not only information coming through their member of parliament who is a member of the ministry but also direct advice from the person in question—the person who resigned—advising the Treasurer, `Something is wrong here.' She did the right thing in response to the Treasurer's call to arms, so to speak. We know how the Treasurer likes to get up from time to time in this place and say that he is against tax rorters. Well, he might be against tax rorters, but he is not against tax rorters in the Liberal Party—not the Treasurer. This is a Treasurer who has one rule for the Liberal Party and one rule for everyone else. That is what is so dishonest about this whole exercise, apart from the misleading.The other claim that the minister makes—a claim he continued to repeat over the weekend—and for which he needs to be censured, is that everything was done by the Groom FEC in accordance with advice from the Brisbane branch. That is correct, is it not, Minister? Isn't that your assertion—that everything was done in accordance with advice from the Brisbane branch of the FEC? The trouble is that on 14 June 2000 a letter was sent from Mr Jaeschke, the director of the Liberal Party in Queensland, who now happens to be the director in South Australia. I notice that the Prime Minister's little inquiry into the Queensland branch does not extend to where Mr Jaeschke has now taken up camp, which it should if he has been into this rort and this scam in relation to not only Groom but also, as we understand it, other electorates. Despite the fact that the federal director of the Liberal Party as recently as Friday said that this was a one-off for Groom, the minutes do not say that, and no doubt the Prime Minister has now found out that it is more widespread. But we will have the opportunity to pursue that at another stage in this parliament. But why would the Prime Minister order an investigation when the director of the Liberal Party was saying as recently as Friday and, as I understand it, Saturday, that this was a one-off? It is not one-off, as far as we are aware. I tell you who has to come clean: the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party. Do not come in here with diversions about what else needs to be made available. They should come clean on the information that they have been advising their branches. Let the Queensland branch be put on display in terms of all of its records and, while we are at it, let us try to find out what is going on in the South Australian branch, where the perpetrator of this scheme, on the face of things, is now in residence. The memo of 14 June from Mr Jaeschke says:Branches will not be required to charge the GST. Conversely, there will be no opportunity for them to claim back the GST.It is absolutely clear-cut. But we are talking about not only the memo of 14 June but also what the legislation itself explained when the tax system was brought in. I refer to the explanatory memorandum which was introduced by the Treasurer. Paragraph 3.15 of that document says:If a non-profit sub-entity with an annual turnover below the turnover threshold decides not to register—that is, the Groom FEC—it will not be liable for GST and will not be able to claim input tax credits.It is absolutely clear, and that is what Mr Jaeschke's announcement states. The explanatory memorandum goes on to say:Equally, the core entity—that is, the Liberal Party Queensland division—will not be liable for the GST and will not be entitled to claim the input tax credits of the unregistered non-profit sub-entity.That is what the explanatory memorandum says. There is no confusion or misunderstanding about this. We had the Prime Minister, the director of the Liberal Party, the Minister for Financial Services and Regulation and the Minister for Defence on TV saying that this was a misunderstanding. There is no misunderstanding—it is clear-cut. So when the Treasurer comes into this place in future and says to small businesses around the country, `The legislation is clear. The detail is clear. It is spelt out. There can be no misunderstanding,' he has to explain how he expects small businesses to understand it if he and his people cannot understand it. This is not just a rort, a mislead and a set of double standards; this exposes the complexity of this tax system. It is only the smarties who will get their way around it. Only people who are looking for the rorts will get around this. And we are exposing them in the Liberal Party through this exercise. When the Minister for Small Business gets up to speak there is something I want to know. We know that the advice sent out by Mr Jaeschke on 14 June 2000—not this year, but last year—said, `You can't do it.' Whatever the scheme is that has been whipped up, the formal advice to Liberal Party branches was, `You can't do it.' What I want to know from the minister is what additional advice they got that said that they could do it—because that is his defence. The minister's defence was that everything done by his FEC which he was aware of was done in accordance with advice from the federal Liberal Party in Queensland. We know what that advice was—it is in the memo dated 14 June 2000.So, Minister, the challenge to you, amongst others, today is to tell us what additional advice there was. You have referred to verbal advice from Mr Stewart in advance of your discussions with Mrs Watts. I think that is the only new piece of information that has actually appeared in what I understand the minister's statement to be today. The minister has to tell us what that advice is and where it is written down and he has to produce it. If his defence is that he is relying on the advice of the Queensland division of the Liberal Party, then he has to table that advice. So far the only advice that the Liberal Party in Queensland has given is what we have tabled, what we have brought out in the open.The other point that is terribly important in this is that the minister will try and say that the GST was paid. We know that $751.29 was paid. They are trying to claim that this was only a $75 shortfall. The problem for the minister is that the legislation says you cannot claim the input tax credits—and the Liberal Party secretariat on 24 August has admitted it has claimed a GST credit of $826—unless you pay one-eleventh of the total proceeds. You cannot claim one-eleventh of the $9,000 bill unless you have paid one-eleventh of the proceeds of the function, and the proceeds of the function were $18,350. What I want to know, Minister, is: has the Queensland branch of the Liberal Party paid more than $1,600 in GST to the tax office? If it has not, it cannot claim the $826. That is how the tax works.If you are going to tell small businesses around this country that you have one rule for them and another for yourselves, get up and say it. But on the evidence that we have produced you have been a disgrace in this place, you have ignored advice, you should be censured, but most of all you should resign. If the Prime Minister does not see your resignation, he should have the courage of his convictions to sack you because you have ignored all advice that has come your way, you have tried to pretend it is not a problem and you have covered up—you are caught out and you must go. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Is the motion seconded?JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McClelland—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Before I recognise the Minister for Small Business, I hope the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is aware that I deliberately did not interrupt him. If he cares to check the Hansard record he will find that on a number of occasions—in common with other people in the place—he did not in fact address his remarks through the chair. I just want to remind members of their obligation to address their remarks through the chair.15:47:0030253Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANEWN6GroomLPMinister for Small Business10—No minister takes a censure motion in any way but very seriously. In terms of the issues raised— 83TRudd, Kevin, MPMr Rudd—Get off your feet, Costello.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I noted that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard with the sort of courtesy one expects in the parliament, without interruption, and I expect the same sort of courtesy to be offered to the Minister for Small Business.4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr Leo McLeay—He needs a lot of it, because he's got nothing to say.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Chief Opposition Whip is warned!WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—I am not sure where I was up to due to the series of interjections, but let me just go back to the start. The shadow Treasurer has made a number of assertions in this House in regard to what I have said and done. He made an assertion that I have been going around the country saying that this is a simple new tax, or words to that effect. I am repeatedly on the record on a number of occasions saying how much I admire small business for what they have done in participating in the transition to a new tax. Small business know that we need this new tax system which has been put in place; they know that the tax system needs reform. They knew that it was going to be difficult process. I have repeatedly acknowledged that it has been a difficult time for small business, but I have thanked and congratulated small business for their participation in taking Australia into a modern era and a modern tax system. I acknowledged that it has been difficult for small business; I acknowledged right from the start of my ministry that some small businesses had greater difficulty with the transition than others. The shadow Treasurer is saying that I went around the country saying to small business that this is a simple new tax. Any transition to a new tax system is always going to take time for people to adjust to. As I said, small business is working through that process. I do not believe that that transition process has finished. Our government has on a number of occasions taken steps to make that transition easier. On 22 February we announced alternatives to the method of submitting a BAS—and the list of implementations of easier processes has gone on.I note that the shadow Treasurer also is relying heavily on a memo that was issued by Graham Jaeschke, from memory in the middle of June 2000. I addressed this issue in an interview yesterday when I arrived at Canberra airport. From memory it was raised by a group of journalists, some of whom are in the gallery right now. I recall that in my response I said that, yes, the Jaeschke memo of mid-June did exist, that in fact that memo in my opinion had been superseded by a memo signed by Margaret Watts, which I understood was tabled in this House last week. I have not been through those documents—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—What?WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—I have not been through those documents for a few days and my memory in the House is—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—You had better be careful, you have misled enough already.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will exercise the same courtesies which were extended to him.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—As I said, it is my understanding that this memo was tabled in the House last Thursday. On the off-chance that it was not, I am going to table it. I am happy to table this memo. Unfortunately, Mrs Watts has used such small type that my eyesight is going to let me down if I do not put my glasses on. In this memo to members of the Groom FECE—Opposition members interjecting—WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—Mr Speaker, I am having trouble hearing over the interjections.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister has the call.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—The memo to members of the Groom FECE is entitled `Re: Our financial position with regard to registering for the GST'. Let me again remind the House that this memo is signed `Yours faithfully, Margaret R. Watts, Honourable Treasurer, FEC'. This memo is dated 13 December, and I understand that it was presented to the Groom FEC at the meeting at my house on the day that I was announced a minister. It is dated 13 December 2000. Let me just read a few parts of it. This paragraph states that Graham Jaeschke: ... 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—I assume, Mr Speaker, that `them' is Mr Jaeschke—for the account less the GST and they will pay the whole account and recoup the GST component.She goes on to say:There is nothing in writing from him.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—In writing? There is something in writing.WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—I was quoting from the memo. The memo says quite clearly that there is nothing in writing from him. Mr Speaker, with your permission, I table the document. Assertions have been made that the GST on the caterers' account has not been paid in full. That is complete nonsense. It concerns me that a man who aspires to be the Treasurer of this country—assuming that is the position they would give him if the Labor Party were to ever win an election—said that the GST to the restaurant was not paid in full. The restaurant issues accounts, as do all businesses, which are inclusive of the GST.DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—I did not say that!WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—I would have to check the Hansard on that. I can assure this House that the restaurant bill was paid fully inclusive of GST. I have obviously spoken to the proprietor of that restaurant. I have to say as an aside that it is an extraordinarily fine restaurant, that it has spectacular views from Toowoomba of the Brisbane Valley and that it was with pleasure and with pride that the FEC of Toowoomba and I hosted the Peter Costello dinner at that function.Government members interjecting—WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—I do remember that the Treasurer gave a good speech, but on with the issue. The proprietor of that restaurant has assured me that the bill was paid in full, inclusive of GST. In terms of the other issues raised by the shadow Treasurer, I have quoted extensively from a document today—DT4Crean, Simon, MPMr Crean—She said it was cheating!10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I warn the Deputy Leader of the Opposition!WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr IAN MACFARLANE—If `she' is Heather Gardner, the proprietor of Picnic Point, I am not aware of that comment. There are a lot of things said in this House whose origins I am not aware of. Earlier today, in answer to a question, I quoted extensively from a document that outlines the sequence of events relating to this matter. I said that my attention had since been drawn to minutes of a meeting of the FEC on 21 November, a copy of which I did table. In those minutes it was noted:The Chairperson notified the Treasurer—that is, Mrs Watts—that C. Galtos and G. Jaeschke—the state president and state director—request that tax invoices for the dinner be forwarded to them.As I tabled that during the answer to an earlier question, obviously it supersedes the memo to which the shadow Treasurer referred and, as I say, I earlier submitted a document signed by Mrs Watts which also supersedes even that statement—that is, it is dated later. It is my understanding that David Watts said on the ABC yesterday—and it is certainly my belief—that I did not have an intimate understanding of this process. I was aware that the state office had raised an issue in terms of how accounts over $2,000 were to be handled. That method was first raised with me by Neville Stewart. It was then raised with me by Margaret Watts in a telephone conversation, and it was then raised in an FEC meeting at my house the day after the phone conversation with Mrs Watts. To my understanding, there was a debate, there were arguments put from both sides and the method was adopted after that vote.As I said in my statement, at that meeting and at the meeting in January the FEC sought further advice on that process, in the initial stage from head office and then from an independent accountancy firm in Toowoomba. The FEC also asked the head office in Brisbane for an explanation in writing of the process. The Groom FEC did that for one reason, as far as I understand it: because of their strong desire to conform with tax law and the requirements of them as an FEC, a not-for-profit organisation. Although I was absent from the January meeting, and from the part of the meeting where this was discussed, I urged them to at all times ensure they met their tax obligations. To the best of my knowledge, and from these requests for letters, they did just that. I did not come into parliament to be involved in muckraking. I did not come into parliament to waste hours and hours of time trying to defame people's characters. The Hansard record would show that I do not attack people's character. In the past two sitting days of parliament, we have seen a series of attacks addressed at me and some have been directed at the Treasurer. To the people outside this chamber, and to the people in this gallery, this sort of process makes no sense at all. The taxpayers—which I assume most of these people are—pay for this place to produce good policy, and that is what the government have done. The government have addressed the issue of taxation reform, which we always knew would have a difficult transition. We always knew that. I am grateful that the Prime Minister gave me the opportunity to be part of this ministry to assist in that transition. (Time expired)16:02:0030256McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLANDJK6BartonALP00—The government certainly addressed an issue of taxation: special treatment for the Liberal Party—one rule for the government and another for struggling small businesses.2K6Brough, Mal, MPJK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—The member for Longman interjects. The member for Longman might get up and tell us what arrangements he had in respect of his own FEC funds. I noticed that the Minister for Small Business read a number of documents with his glasses on, but he certainly turned a blind eye to what has happened with this transaction since 18 December. How sincere can the minister be when he said that he received from the Queensland branch a detailed memorandum with attached official documentation regarding the GST liabilities of non-entities— and I think it is fair to say that the minister acceded that he received that advice—and he then said that that was superseded by a memorandum he received from Margaret Watts, which was a one paragraph citation saying that there was nothing in writing from the Queensland branch regarding these changed arrangements?That memorandum was dated 13 December. What the minister did not say was when he received that memorandum. I would surmise it was at the 19 December meeting of the FEC. In the meantime, on 18 December he received the phone call from Margaret Watts, saying that she thought this arrangement was cheating. She specifically said, before he saw this document, that she thought that the arrangement was cheating. The minister was asked specifically in question time, and he had a chance to clarify this then, about the `method' he used in his earlier question—a revised method of calculating the GST by the Queensland branch. What was the method? He said it related to instructions about sending in accounts over $2,000, but he did not say what the effect of those instructions was. Surely any halfway competent member of parliament—let alone someone who was to become a minister—would say, `Hold on. This instruction departs from the official advice you gave us earlier, attaching formal documentation.' Of course he knew it was a scam. That will come to how he has misled the parliament big time and offensively. As members of parliament, we should all be offended by his treatment of the fundamental institution of our democracy, which is democracy based on the principle of responsible government. Ministers of the Crown are responsible to the parliament elected by the people. This minister has deliberately misled the parliament, it is an affront to our democratic principles and he should resign. If he does not resign, he should be sacked.Someone breaking into a house and knocking off a television set does not become any less criminal, any less dishonest, because when they are found out they go and knock on the front door and take it back. That did not even happen here. The advice that the accountant provided—WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr Ian Macfarlane—You don't understand tax law. JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—The minister says I do not understand it. All right, Minister. Let us have a look at part 165 of the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act, shall we? It says that the object of the part is to set aside schemes. Minister, this may be something that you might want to listen to when you say that I do not understand it. Division 165-1 says:The object of this Division is to deter schemes to give entities benefits by reducing GST, increasing refunds or altering the timing of payments of GST or refunds.You have a couple there, Minister. Surely you would agree with that. Surely you have had altered the timing of the refund and/or the timing of the GST payment. But in terms of comprehending this issue, you have paid $751.29 when the shadow Treasurer has shown that the GST payable on the proceeds of the function—which earned, I understand, about $18,350—was something like $1,600. So that is a pretty handy little procedure for small businesses to follow if they follow your example, isn't it? They pay a portion of the GST in respect of services that they obtain from suppliers—WN6Macfarlane, Ian, MPMr Ian Macfarlane—The GST was paid.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—You say the GST was paid?10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The minister will not respond, and the member for Barton will address his remarks through the chair.JK6McClelland, Robert, MPMr McCLELLAND—The GST was paid at the restaurant to the caterer, Minister, but that transaction was voided. The GST ultimately paid to the caterer does not equate to the GST owed to the taxpayers of the Commonwealth. The taxpayers of the Commonwealth are owed a total of $1,600, less what you paid when were you caught out, $751. Minister, in terms of not understanding the scheme, part 165-80 says that there is a mandatory penalty in respect of these non-payments: The avoider mentioned in section 165-5 must pay the Commonwealth a penalty, which is double what is owed. So the taxpayers are still out of pocket by a considerable amount. And here you are, advising small businesses on how they should comply with the new tax scheme.In the last quarter of the last financial year, we saw a 177 per cent increase in bankruptcies. All commentators say that that increase was substantially caused by the credit squeeze imposed by the GST. How many of those business bankruptcies could have been avoided, Minister, if these businesses could have done exactly what the Liberal Party did—that is, receive their input tax credit in one quarter and subsequently decide, at their leisure, to pay only a portion of the GST payable to the Australian Taxation Office? How many small businesses would have been able to survive, I ask you, Minister, through the chair? You have clearly one standard for small business, literally battling to stay afloat under the burden of the GST, and you have another standard for yourselves.The substance of the motion of censure is that the minister has misled the parliament. I noticed that last Thursday he was essentially pleading the fifth—that is, a colloquialism for the fifth amendment of the United States constitution where you plead the right to silence: `I say nothing; you prove your case against me.' He said, for instance, in the substantive motion itself: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.No proof in terms of the knowledge that he has? At the meeting of his own FEC on 23 January, one of the members, a Mr Robert Redden, said that `due to the delicate nature of the inquiry' the accountants— that is, the accountants from whom the advice was sought—`are not to keep any records'. Here is a situation where the minister's FEC is voting on a conspiracy and, indeed, conspiring to destroy documents after official advice is sought. This is indeed a conspiracy to defraud the Australian people. The minister has misled the Australian people about his knowledge of that scheme. Again, Minister, it is an affront to all decent members here that you have not resigned already, and you should be sacked. Look at the minister's answers last week:I am not aware of anything untoward that has been done in the FEC. At another time, he said:There is nothing untoward happening in the books of the FEC.If there was nothing untoward happening in the books of the FEC, why were they audited up until the date that the FECE treasurer resigned, 23 January? That is an abnormal period. Why were the books of the Queensland branch itself audited up to 31 March? It was because it had hit the fan, and you were trying to cover your tracks.The facts of the matter are, Minister, that you clearly knew what was going on. You knew on 18 December. You knew on 19 December, when Margaret Watts specifically expressed her disagreement with the scheme proposed and said it was cheating on the government. You knew at the meeting on 20 March, when you chastised Margaret Watts for even raising the issue, about the potential for bringing down the government. But first of all, Minister, it is going to bring down you. It is only a matter of time. Political commentators have said that, if we were not so close to an election, you would have gone by now. You should go, not because we are facing an election but because the Australian people are owed some decency. Our Australian democracy depends on responsible government. Minister, you have most grievously offended that principle, and you should resign.Among that whole history of transactions, we have a conversation that you had with the Treasurer's office. There was some prevarication in your stance in this regard, but I do not think you are denying that, in or about late February, you had a conversation with the Treasurer's office. I have to say that it beggars belief. If one of my shadow ministry colleagues got their staff member to ring me about a matter such as this, I would be deeply offended. It beggars belief that the Treasurer himself did not pick up the phone to another minister and say, `We've got a problem here, brother. I've got a letter from someone who says that they were the former treasurer of your branch, expressing concern about a tax cheating arrangement.' It beggars belief that that could be the case. The Treasurer himself clearly misled parliament when he said in his answer on this matter:I have had no discussion with the Minister for Small Business about any scam involving the Groom electorate or any other electorate—none whatsoever.He said later: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.Of course they sought it. He got a letter from Margaret Watts on 20 February. The Treasurer himself has misled parliament. In terms of standards, I recall that Gough Whitlam required Jim Cairns, his Treasurer and deputy leader, to resign for misleading parliament. The same standards should be applied to this minister. Other examples include: John Brown was required to resign in 1987; Alexander Downer apologised in 1996 about misleading statements he had made in respect of the DIFF scheme; also in 1996 the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasurer, Senator Brian Gibson, resigned from the ministry and apologised for inadvertently misleading parliament—and, Minister, you have deliberately deceived parliament and the people of Australia; in 1997 Senator Amanda Vanstone admitted to inadvertently misleading parliament and apologised; and in 1999 Senator Nick Minchin also admitted to inadvertently misleading parliament and apologised.Minister, we have no apology from you. We have no apology whatsoever. You are trying to tough it out in circumstances where you clearly knew that a fraud had been perpetrated—a fraud being defined as an unlawful attempt to extract a benefit from the Commonwealth to which you were not entitled. Indeed, as we have indicated, that fraud still has not been rectified. Despite the involvement of the office of the Minister for Small Business and the office of the Treasurer, the fraud still remains, the public are still out of purse because of the fraud and the people who have perpetrated it are still sitting as ministers of the Crown. That is an outrage, and our democracy has been offended by it. It strikes at the heart of the concept of responsible government, where ministers of the Crown are responsible to the people's elected representatives. In Great Britain, it constitutes a matter of contempt. In New South Wales, the Privileges Committee specifically required a member to apologise for what had occurred. Minister, you have gone beyond your opportunity to apologise. You had that opportunity before question time today, or at least during question time. You have not even given us the dignity of an apology. Minister, you should resign, and the Treasurer should resign shortly after you, because you have both offended the fundamentals of our democratic principles and you have offended small businesses who are out there struggling to keep afloat. You are basically members of the born to rule class who consider that there is one rule for you and another for struggling small businesses who are suffering under the load of the GST. (Time expired)10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I would remind the member for Barton and members of the House that I chose not to interrupt him, but his latter remarks were in fact anything but directed through the chair.16:17:0030259Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—To have the member for Barton accusing members on this side of the House of being part of a born to rule brigade when the member for Barton is a third generation hereditary peer of the Labor Party comes very rich indeed. As the member for Barton demonstrated in his rather anxious struggle to fill his 15 minutes of time in this censure motion of the Minister for Small Business, this is a scalp hunt which has run out of puff. The member for Barton may well be a good barrister, but when it comes to parliamentary oratory, he should at the very least take lessons from the three ACTU presidents in his ranks who at least know what it is like to address a meeting and to get a bit of fire into it.I am very happy to stand here at this dispatch box to defend the member for Groom, the Minister for Small Business. He is a fine minister, he is an honest man and he has the total support of the government and members on this side of the House. The Minister for Small Business has said in this House that he was not aware of anything untoward going on. Yes, of course he was aware of a squabble between some people in his conference about what was and what was not appropriate in reference to the way certain moneys were handled. Yes, he had had a call from a conference treasurer saying that there was an issue; but a call from a conference treasurer does not constitute a problem; it does not constitute a scam. The treasurers of Liberal Party branches are not the general secretaries of trade unions, they are not presidents of the ACTU, and they do not need to threaten members of the Liberal Party in the same way as presidents of the ACTU obviously threaten members on the other side of the House. What was the response of the Minister for Small Business? Quite properly he said, `The FEC'—the federal electorate conference—`can sort this matter out. Let the FEC and the divisions sort these things out because it is entirely appropriate that the lay party handle administrative matters of this type.' That is exactly what the member for Groom, the Minister for Small Business, did.What has really been happening here? This particular organisation had some confusion about who could charge GST and who could claim input tax credits. I wish the Liberal Party were different from every other volunteer organisation in this country, but, as the Minister for Small Business has said, we have had at times a difficult transition from one tax system to another, and branches of the Liberal Party are no different from any other volunteer organisations. They are no different from branches of the Labor Party when it comes to sometimes struggling with changes to the tax system.The important thing is that these matters were considered, they were dealt with and they were cleared up. There was a misunderstanding and it was fixed, and that is precisely how things should happen. The GST was paid. That is the bedrock of what has happened—the GST was paid. In fact, nothing untoward has happened here. But, even if something untoward had happened here, under the way the Liberal Party works, it is not the responsibility of members of parliament to sort out the administration of their branc-hes. Under the way the Liberal Party works, all financial matters are handled by the lay party. Financial matters are dealt with by conferences or by divisions. 83VEmerson, Craig, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Rankin is just simply abusing the tolerance exercised by the chair.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—So what is happening here is that almost a week of this parliament's time has been wasted on a matter which is not properly the responsibility of any member of this parliament; it is certainly not the responsibility of the Minister for Small Business. In the end, what is the quantum of this enormous scandal that the Labor Party thinks should dominate the debate of the national parliament? It is $75. Members opposite have wasted the time of this House for two days running over $75. That indicates an opposition that is completely bereft of ideas and completely bankrupt of any policy of its own. Therefore, it is trying to bung on this smokescreen to try to distract the attention of the Australian people from the fact that members opposite, if they ever do get into government, through their policy of roll-back, will inflict nothing but pain and suffering on the millions of small businesses in this country.As I said, why is this happening? It is happening because members opposite woke to some pretty horrendous newspaper headlines last Thursday that called into question the honesty and the integrity of the Leader of the Opposition. Members opposite were desperate for a distraction. They were desperate for something to take the nation's attention away from the terrible hole that the Leader of the Opposition had got into through his prolixity, through his indecision and through his inability to stick to a story.What was the Leader of the Opposition's story that ultimately has given rise to the last two days of distraction? The Leader of the Opposition's story was that his daughter had been refused treatment at a number of Perth hospitals and had been driven from accident and emergency to accident and emergency to accident and emergency, and eventually had only got her acute appendicitis treated because she went to a private hospital. This `story', this `fib', this lie was repeated by three Labor spokespeople in the course of last week. We now know that it was not true. It certainly was not true. Nothing had happened in quite the way that the Leader of the Opposition said it had.What we saw last week was a Leader of the Opposition caught in the headlights of public attention and revealed at last in his true colours as a person who embellishes the bad news, who fibs about the facts and, when caught, blusters to try to cover up, and blames other people, including even his own family, to try to get out of the problem he is facing. First of all, he said that his daughter was refused admission to a hospital; that was the first lie. Then he said that his daughter had had to wait five hours for treatment; that was the second lie. Then he said that he had never raised this issue publicly anywhere until it was raised with him on AM radio last week; and that was the third lie. As the Leader of the Opposition blundered and blustered away in the parliament last Wednesday, me thinks a cock crowed.UK6Thomson, Kelvin, MPMr Kelvin Thomson—Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The minister may have run out of things to say in order to defend the Minister for Small Business, but he is clearly not relevant to the terms of the censure motion moved.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Wills will resume his seat. This has been a debate conducted largely without unnecessary interruption, to the credit of all members of the House. A censure motion does not have the sorts of constraints that the member for Wills implies.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—What has given rise to debates in this House last Thursday and again today—849Sidebottom, Sid, MP10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Braddon is warned!EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—is the embarrassment and the humiliation suffered by the Leader of the Opposition, who was caught out in what can only be described as a lie. That is why we are having this debate. What a desperate defence we have seen from members opposite. First of all, we have a statement from the Leader of the Opposition, which completely destroyed his credibility. Then, in order to try to justify this, members opposite ran around saying, `At least people are now focusing on health as an issue.' Then, having made that defence, they came into parliament the next day and focused on anything but health; they are focusing on the terrible $75 scandal that allegedly happened in the FEC of Groom. If the Leader of the Opposition was so happy with what he had done last week, if the Leader of the Opposition was so satisfied with the result of his charming little story to the Labor caucus, why did he come into this House on Thursday and grab at affairs in the federal electorate conference of Groom with all the enthusiasm of a drowning man clutching at straws, if I might mix my metaphors? Do you know what we have been seeing over the last few weeks? We have been seeing a Leader of the Opposition who looks less and less like the Kim Beazley of old and more and more like the Paul Keating of old. We all know that the Leader of the Opposition has been told by the hard men around him that he needs to show a bit more mongrel. That is what he has been told: that he needs to show a bit more mongrel. That is why we are seeing the Leader of the Opposition come into this House day after day not to talk about policy, not to talk about ideas, not to talk about vision for the future of Australia, but to rake over the most extraordinary trivia and to try to impugn the integrity and the decency of an honest man and a good minister.If there was one pathetic thing in this House last week, it was the sight of the Leader of the Opposition resembling nothing so much as that American comedian John Candy—you will remember him, Mr Speaker—trying to imitate Clint Eastwood. There was the Leader of the Opposition looking like John Candy trying to do a Clint Eastwood impersonation. It was just not convincing. That is why we have now got the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Hotham, gleefully going into the fray. I suppose it is easer for him to come on the mongrel because he is so used to it from his days as a union heavy. Of course, the member for Hotham announced, `I'm back.' Yes, I am sure that the Australian people have noticed over the last couple of days that he is back all right—ranting and raving at them like the union heavy he was for so many years, snarling and sneering and spitting at them as if he were addressing the brothers and the comrades at a union meeting, as he did for so many years.This is a government of great integrity. This is a government which is quite prepared to subject its own political foundation to a tax audit. Members opposite have said that there has been some kind of special treatment for the Liberal Party. A tax audit: that is special treatment, is it? Gee whiz! That is the kind of special treatment that not too many members opposite would like. This is a party of integrity. It is a party which has free and frank internal debate. It is not a party which is controlled with an iron fist from head office. It is not a party which is bought by the union movement, as members opposite have been. This is a government which is quite prepared to have a tax audit into the affairs of the Queensland Liberal Party. It is a government which expects that audit to be made public, because it believes in integrity and is quite happy to be judged by its standards.I am very happy to defend the Minister for Small Business, the junior minister in my portfolio. He has been remarkably hardworking. He is remarkably knowledgeable of small business matters. The Minister for Small Business has masterminded a whole series of changes which have helped the small businesses of Australia. He was the champion of the business activity statement simplification. He led arguments to see entity taxation proposals withdrawn. He led the debate on a better treatment for contractors. This is a man who has done his best for the small businesses of Australia. I know that the small businesses of Australia want someone like the member for Groom as their minister, not someone like the Leader of the Opposition, who has been shown up over the last few days by smokescreen Crean. The Leader of the Opposition was in desperate trouble. He had dug a hole and could not get himself out. He asked the member for Hotham to do so and, in so doing, the member for Hotham has shown up the terrible weaknesses of the Leader of the Opposition. Question put:That the motion (Mr Crean's) be agreed to.16:37:00The House divided. (Mr Speaker—Mr Neil Andrew) 65Adams, D.G.H.Albanese, A.N.Andren, P.J.Beazley, K.C.Bevis, A.R.Brereton, L.J.Burke, A.E.Byrne, A.M.Corcoran, A.K.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.Latham, M.W.Lawrence, C.M.Lee, M.J.Livermore, K.F.Macklin, J.L.Martin, S.P.McClelland, R.B.McFarlane, J.S.McLeay, L.B.McMullan, R.F.Melham, D.Morris, A.A.Mossfield, F.W.Murphy, J. P.O'Byrne, M.A.O'Connor, G.M.O'Keefe, N.P.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.Smith, S.F.Snowdon, W.E.Tanner, L.Thomson, K.J.Wilkie, K.Zahra, C.J.75Abbott, A.J.Anderson, J.D.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.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.Nehl, G. B.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.Worth, P.M.Swan, W.M.Fischer, T.A.* denotes tellerQuestion so resolved in the negative.ZD4Howard, John, MPMr Howard—Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper.Personal Explanations3026216:42:0030262Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNERYU5MelbourneALP00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make two personal explanations.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—Yes.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.YU5Tanner, Lindsay, MPMr TANNER—In question time last Thursday the Minister for Finance and Administration stated that the member for Perth and I had secretly visited investment banks to get advice on how to sell off the profitable bits of Telstra. That is a lie. That is a totally untrue statement. Secondly, on Sunday, 26 August the Minister for Defence on the ABC program Insiders stated, in the context of discussion about the Maritime Union of Australia:... the monies that have been paid to Lindsay Tanner in the period since by the MUA.No moneys have been paid to me by the MUA, nor will any moneys be paid to me by the MUA.16:44:0030263Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUSQJ4CalwellIND00—Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented?QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—I do.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Please proceed.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—An article that appeared on page 1 of this morning's Age newspaper is a scurrilous attempt by my political opponents to smear me in the lead-up to the federal election. The article contains a series of outrageous lies, which unfortunately the Age was prepared to print. I will now put the actual facts of the matter on the record. Mrs Catherine McGovern, a staffer from my electorate office, has unfortunately been manipulated by my political opponents in an attempt to damage me. She was secretly recruited into the Labor Party in May this year to act as a spy, passing information from my office to Senator Kim Carr and his staffer Ms Maria Vamvakinou, who is also the Labor candidate for my seat of Calwell.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell must indicate where he has been misrepresented, in a personal explanation.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—All this is misrepresentation, Mr Speaker. The account attributed to Mrs McGovern in the Age is completely false. In relation to the stationery order, Mrs McGovern has never spoken to me about this matter, either before or after she went on leave on 30 July. She has never raised any concerns with me. In fact, it was I who acted with propriety in cancelling this order on 27 July once I discovered that there were problems with it. Hence no payment—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell has indicated where he has been misrepresented. Does he have a separate issue to raise?QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—Hence no payment has been made by the Commonwealth to this company. DOFA has stated that there is nothing to inquire about in terms of my handling of this matter. Nevertheless, because the Australian Services Union has asked for an investigation and I have acted with complete propriety, I have absolutely no problem with a federal government inquiry in relation to this matter and the way in which I have handled problems which I discovered in relation to the printing company. However, I believe that such an inquiry is likely to expose certain—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell has had a good deal of licence, by any standard, to outline where he has been misrepresented. I invite him to wind up his remarks.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—The article also quotes Mrs McGovern saying she was dismissed on 30 July. This is not true. I shall not take up the time of the House with the details, but merely wish to point out that as late as 21 August Mrs McGovern and the ASU were submitting personal leave application forms to me for approval. I approved these applications on advice from DOFA.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell has indicated where a number of people have been misrepresented. He must come to a point where he has been misrepresented if he wishes to continue to address the House.QJ4Theophanous, Dr Andrew, MPDr THEOPHANOUS—It is outrageous that Senator Carr, Maria Vamvakinou and their mates have misused one of my staff members—10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Calwell will resume his seat. If he wishes to make a statement to the House, the 90-second statements and adjournment debates allow him to do just that.Questions to the Speaker302633026316:47:0030263Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—Mr Speaker, I rise under standing order 150. On 27 March 2001 I placed a question on notice to the Treasurer concerning revenue estimates for the GST, question No. 2467. On 5 June I placed a question on the Notice Paper to the Minister for Finance and Administration concerning ADI, question No. 2637. 10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—The member for Chifley knows I only need the question number.QI4Mr PRICE—I beg your pardon. On 7 June, I asked question No. 2689 to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence and, on 20 June, question No. 2712, again to the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence. I would be most grateful if you were to write to the ministers seeking a response to my questions on notice.30264SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER10000PON/A10—I will follow up the matters raised by the member for Chifley, as the standing orders provide.302641The ClerkThe Clerk—Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows and copies will be referred to the appropriate ministers:3026419ET483NMr Bevis;Ms HallTo the Honourable the Speaker and the Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:The petition of the undersigned shows:(1) our strong support for our independent national public broadcaster, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation;(2) our concern at the sustained political and financial pressures that the Howard Government has placed on the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC), including:(a) the 1996 and 1997 Budget cuts which reduced funding to the ABC by $66 million per year; and(b) its failure to fund the ABC's transition to digital broadcasting;(3) our concern about recent decisions made by the ABC Board and senior management, including the Managing Director Jonathan Shier, which we believe may undermine the independence and high standards of the ABC including:(a) the cut to funding for News and Current Affairs;(b) the reduction of the ABC's in-house production capacity;(c) the closure of the ABC TV Science Unit;(d) the circumstances in which the decision was made not to renew the contract of Media Watch presenter Mr Paul Barry; and(e) consideration of the Bales Report, which recommended the extension of the ABC's commercial activities in ways that may be inconsistent with the ABC Act and the Charter;Your petitioners ask that House should :(1) protect the independence of the ABC;(2) ensure that the ABC receives adequate funding;(3) call upon the Government to rule out its support for the privatisation of any part of the ABC, particularly JJJ, ABC On-line and the ABC Shops; and(4) call upon the ABC Board and senior management to:(a) fully consult with the people of Australia about the future of our ABC;(b) address the crisis in confidence felt by both staff and the general community; and(c) not approve any commercial activities inconsistent with the ABC Act and Charter.7Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis (from 7 citizens), and12Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 12 citizens).30264309ET4Mr BevisTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the complexity and unfairness of the Goods and Services Tax.In particular the House's attention is drawn to the additional burden placed on small business, especially with the completion of the Business Activity Statement, and to the inequitable application of the tax to charities, caravan park residents and health products.Further, attention is drawn to the detrimental effect that the tax has had on Australian families, pensioners and self-funded retirees.Your petitioners therefore call on the House to rollback the Goods and Services Tax to make it simpler and fairer. 309Mr BevisET4Mr Bevis (from 309 citizens).302652283NMs HallTo the Speaker and Members of the Parliament of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned believe that the GST should be legally required to be shown as a seperate item on all receipts.We do not believe the GST should be allowed to become a hidden tax. Australian people have a right to know exactly what GST they are paying.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to ensure the GST is shown on receipts.22Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 22 citizens).3026510783NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the Government take action to preserve bulkbilling and to strengthen the Medicare system.The cessation of bulkbilling by many general practitioners as a direct result of government policy has caused great hardship to many local residents on low incomes particularly the elderly and those with young children.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives introduce legislation to ensure that bulkbilling is preserved and that our Medicare system is strengthened.107Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 107 citizens).3026514083NMs HallTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament.We the undersigned request that the government reopen Belmont Medicare Office as there is no Medicare office between Charlestown and Lake Haven and there has been a drastic decline in the numbers of general practitioners bulkbilling.The closure of Belmont Medicare Office has caused great hardship to many local residents particularly the elderly and those with young children.Your petitioners request that the House of Representatives do everything in their power to ensure that Belmont Medicare Office is reopened as a matter of urgency.140Ms Hall83NMs Hall (from 140 citizens).302655683ZMrs IrwinTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House:. That since 1996, over 1,500 bank branches have closed throughout Australia, reducing communities access to financial services;. That since 1996, the fee for a transaction conducted in a banking branch has increased by as much as 400 per cent and that since 1997 banks' fee income from households has increased by 53 per cent;. In the last year the number of complaints made against banks increased by 22 per cent.Your petitioners believe that by closing bank branches and continuing to increase bank fees, banks are not meeting their social obligations to the community.We therefore pray that the House will immediately implement a `social charter' to ensure that banks properly recognise the needs of the community56Mrs Irwin83ZMrs Irwin (from 56 citizens).302657883ZMrs IrwinTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of the residents of Bankstown/Liverpool and its environs brings to the attention of the House our desperate concerns regarding the proposed expansion of Bankstown Airport.The noise, traffic and pollution generated by such an expansion will not only be catastrophic to the residents, it will devastate the quality of our lives as well as the value of our properties.The residents consider it vital that an Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be undertaken regarding any proposal to upgrade Bankstown Airport.The undersigned petitioners request therefore that the House not proceed with the proposal to expand Bankstown Airport to permit regional aircraft and/or 737 jet aircraft from operating in and out of that facility.Your petitioners humbly pray that your Honourable House take action to stop the expansion of Bankstown Airport.78Mrs Irwin83ZMrs Irwin (from 78 citizens).302663383ZMrs IrwinTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:We the undersigned, being residents of Miller, NSW and its environs, bring to the attention of the House our concerns regarding the proposed closing of the Miller branch of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia.This branch is an integral and important part of the local community. It serves many people who will have little access to banking facilities when the branch closes. Our area already has a population that has little chance of accessing services via the Internet or phone banking. Closing this branch will only service to disadvantage this community further.Your petitioners humbly pray that Honourable Members of the House condemn the actions of the Commonwealth Bank of Australia in closing the Miller branch.33Mrs Irwin83ZMrs Irwin (from 33 citizens).3026654XU5Mr LiebermanTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain residents of the States of New South Wales and Victoria, including electors of the Divisions of Farrer and Indi , draws to the attention of the House that the Commonwealth's military propellants and explosives manufacturing facility at Mulwala, constructed in 1943, is urgently in need of funding to modernise the plant. Failure to do so will lead to the direct loss of more than 335 jobs at Mulwala, and possibly another 300 jobs at Benalla, as well as several hundred other jobs supporting these facilities.Your petitioners therefore request the House to insist the government immediately makes funding available to upgrade this strategically and regionally significant Commonwealth facility.54Mr LiebermanXU5Mr Lieberman (from 54 citizens).3026622683CMs Jann McFarlaneTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in the Parliament of Australia.The petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the extremely high price of petrol and other fuels and the increase in the amount of tax on fuel due to:The Government's failure to keep its promise that the price of petrol and other fuels would not rise as a result of the new tax system, by reducing the excise by the full amount of the GST;The fuel indexation increases on 1 August 2000 and 1 February 2001, which will be significantly higher than usual because of the inflationary impact of the GST; andThe charging of the GST on the fuel excise, making it a tax-on-a-tax.Your petitioners therefore ask the House to:Hold the Government to its promise that its policies would not increase the price of petrol and other fuel;Support a full Senate inquiry into the taxation and pricing of petrol;Consider the best way to return the fuel tax windfall to Australian motorists.226Ms Jann McFarlane83CMs Jann McFarlane (from 226 citizens).3026612A8WMr PearceTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives in Parliament assembled:Whereas the 1998 Synod of the Anglican Diocese of Melbourne carried without dissent the following Motion:That this Synod regrets the Government's adoption of procedures for certain people seeking political asylum in Australia which exclude them from all public income support while withholding permission to work, thereby creating a group of beggars dependent on the Churches and charities for food and the necessities of life;and calls upon the Federal government to review such procedures immediately and remove all practices which are manifestly inhumane and in some cases in contravention of our national obligations as a signatory of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.We, therefore, the individual, undersigned Members of the St Andrew's Anglican Church, Rowville, Victoria 3178, petition the House of Representatives in support of the abovementioned Motion.And we, as in duty bound, will ever pray.12Mr PearceA8WMr Pearce (from 12 citizens).3026640583MMs PlibersekTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain citizens of Australia and visitors of Australia draw to the attention of the House the persecution of Falun Dafa in China.Since 1992, Falun Dafa touched over 100 million people in over 40 countries. In July 1999, China's leadership launched a crackdown on Falun Dafa. The crackdown is a breach of basic human rights and the fundamental rights to assembly and free expression. Since then over 100 million Falun Dafa practitioners (including more than 130 who have been persecuted to death), peacefully endure the unfair treatment for the sake of the principles `Truthfulness, Compassion, Forbearance'. Your petitioners therefore pray the House to act immediately on behalf of the petitioners to address China's leadership `in order to resolve the present crisis that is taking place in China', to urge China's leadership:1) To stop the persecution of Falun Dafa immediately2) To withdraw the warrant of arrest of Mr Li Hongzhi immediately3) To stop torture and release all jailed Falun Dafa practitioners immediately4) To clarify all false propaganda used to defame Falun Dafa immediately.405Ms Plibersek83MMs Plibersek (from 405 citizens).30267288QI4Mr PriceTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:This petition of certain citizens of the Federal Electorate of Chifley draws to the attention of the House the fact that some $2.2 billion is to be spent on the Pacific Highway upgrade without the imposition of a toll and in contrast, there is a refusal to fully fund the $1.25 billion Western Sydney Orbital.The government's decision to burden Western Sydney motorists with a toll of between $5 and $7 will add significant hardship for those hit hardest by soaring petrol prices and cost of living increases.Your petitioners therefore request the House to take steps to ensure that the Western Sydney Orbital is toll free, thus relieving Western Sydney motorists of additional burden.288Mr PriceQI4Mr Price (from 288 citizens).30267631848Mr SeckerTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of predominantly rural citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House the financial burden that is placed on country residents to support their dependent children undertaking tertiary studies away from home compared to their city counterparts. This burden equates to approximately $10,000 per student/year compared to their city counterparts of approximately $1,000.Your petitioners therefore pray that the House review, improve and increase financial assistance for rural families of dependent tertiary students living away from home.631Mr Secker848Mr Secker (from 631 citizens).30267734ZT4Mr SomlyayTo the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain electors of Australia draws the attention of the House to the unfairness of importing for sale and dumping of imported and artificially low priced pineapple products from Indonesia, the Philippines and Thailand, in particular:. The impact dumping has on successful local enterprises like the Golden Circle cannery at Northgate;. The devastating effect on local jobs, the processing industry, associated small business' and farmers;. The treat to pineapple production and farmers throughout Queensland;. The high risk of spreading diseases from overseas when sold as fresh.Your petitioners therefore request the House to protect local jobs and industry and prevent the continued dumping of foreign pineapple product in Australia.734Mr SomlyayZT4Mr Somlyay (from 734 citizens).30267135684FDr WasherTo the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives assembled in Parliament:The petition of certain electors of the Division of Moore draws to the attention of the House the fact that no medical doctor is available to the residents of Two Rocks, Yanchep, despite the fact that the area was declared an area of unmet need only 12 months ago. Approximately 12 months ago residents of the area presented the `Area of Unmet Medical Need Submission' to the House. This resulted in a medical provider number being allocated for a period of 12 months. A medical doctor was eventually located in the town however after six months we now find that this practitioner who had been welcomed and well received in the town has now been moved to Carnarvon. Once again we the residents of Two Rocks, Yanchep, find ourselves without a medical practitioners and we ask that this situation be remedied. Your petitioners therefore pray that the House direct that a medical provider number be urgently allocated to this area.1356Dr Washer84FDr Washer (from 1,356 citizens).Petitions received.Miscellaneous30268QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—Mr Deputy Speaker, I was wondering if there are any ministerial replies to petitions.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—The honourable member for Chifley is a longstanding member of this place who takes an interest in procedural matters, and would understand that if there had been they would have been advised to the House.Private Members' Business302683026816:51:0030268Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELDMK6GreenwayALP00—I move:That this House:(1) notes that 24 311 Social Security recipients have their compensation preclusion period spanning the introduction of the GST;(2) notes that the average length of preclusion periods is 291 weeks;(3) notes that the income cut-out rate has increased by $115.23 per week to compensate for price rises caused by the GST;(4) notes that if the post GST cut-out rate of $543.63 was applied to the post GST portion of the preclusion period it would result in a significant reduction in the preclusion period; and(5) condemns the Government's failure to introduce legislation to extend GST compensation to people whose compensation preclusion period spans the introduction of the GST.When the government introduced the GST, against the wishes of the vast majority of Australian people, they put in place a number of compensation measures. These measures have proved to be completely inadequate, but at least the government acknowledged that the GST would hurt and tried to do something to offset that. This motion is about a group of people who were forgotten about: a group who missed out on the GST related compensation and who are doing it very tough as a result.If you are injured in an accident, whether on our roads, at work or at somewhere like a restaurant or shopping centre, you are entitled to claim compensation. Any compensation payout is usually made up of two components. The first is for pain and suffering and the second is for loss of income if you are unable to work as a consequence of your injury. If you are granted compensation, a consequence is that you are precluded from obtaining Centrelink benefits for a certain period of time. What Centrelink does to determine the length of the preclusion period is to take the economic loss component of the payout and divide it by a figure determined from time to time which reflects living expenses. The resultant number is the number of weeks for which a person is precluded from claiming benefits. Prior to 1 July last year, when the GST was introduced, that figure was $428.40.I will give hypothetical examples to illustrate what is wrong with the current arrangement. Take worker A—we will call him John—as an example. If John had an accident on 1 January 2000 and, as a result, was unable to continue working, he would have received a compensation payout. Let us say he received a payment where the economic loss component was $100,000. John would then have been precluded from claiming Centrelink benefits for just over 233 weeks—that is, nearly 4½ years. He would be expected to live on that figure until around the middle of June 2004.Let us now compare that worker with worker B— we will call her Betty. If Betty had a similar accident six months later, on 1 July 2000, and received the same compensation payout for economic loss of $100,000, then the story would be very different. As part of the government's recognition that the GST would hurt many people, as I have said, they have implemented some compensation measures. One of the measures introduced was to raise that preclusion period cut-out figure from $428.40 to $543.63. So Betty received the same $100,000 economic loss component as John, but her preclusion period under the new figure would have been 184 weeks, or just over 3½ years. Betty would be entitled to claim Centrelink benefits in January 2004, almost six months before John. Of course, John had already been laid up and unable to work for six months before Betty was even injured. Does that sound fair? Is it fair that the first injured worker, John, would have to live almost a full year, 49 weeks, longer than Betty on the same amount of money? Is it fair that John was injured six months before Betty and yet cannot claim benefits until six months after she is able to? I do not think it is fair at all, and that is why I put this motion on the Notice Paper. If the GST compensation that the government recognised was necessary had been extended to John, we would see a bit more fairness in the scheme. If the new income cut-out figure of $543.63 was applied to that portion of the compensation payment left after 1 July, John would not be facing 49 weeks longer than Betty at all; the figure would be closer to only five weeks longer.I will stop using hypothetical examples—they were simply to illustrate the unfairness of the system and the lack of adequate compensation to those already in the system. How many were in the system; how many accident victims had their preclusion period span the introduction of the GST? How many real people are in the same situation as the hypothetical examples? I asked the minister this in question No. 2370, the answer to which was given on 2 April this year. There were 24,311 people whose preclusion period spanned the introduction of the GST—that is, 24,311 people in the same boat as our hypothetical worker A: laid up, unable to work and facing a long time before benefits can be claimed.A number of these 24,000 people are constituents of mine. I first raised this issue in a grievance debate in October last year when I spoke about a constituent, David Lambert. Mr Lambert was injured in a car accident and received a court settlement of $90,000, with an economic loss component estimated at $45,000. This meant he was precluded from Centrelink payments for 106 weeks, from 27 October 1999 until 6 November 2001—a period spanning the introduction of the GST. So almost nine months or 35 per cent of this constituent's preclusion period fell before the introduction of the GST and 23 months or 65 per cent fell post GST. But his preclusion period is based entirely on the lower, pre-GST income cut-out rate. If we were able to take the post-GST proportion of Mr Lambert's payout and apply the post-GST cut-out figure of $543.63—in other words, if we were to extend to him the compensation that the government thought necessary for everybody else—Mr Lambert would not have to wait until November to claim Centrelink benefits again. He could have done so on 26 July, some 15 weeks before his current date.Another constituent of mine has a preclusion period that goes until the end of June 2014. He is expected to live for the next 13 years on that figure of $428.40 per week because he has not been compensated for the GST. This means he is effectively living on $115 less per week than somebody who is injured today and who would be living on $543 per week. If the GST compensation were extended to my constituent, he would be able to claim benefits again around June 2011, some three years earlier. I urge the minister to think about these three years that my constituent has to live without access to benefits that he would have been entitled to had he been properly compensated for the GST.In part (7) of that question, I asked the minister why he would not introduce legislation to extend the GST compensation to people who were caught up in that situation, having their preclusion period spanning the introduction of the GST. His answer was, `No, for the reasons given above,' which I took to mean his answer to parts (3) and (6). In his answer to part (3), he said:The Social Security Act 1991 does not provide for a compensation preclusion period to be divided into pre and post GST portions.Obviously not. That is the reason for this private member's motion, and that is why we want legislation introduced to take account of the GST's impact. The minister seems to have missed the point on that one. He may also have been referring to his answer in part (6), in which he said: It would require an exhaustive, manual examination of more than 24,000 files with a significant resource impost on Centrelink and cannot be justified.That is not the case, however. A simple formula on an Excel spreadsheet would tell him exactly what he needs to know. My office created such a spreadsheet in about 10 minutes. I seek leave to table that spreadsheet. Leave granted.MK6Mossfield, Frank, MPMr MOSSFIELD—I have clearly said that people who were injured prior to the introduction of the GST and those whose injuries spanned the introduction of the GST are clearly at a disadvantage compared with those who were injured after the introduction of the GST. I urge the House to support the motion. (Time expired)10000Jenkins, Harry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Jenkins)—Is the motion seconded?83ZIrwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak at a later time.17:02:0030270Cadman, Alan, MPMr CADMANSD4MitchellLP10—I listened carefully to my friend the member for Greenway, who has great concern for people's wellbeing and is notoriously compassionate and thoughtful. He is no soft touch, however; he does his homework carefully when he looks at people's needs. I thank him for moving the motion and for giving us an opportunity to explore some ideas that he has gleaned from his experience with his constituents in regard to the impact of the GST on lump sum compensation recipients. The member is breaking new ground, as he is no doubt aware, because traditionally it has never been the process of the welfare system in Australia to fluctuate with regard to things such as compensation. Welfare payments are designed to underpin people's income and circumstances no matter what the fluctuations of other benefits or entitlements may be. A change in compensation payments, a change in the tax system or an adjustment by the government according to average male weekly earnings are other factors that impact on the calculations that the member has described. Half-yearly changes in welfare payments also impact on the extent to which a compensation package will last a recipient.I do not know that the member went as far as proposing that every time there is a variation of that type the Commonwealth should recalculate its welfare payments for compensation recipients, but implicit in what he said is that there should be an adjustment when there are any changes. One of the most significant changes introduced by this government has been the introduction of legislation to ensure that pensions do not fall below 25 per cent of male total average weekly earnings. That is seldom acknowledged by the other side of the House, but it is a significant increase to all welfare recipients that should have produce an element of change when people calculate the duration of their workers compensation payments. Legislative amendments result in different treatment for compensation recipients, which is dependent upon the date they receive their compensation payment or the type of social security payment they have claimed. The complexity of what the member proposes is very significant, but I understand the thoughtful basis of it. If people who receive a compensation lump sum feel they are experiencing hardship or special circumstances, they can ask for a review of their situation under the hardship clause. I am sure that the honourable member is aware of those provisions. There is an underpinning or a propping-up under section 1184 of the Social Security Act. People can ask for such a review by contacting their Centrelink office or working through members of parliament. A process is in place to claim benefits if a person falls on hardship or says that they are experiencing harsh times. When I looked at that provision, I wondered what other provisions the government has made that will affect people who may be on compensation or on welfare payments. The extension of the Commonwealth seniors health card to 270,000 older Australians will pick up people who are on compensation payments or who have access to part pensions.Some $146 million is going to a fair go for mature workers. That will give people aged 50 and over encouragement to participate in the work force. That is an encouragement for some people who have had an accident and been damaged and who feel that they do not know how they are ever going to manage. However, gradually they make some recovery or find, in these days of computers, that there is a role for them to fill and that they can play a very significant part in society. The government is supporting that process, even to the extent of $177 million over four years for a better deal for people with disabilities. That also impacts on people who may be partly disabled because of an accident and who are on compensation payments. Getting the right people to help is another program, involving $144 million over four years to provide the right help for disadvantaged people through better assessment, providing significant assistance in their homes and appropriate help for those with severe or multiple non-vocational barriers to participating. These are all most significant changes that complement and supplement the underpinning of the not less than 25 per cent of average male weekly earnings. That is part of what the government has done to assist those people who may have suffered an accident.There are also provisions for accident victims or those on compensation payments to provide more child-care places. There will be $15 million over four years for that covering outside of school hour places. That is an excellent program to provide assistance to parents in need, who need that additional relief from their household responsibilities. Helping parents to return to work is another assistance program designed specifically for people who may be suffering a disability or some impediment to working. Helping people to find jobs involves $296 million over four years, better employment services, new training credits and helping people to participate. There is a community and business engagement program and $521 million to help people to generate a working credit. All of that is very significant. At the same time, they all ensure that people are not ripping off the system. Since we have been in office—and I have not heard any complaints about this—this government has saved taxpayers $1 billion by careful application of guidelines and rules so that people must live within the circumstances of the benefits that the Commonwealth is paying. This is a process of a safety net and support; it is not a hammock for people to rest in and take life easy. It is support for people who are really in need. This government has done that. It has also implemented a program of a waiting period before migrants can receive social welfare. Most migrants will have to wait up to two years before they become eligible for a welfare assessment.When I look at the total picture of what the honourable member has raised in the House today, I consider it very thoughtful, and very helpful for us to consider. It is a process which could easily escape the attention of the House. I think that it is a program of adjustment that he wants to see introduced which is complex and difficult to make assessments on because of the before and after factors of the GST. I will take some interest in the spreadsheet, which I would have liked to have seen before the debate, but I will look at it after the debate and see how simple the member's claims are because he said that it is a simple process. I believe him and I will look at it.Finally, the complexities worry me. A broad range of programs has been instigated recently to assist people with disabilities and who are suffering disablement in the workplace. That is the action of a government which is determined to make sure that people do not fall through the cracks, that they are properly attended to and that their needs are well looked after. Underpinning all that, of course, if that fails there is the hardship claim that people can make through Centrelink to prevent them from being completely destitute. (Time expired)17:12:0030271Irwin, Julia, MPMrs IRWIN83ZFowlerALP00—I congratulate the member for Greenway on bringing this most important motion to the House. The goods and services tax which came into operation in July last year has sent a shock wave through the Australian community. Some impacts of the GST were expected and some allowances were made. In the last budget, we saw more changes to taxation and social security arrangements in an attempt to restore equity. One measure in the original GST package was seen to benefit some people receiving social security benefits. This was an increase in the income cut out amount that allowed for some benefit to be paid up to that amount. Before the introduction of the GST in July 2000, this cut out figure was $428.40 per week. Because it was necessary to compensate pensioners for the loss of the purchasing power of their benefit, the income cut out amount was raised to $543.63. That is a big increase—in fact, nearly 27 per cent. It should give some idea of the impact of the GST on pensioners. While this helped some pensioners, one group in the community can quite rightly claim to have missed out as a result of that increase. People who received a lump sum settlement as compensation for injuries which have resulted in the loss of work opportunities are now treated differently depending on the date of their injury. Anyone suffering an injury before the introduction of the GST is much worse off than someone injured after that date because the income cut out amount is used to calculate the length of time that someone who has received a lump sum must wait before they can access a benefit. The difference in amounts leads to different periods which people must wait. This is unfair. It is an unintended consequence of the goods and services tax compensation arrangements, but one which this government has refused to set right. As a result, some 24,000 people are forced to wait much longer before they can access social security benefits simply because they were injured before 1 July 2000. This is most unfair, but to show just how unfair it is let me give the House an example of the difference the increased income cut-out amount makes to an individual.Let me take someone on the average preclusion period of 291 weeks. Using the pre-GST divisor, 291 weeks, or about 5½ years, would result from a lump sum of just under $125,000. Using the post-GST divisor, a person receiving a lump sum of $125,000 would have a preclusion period of only 229 weeks—that is, less than 4½ years. That is a difference of 62 weeks or well over one year. If you took two people, one injured on 30 June 2000 and the other injured on 1 July 2000, and both received $125,000, the one injured on 1 July would be able to access a benefit more than one year earlier than the person injured the day before.This is grossly unfair, and this government refuses to make the relatively minor changes to the Social Security Act to make it fair for all. We are dealing here with people who have suffered serious injury—people whose lives have been shattered as a result of those injuries. There are of course hardship provisions in the Social Security Act, but would it not be easier to recalculate the preclusion period in a fairer way? We are dealing with around 24,000 cases, but that is, after all, just about 160 people in each federal electorate. I know that many people in this position are poorly advised and do not fully understand how their lump sum settlement will affect their future entitlements, but I am sure they expect to be treated fairly. I doubt that the courts have taken into consideration the different treatment of post-GST accident victims. (Time expired)17:17:0030272St Clair, Stuart, MPMr St CLAIR84BNew EnglandNP10—I, too, rise to speak on the motion that has been moved by the member for Greenway and again congratulate him. Over the last three years in particular I have gained a great deal of respect for him in this place. The motion opens up a whole range of issues with regard to compensation, and I particularly want to have a look at workers compensation. I will look at it a little bit from the other end of things. It has obviously been the view of Commonwealth governments that the primary responsibility for the support of people who have suffered from compensable illness or injury rests with the relevant state or territory compensation schemes and not with the taxpayer funded social security system. I think that needs to be said up front: state or territory compensation schemes generally provide more long-term earnings related payments than the social security system would be able to provide.Coming out of small business as I do, the dramatic increases in the costs of the provision of workers compensation have been of great concern to me and to colleagues of mine in small business, particularly when you compare what is happening in New South Wales with Queensland, for example, and as they relate to rural and agricultural businesses based in country Australia. I want to give some comparisons of the rates applicable in New South Wales with the rates that are being paid in Queensland and give some of the percentages of difference. I have just picked a number of the workers compensation rates off the New South Wales farmers web site that I found when I was looking into this issue. One of the issues that affects my area of New England in particular is grain growing. In New South Wales the workers compensation rate for 2001-02 is 11.13 per cent—up six per cent—compared with Queensland, which has a rate of 2.26 per cent. The cost to insure in New South Wales is nearly 500 per cent greater than in Queensland. If you compare the combined grain growing, sheep farming and beef cattle farming rate, in New South Wales it is 12.1 per cent, which is up 15 per cent, and in Queensland it is 3.86 per cent. It is a significant difference; in fact, the cost in New South Wales is nearly three times the cost in Queensland.Getting closer to the higher country, for sheep farming the rate is 12.1 per cent—that again is an increase of 15 per cent. In Queensland for sheep farming it is 4.26 per cent. The New South Wales rate is 284 per cent more than the Queensland rate. These are all things that are adding to the costs for small business. The compensation rate for beef cattle farming in New South Wales is 10.19 per cent as against 5.43 per cent in Queensland—again, nearly double. For beef feedlots—and I am fortunate enough have a couple in my electorate which provide tremendous employment opportunities—the compensation rate in New South Wales is 10.19 per cent and in Queensland it is 5.43 per cent. Again, you can see the significant increases that workers compensation costs businesses in New South Wales when compared with Queensland. In poultry and meat farming, the rate is now 7.2 per cent. It is also up 15 per cent, which is 238 per cent higher than it is in Queensland, where the rate is only 3.02 per cent. When we look at reforms that were going to be done in New South Wales for workers compensation, we know that the Carr Labor government has failed. (Time expired)10000Hawker, David (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for New England will have an opportunity to continue speaking when the debate is resumed.3027317:22:0030273Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRDMP6CookLP10—I move:That this House:(1) commends the Australian Government on its moves to establish a whale sanctuary at the most recent meeting of the International Whaling Commission in London;(2) records its regret that the motion was defeated after failing to receive the required 75 per cent backing from member states;(3) calls on those states who abstained or voted against the motion to review their positions in order to allow this important initiative to proceed.10000Hawker, David (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Hawker)—Is the motion seconded?VH4McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McArthur—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak.MP6Baird, Bruce, MPMr BAIRD—Last month delegates from 43 of the member states of the International Whaling Commission met in London to review the global moratorium on whaling and to consider establishing further whale sanctuaries. The Australian government led the way at this last meeting of the IWC, seeking the formation of a whale sanctuary in the South Pacific. Such a sanctuary is not a new or revolutionary idea and follows the examples of the Indian Ocean sanctuary established in 1979 and the Southern Ocean sanctuary established in 1994. As the House would be aware, for the second year in a row this motion failed because it failed to obtain the three-quarters majority required by IWC regulations for a motion to be passed.In terms of the voting pattern for the sanctuary, among the 19 other nations who voted with Australia for the sanctuary were: New Zealand, Great Britain, the United States, South Africa and numerous nations from Europe and South America. Against the sanctuary were 13 nations, including Japan and Norway, as well as, rather unusually, six eastern Caribbean states that one would logically assume had little interest in blocking such a sanctuary due to their lack of any commercial whaling industry in their countries. The six states were Antigua & Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines and St Kitts-Nevis. Four nations abstained from the voting. Those countries were Ireland, Oman, Morocco and the Solomon Islands. It should be noted that the vote was tainted by allegations of vote buying and that Japan had threatened that aid for some of the poorer countries—particularly those Caribbean states—would be withdrawn if they did not oppose the sanctuary. These allegations were given further momentum by the admission of the head of Japan's fisheries, Maseyuku Komatsu, on the ABC's ForeignCorrespondent program in mid-July that Japan saw development aid as a `major tool' in ensuring that developing countries vote in favour of whaling at IWC meetings. The same program saw Mr Komatsu make the extraordinary comment that minke whales are the `cockroaches of the ocean'.Allegations of vote buying must be treated with caution, however, particularly as they have been denied by the Japanese government. I commend environment minister Senator Hill's refusal to resort to vilification and accusation in the light of strong views expressed by other parties following the vote. Comments made in the heat of the moment could do considerable damage to future hopes for a sanctuary and the minister's actions were considered and sensible. Nevertheless, utmost caution must be exercised to ensure that meetings of the IWC do not degenerate into some cynical vote stacking exercise for the developed countries. Conversely, it must not become a vehicle for the less developed nations to ensure their flow of aid continues or to draw attention to unrelated issues.So why have a sanctuary? There are a number of reasons why I strongly believe that the international community should endorse a South Pacific Whale Sanctuary. Firstly, in relation to whale populations, it cannot be denied that the international moratorium on commercial whaling that has been in place since the hunting season of 1985-86 has had a major positive effect on whale populations around the world, as have the two sanctuaries already in existence. Prior to the 1985-86 season, technological progress in locational and harpoon technology had seen whales hunted to within a few years of extinction. Even after 15 years of moratorium, the blue and northern right whales remain on the endangered list, while the bowhead, southern right, sei, fin and humpback whales are all classified as vulnerable. Current estimates place the population of blue whales in the South Pacific anywhere between 400 and 1,400, while the IWC is unable to provide a number of minke whales in the area.In relation to tourism, I believe there is a lot of merit in the argument of tourism operators from all South Pacific nations in favour of the sanctuary. In New South Wales alone there are eight tourist operators drawing their income from whale watching and related activities between Jervis Bay and Eden alone. Each of these operators is bringing in tens of thousands of dollars for their local economies up and down the coast. Up in Hervey Bay in Queensland, each visit by a humpback whale is valued at approximately $100,000. These figures are similar for other Pacific nations who would benefit from a safe haven leading to increased whale sightings.The third aspect is in relation to cruelty. Steven Brook, the science writer for the Australian newspaper, recently noted:There is no humane way of doing it.that is, killing whales—Whalers try to pierce their hearts with thin harpoons called lances, but whales can take up to 20 minutes to die, often drowning in their blood.While not wishing to impose my views on the cruelty or otherwise of whaling onto the communities of Japan, the establishment of a sanctuary in this part of the world would make it clear that the practice is no longer condoned here. Fourthly, there is Australia's example, and that is our own experience. In the past we have been able to pull back from our own heavy reliance on whaling as an industry. In fact, whaling was this country's first primary industry: we killed around 26,000 southern right whales and 40,000 humpbacks over 100 years of whaling, it is estimated. Despite this, we have introduced protective areas as far back as 1935, despite the difficulty it caused to some whaling communities. We have also always been one of the IWC's most vocal and active members. In this light, the arguments of other whaling countries about the effects on their way of life and economies are less compelling.Fifthly, in relation to why we should support this motion, there is unanimous support in the South Pacific region for such a sanctuary. At the meeting of the 16-nation Pacific Island Forum in Nauru 10 days ago, all member states agreed that they should continue to pursue the whaling free sanctuary in the South Pacific. While the sanctuary would cover waters belonging to all nations in the world, the fact remains that local nations are opposed to whaling of any form taking place in their backyards. Countries that continue to push for a return to commercial whaling should respect our combined wish.By way of conclusion, several days after the IWC meeting wound up in London, Japan's whaling fleet returned to port with their scientific catch of 158 whales—almost double the amount they had taken at the same time last year. Their cargo included 100 minke whales, 50 bryde's whales and eight sperm whales and had a commercial value of millions and millions of dollars. Despite being classified under Japan's scientific whaling allocation, these whales will still go on sale at Tokyo's fish markets, servicing the market and demand for whale products in that country. That this is allowed to occur despite the international ban on commercial whaling suggests that the situation as it stands is obviously not enough.A South Pacific whale sanctuary would reflect the desire of countries in this part of the world to protect these endangered animals and local industries. The Australian government should be congratulated on taking a strong stand and on lobbying support, at the recent International Whaling Commission meeting in London, for the establishment of a whale sanctuary in the South Pacific. The work done by Minister Robert Hill and the Department of the Environment and Heritage has been very positive in terms of promoting the protection of whales and the recognition of their importance to the community. The Australian community recognises that whales are an endangered species and need to be protected, and this government have shown leadership on this important issue. I record our regret that we did not get the two-thirds majority which was needed. If it had been due to lack of support from major countries around the world, we would have said, `That is tough; these things happen.' But it is of concern that very tiny countries that have had no significant involvement in whaling have made all types of suggestions as to why they voted the way they did. We do not wish to make any allegations of impropriety, but it does seem very unusual. We recognise that Japan has a strong interest in continuing to harvest whales, but most developed countries around the world agree that we should try to preserve the whales. We call on those countries which abstained or voted against the motion to reconsider in order to ensure that the South Pacific does remain a sanctuary for whales. Whales are some of the most wonderful creatures on this earth and should be preserved long into the future.17:32:0030275Gerick, Jane, MPMs GERICK83WCanningALP00—I am pleased to support the motion concerning a whale sanctuary in the South Pacific. Today I want to speak about the events that took place at the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission which were held in July this year. It was an important gathering of both pro-whaling and antiwhaling factions. The discussions centred on the future management of the world's whales and focused on the general seafood consumption of whales, the coastal allocation of Minke whales, and related management schemes. But perhaps the most significant focus was the discussion about the proposal to establish a whale sanctuary in the Pacific. I would like to speak about issues which were raised about the proposed sanctuary and to record my disappointment with the outcome. However, before I speak further on that matter, I am proud to say that Australia did play a leading role in lobbying for this initiative. I would like to take this opportunity to support the motion and commend the government for taking this position on behalf of the Australian people. I also extend my thanks to our New Zealand counterparts, who lobbied with an equal and unwavering dedication. For those nations that abstained or voted against the motion, I call on the House to restate Australia's position in the hope that they will review their decisions and allow this initiative to proceed next year. Despite our failure to secure a sanctuary in the Pacific, there is clearly international support for the preservation of whales. The very fact that the recent annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission was its 53rd pays tribute to those attempting to secure a future for the world's whales. It also demonstrates that the future of whaling is an important international issue. Had the plan succeeded, it would have been unique in establishing a regional safe haven. The Pacific sanctuary waters would have extended to adjoin the existing Southern Ocean whale sanctuary and north to the equator. Fiji, Papua New Guinea and 12 South Pacific nations were among the many nations that supported Australia's and New Zealand's attempts to establish this important sanctuary. I would now like to address the significance of a sanctuary more thoroughly. The concept is not a new one. In 1946, the first whale sanctuary was established by the International Whaling Commission. It is between South America and New Zealand and covers approximately 25 per cent of the Southern Ocean. Between 1979 and 1994, the International Whaling Commission created the Indian Ocean sanctuary and the Southern Ocean sanctuary. Knowing how easy it is to undermine the whale's protection, I believe that it was important for Australia and other nations to take a position at the meeting. Each of our nations has an interest in protecting this endangered marine species.Protective action has also been taken on a local level. Many of our Pacific neighbours already act individually to protect whales living in and passing through their waters. Others are beginning to engage in bilateral talks in the hope that they will be able to develop legislation to protect future whale populations. However, the most effective means of protecting whales is international regulation. It is in Australia's interests to continue to lobby the international community for regulation in the form of another sanctuary. Australia would have an important role to play in its creation and supervision. From an economic perspective, there are undeniable benefits associated with the establishment of a sanctuary. Already around our shores there is a growing whale-watching industry, and this industry needs to be protected. As people are able to see whales locally, or to travel to a place where whales go past, their knowledge of whales and their needs will be increased and they will feel a much stronger desire to protect the species.But the argument is not solely an economic one. Australians have a deep commitment to preserving our environment, and, by our very nature, the marine environment is particularly important to us. From this perspective, we have a responsibility to stem the devastating effect that commercial whaling has had on the world's whale population. During the period of unleashed commercial whaling, a number of whale species, including the sei, fin, sperm and bowhead whales, were ruthlessly exploited and their populations took a devastating blow. Unfortunately, the blue and humpback whales are also targeted by whalers and they have never significantly recovered in numbers. Since the introduction of whaling ships, a large proportion of the world's whale populations have been slaughtered. It is estimated that, by 1975, over 1.5 million whales had been killed. This exploitation has been ruthless. No species is unaffected. Whalers have simply moved on to other species when those that they originally targeted have had their numbers dramatically decreased. It is important that we take a stand against commercial whaling. Of all the other threats facing whales, such as oil exploration, shipping, gas exploration and fishing, commercial whaling is the only one that can be eliminated simply. The way to do this is by holding those nations engaging in commercial whaling accountable for their destructive actions and making them liable for the results that these actions will have. Perhaps if the education program can spread internationally, a number of those countries that engage in commercial whaling will start to see that it is not sustainable and that they should look at minimising this practice, if not stopping it altogether. It is for this very reason that the International Whaling Commission was assembled. This is an important fact to remember. When the International Whaling Commission was established, it introduced a moratorium on commercial whaling. However, because of the pressure brought to bear by the pro-whaling nations it was not strictly enforced. But, due to the devastating impact that these activities had on the whale population, the moratorium was reintroduced in 1986. Despite this, the moratorium has failed to stop a resurgence in large-scale whaling throughout our global waters. Whales continue to be hunted because countries fail to comply or argue that whaling is necessary for scientific experimentation. I think the credibility of that argument is lacking, and I have met few people who actually agree that it is a sound reason for killing whales. The meat of whales is also being sold as a food delicacy. As a result, nations engaging in these activities continue to aggressively lobby to lift the commercial whaling ban—and we must make sure that this never happens. The steps we take must be forward, not backward.Commercial whaling has never been carried out in a sustainable manner. Its operators have shown a clear disregard for the whale populations and the wider ocean ecosystem. That is why strong measures are now required. We must continue to oppose commercial whaling. Tuna boats that cast long nets are responsible for killing whales. There are environmentally friendly and cost-effective options for tuna boats, and we should not condone any lesser fishing practice when it is having such a devastating impact. There is speculation that other boats that dock in our ports carry out commercial whaling activities. We should not be allowing these ships to dock in Australian ports. By allowing them to dock here, we are in effect supporting their activities. We should also continue to lobby for the creation of a sanctuary in our territorial waters. I say this because the Southern Ocean sanctuary has clearly been the safest place for whales, with many nations offering it some measure of respect, restraining from undertaking destructive activities in those waters. The deliberations that emerged from the International Whaling Commission meeting make it clear that, if another sanctuary is not created, the world's whale population will be unable to continue their recovery and they will be forced to live among an increasing variety of environmental threats other than commercial whaling. Now is an appropriate time for Australia to renew her commitment to the establishment of a whale sanctuary in our regional waters. I therefore urge this House to renew Australia's commitment to the International Whaling Commission and to the protection of whales. I would also suggest that Australia offer to host next year's annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission in Western Australia, well known for its whale-watching spots. I commend the motion to the House.17:42:0030277McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—I am delighted to support the motion moved by the member for Cook for a whale sanctuary in the South Pacific. It is a very worthwhile motion and, Mr Deputy Speaker Hawker, all the more important for the electorate of Wannon, where whale watching in the city of Warrnambool is a very important aspect of your electorate, and also along the Great Ocean Road where the observation of whales is an exciting and interesting pastime for many of our visitors. As you would know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Logan's Beach has almost reached world famous status. Whales go there at the same time every year and visitors can watch their activities. We should re-establish a sustainable whaling industry where whales are looked at rather than harvested. I support the motion for a whale sanctuary on the same basis that I support a sustainable fishing industry, a sustainable forest industry and also because we are very close to the whales in the Southern Ocean being wiped out. As members would be aware, whales feed in two different ways. Some feed on plankton, which are small weeds that whales consume in the southern waters. The killer whale is the only whale that feeds on flesh. Other speakers have mentioned Moby Dick and historic activities that have exterminated whales: harpoon guns, explosive weapons, steam-driven whaling boats and large commercial whaling activities. Whaling was the first primary industry in Australia along the southern coastland. Most members would be aware that whaling was stopped in 1978 by the Fraser government when the Cheynes Beach Whaling Company in Western Australia was closed down. I recall that there was quite a lot of debate at that time. Australia did the right thing at that time and, as the motion says, international groups are not following suit. I support Australia's endeavours to turn about the 75 per cent vote in the International Whaling Commission to re-establish a whaling sanctuary in the South Pacific. I am indebted to Minister Hill for his statement to the International Whaling Commission. In his statement he made some interesting comments which I would like to support very strongly—for example, support for a South Pacific Whale Sanctuary which will complement the Southern Ocean and Indian Ocean sanctuaries. In his statement he goes on to talk about the scientific basis for the sanctuary and opportunities to increase the sustainable use of whale resources as their numbers increase.Obviously the important aspect of this sanctuary is the whales migrating between their feeding grounds in Antarctica and their calving and breeding grounds in the South Pacific. I understand there is no transfer of the whaling population between the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere, so if we can improve these sanctuaries then we will improve the number of whales that would be reproduced. In the 20th century whaling has taken two million animals from the Southern Hemisphere. Many countries have managed to do that, including Australia and the United States, and there is evidence that secret Soviet whalers also contributed to these quite big numbers of whales being taken for commercial activities.A really staggering figure is that 200,000 blue whales have been removed from the Southern Ocean; today, according to the scientific community, there are only 1,000 blue whales left in the Southern Hemisphere. On that figure alone we should strongly support the sanctuary in order to allow whale numbers to build up. Over half a million finwhales have been removed from the Southern Ocean, and 30 per cent of the total catch of the Southern Hemisphere's sperm whales have been taken from the South Pacific. So we have a situation where, if the sanctuary is not developed and supported, whale numbers will not build up. Finally, Japanese whaling expeditions took 158 whales. They claimed it was for a scientific research program. I support other speakers who have said that this is just a disguise for commercial whaling which was banned by the International Whaling Commission in 1987. I strongly support the motion before the parliament on the basis that we will be looking after a mammal which is a very important part of our heritage. More importantly, we need to sustain the reproductive grounds of the whaling population so that they can be returned and to keep an ecosystem operating both in the southern waters and in the proposed sanctuaries.17:47:0030278O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I rise today to support the member for Cook and other members who have already spoken to his private member's motion regarding the attempts of the Australian government to establish a Southern Pacific whale sanctuary. I would like to add my regret to those already expressed in this parliament that the required 75 per cent of nations did not support the sanctuary, and therefore this protection was not afforded to the whales of the South Pacific. As a member from Tasmania, which has a long history of whaling and now whale watching, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to speak.The International Whaling Commission was established in 1946 to monitor the whaling industry and conserve whale populations. In 1985-86 a global moratorium was placed on commercial whaling to protect whale populations which had been severely depleted by whaling. One thousand whales are still killed each year under exceptions which are granted for scientific research and whaling by indigenous communities. Unfortunately, Australia's history of whaling has led to a severe depletion in whale stocks. Species like the southern right whale were hunted almost to extinction. Commercial whaling began in Australia in the early 1800s, with the blubber from these magnificent creatures used for products such as lamp oil, candles and soaps. Whale and seal blubber were among Australia's biggest exports by the 1850s. Whale quotas were not introduced until the 1950s, when much of the damage had already been done to our whale populations. It was not until the late 1970s that we finally banned whaling in Australian waters. Several years ago, Russia admitted that it had been secretly whaling for years, which is thought to explain the very slow recovery rate of whale numbers in Australian waters in the 1980s. Populations of humpback whales have not recovered in New Zealand waters, and it is expected that they may never do so. Is it not now time to give these creatures, who have benefited our country so richly, a safe haven in which to live and rebuild their species in peace?At this year's International Whaling Commission meeting in July, delegates from 43 countries met to consider all sides of the arguments for creating whale sanctuaries and to review the global moratorium. Australia and New Zealand were among the nations which were pushing the attempt to establish a South Pacific whale sanctuary. Very sadly, this motion was defeated, but not without controversy. There have been reports of pro-whaling countries buying the votes of countries that have no whaling industry, with the promise of aid. At last year's IWC meeting the environment minister of Dominica resigned saying that he was disgusted after his government's representative voted against the South Pacific whale sanctuary. He said:I am alarmed that the Japanese seem to be using the promise of aid to manipulate voting at the IWC ... there is absolutely no reason for us to be held ransom by Japan in return for promises of aid.After this year's meeting even stronger condemnation came from Mick McIntyre, director of the Asia-Pacific office of the International Fund for Animal Welfare. He said:This wasn't a vote ... this was an Auction and Japan was the highest bidder ... It is also a slap in the face for the small island nations of the south pacific, most of whom are not represented here ... It is inexplicable that the small island states of the eastern Carribean, who work so closely with south pacific nations on other issues, should turn their backs on their sister island states of the south pacific.This month New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark attended the 16-nation Pacific Island Forum on the island nation of Nauru, where the failure of the proposed sanctuary was discussed. Ms Clark said:There was complete unanimity on the recommendation that we should pursue the whaling free sanctuary.It is not merely a moral or emotional argument that says this sanctuary is a good idea; it actually makes rather excellent economic sense. The economically disadvantaged states of the South Pacific rely heavily on tourism for their survival and for their livelihood. Worldwide, whale watching is worth more than $1 billion annually. Compare that lifelong, sustainable figure with the profit from whaling in Japan and Norway at just $50 million. Logic as well as emotion tell me that we must vigorously pursue this project.In Australia, tourist meccas such as Hervey Bay place a value of $100,000 for each humpback whale that visits their waters. Another benefit of this sanctuary would be its value to scientific research. Whales live for many years and information needed for their long-term global management, such as the ecosystems in which they live, is still needed. A recent scientific discovery was made two kilometres off the Victorian coast at Warrnambool where a blue whale feeding ground was found. It is caused by the cold water current that attracts the krill and plankton that blue whales scoop up by the tonne. This has come as quite a surprise to the scientific world and leads one to wonder what else we could discover about the many species of whales which pass through our waters. I am very pleased that Australia is finally taking a lead on a global environmental issue. I call on Minister Hill to continue his push to establish this vital sanctuary and continue down the road of redressing past wrongs. I congratulate those members who have taken the time to raise and speak on this issue today. I hope that we will get some progress in the establishment of such a sanctuary. (Time expired)10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Grievance Debate30280Question proposed:That grievances be noted.3028017:52:0030280Crosio, Janice, MPMrs CROSIO7T4ProspectALP00—I rise in the grievance debate to place on record the total incompetence this government has shown in managing the Natural Heritage Trust, and the complete lack of adequate funding that Labor electorates, such as mine, have received from the trust. Recently, I asked the Minister for the Environment and Heritage a question on notice, to list all of the approved project applications and their full costings for the Sydney electorates of Prospect, Chifley, Fowler, Reid, Blaxland, Macarthur, Werriwa, Parramatta, Lindsay, Greenway, Mitchell and Macquarie. The minister has recently supplied me with the answer, which I will convey to the House later in this debate.However, first I would like to bring to the House's attention the urgent need for my electorate to receive funding from the Natural Heritage Trust, and from other sources of federal funding, for very badly needed environmental projects. Within the local government area of Fairfield—a city which has a population of some 200,000 and which, of course, makes up nearly two-thirds of my electorate—is a vital network of creeks, which are subcatchments of the Georges River and the Botany Bay catchments. These two catchments contain the five major urban creeks: Prospect Creek, Orphan School Creek, Clear Paddock Creek, Green Valley Creek and Cabramatta Creek. One of the largest of these creeks, Prospect Creek, runs right through my electorate and joins Orphan School Creek, which is also within my electorate.Since the 1960s, this valuable creek system has suffered from stormwater pollution, unsewered residential development and industrial pollution. The natural beauty of these creeks has been spoiled by development and continual flooding over many years, which has turned what was once a recreational, natural landscape that families could enjoy into a place which has needed urgent upgrading and, as yet, has not received funding from the federal government. Fairfield council have had to fund their entire five creeks strategy from local government rates. Earlier this year, I raised this issue of the five creeks in an appropriation debate with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Dr Sharman Stone. These were her remarks in reply:We—meaning the government—have been very conscious of urban environments and the degradation of water supplies, air quality and noise abatement. There is a whole range of urban environmental issues that the Natural Heritage Trust specifically identified and addressed.I say to the parliamentary secretary that the minister's reply to my question on notice has clearly shown where the Natural Heritage Trust has specified and addressed the urban environmental issues, and that is in the marginal Liberal held electorates. Here are the figures to prove that statement. I asked the minister for the total sum of Commonwealth funding to projects which were successful in receiving Natural Heritage Trust funding in 1999-2000 and 2000-01 for the electorates which neighbour or which are close to my electorate. I would like to read those figures to the House. My electorate of Prospect received nothing in 1999-2000 but received a small amount of $17,500 for a wetlands strategy in Abbotsbury. I would like to go through the other Labor-held seats: Chifley received $15,000 in 1999-2000 and nothing in 2000-01; Fowler, $13,770 in 1999-2000 and $24,225 in 2001; Greenway, $4,408 in 1999-2000 and then nothing in 2000-01; Reid, $42,627 combined in the two years; and Blaxland, $18,866 in 1999-2000 and $11,576 in 2000-01. I am sure most members will agree that these funding measures range from a pittance to something that was probably just adequate for minor natural heritage projects. But now I would like to go through the coalition seats—and remember that the above electorates share common boundaries with all these seats. The seat of Lindsay received $83,713 over the two years; Mitchell received $128,305 over the two years; Macquarie received $380,423 over the two years; Macarthur received $366,548 over the two years; and Parramatta, one of the most marginal government-held seats in Sydney, received a total of $636,419 over the two years. I repeat for the members in the House: Parramatta received the total sum of $636,419 in Natural Heritage Trust funding over two years. Compare this with the funding in my electorate, which came to a total of $17,500. By the way, for the information of those in the House, Parramatta and my electorate of Prospect share a common road; yet this is the type of funding we received.The list provided by the minister shows that large amounts of this Commonwealth money have funded in Parramatta local government projects which are very similar to the projects which Fairfield City Council is proposing through its five creeks program. I believe that this shows the utter arrogance of the government in picking and choosing which electorates are worthy of receiving Natural Heritage Trust funding and which are not. The money that has funded the Natural Heritage Trust Fund came from the government's decision to partially sell off Telstra, which was a publicly owned and nationally important telecommunications carrier. The proceeds of the sale should benefit all parts of Australia, including urban areas and electorates like mine and neighbouring Labor electorates. When I raised the matter of the Fairfield Council's five creek program in that appropriation debate, the parliamentary secretary said:Please come and knock on my door as well because, as parliamentary secretary, I am able to help people just like your five-creek plan group on very many occasions.Later, she said:Again, it just might be that the councils in the member for Prospect's electorate are not fully aware of those opportunities—Not much! I say now to the parliamentary secretary and to the minister: the council in my electorate have knocked on your door. They have put in their submissions, which I sent to your office personally with a letter dated 3 August 2001, and they are still awaiting a response. I can only hope that it will be a positive one.I would also like to mention the lack of full explanation of some of the funding arrangements mentioned in the minister's reply, especially in regard to the projects for which no application for funding was received, and for what the minister calls `education and awareness programs'. When the minister claims that $274.7 million of Commonwealth funds has been appropriated to the Natural Heritage Trust, while my electorate has received only a pittance of this money, it is a matter of accountability that these projects be explained in more detail. Also needed to be asked is: how much of the money has been used for the promotion and advertisement of the Natural Heritage Trust that has saturated Australian newspapers and television, while the marginal electorates receive the most amount of money and electorates like mine do not?Questions also need to be asked of this government as to why the electorate of Parramatta—an urban electorate which, as I explained, is very similar to mine—received $636,419 while mine received $17,400; and also why neighbouring electorates, such as Chifley, received only $15,000 over two years. The minister cannot possibly claim that more applications were received from areas within Parramatta or Lindsay and that that was the reason for the significant difference in the figures between the electorates.According to the minister's answer, there were 8,014 applications received in 1999-2000, while there were only 3,915 approved. In 2000-01 there were 7,084 applications received, and 3,416 were approved. It would be very interesting to learn the electorates from which unsuccessful applications came. However, as the minister told me in his answer to my question, there are no location based data for the unsuccessful applications. How interesting is that! The government have collected information on submissions and funding, but we have no location based data for the unsuccessful applications. It is vital for urban areas and electorates such as mine to receive federal funding from the Natural Heritage Trust. Important environmental projects which will have several benefits for the people in my electorate and for Sydney's urban waterway system need to be completed. The Natural Heritage Trust was funded, I repeat, by the sale of Telstra, a public asset, so this government has the responsibility to use the money to benefit all Australians, not just those who live in the marginal government held electorates.It is also very interesting when one looks at some of the programs—and I took myself physically around some of the areas to see what is being achieved by the natural heritage funding—and sees the similarity in programs that have already been applied from those surrounding neighbourhood electorates. Again, I would understand and appreciate if the electorates that I am talking about were in different states—if I was taking examples from the state of New South Wales, the state of Victoria and the state of Western Australia. I am talking about a collection of federal electorates that encompass what I say is Sydney's greater west. I am talking about electorates that go cheek by jowl with a neighbouring electorate; they have the same environmental concerns and problems. In fact, some of the creek systems and the waterway systems run from one electorate to another. We do not have a border which stops the water coming out of one electorate and going into the other, yet we do have a border when we have the allocation of public funds which have resulted from the sale of a public asset such as Telstra being distributed in electorates in a most uneven and underhanded way.I believe that the minister and the parliamentary secretary have to look more closely at what has happened here. I do not believe that it is an issue that is going to be kept quiet, because the councils in the electorates now know how the distribution of funds has been made over these last two years, why it has been made and to whom it has been made. I believe what has to be questioned and continue to be questioned by us in opposition, and particularly by the government members who make up this parliament, is: why are funding allocations being done in a way that shows such a gross inadequacy between one area and the area next door which is on a very similar plane?I believe that there are a lot more answers that the minister needs to provide to the question on notice. I do not think it is something that is going to go away. More particularly, we need to have a far greater explanation than just, `We don't have the locations of those applications that have missed out.' Perhaps the ones that missed out have come from areas that I have mentioned that received no funding or very little funding; maybe they did, maybe they didn't. But when you do not have an answer to that question, it leaves the question outstanding: where has the money gone? (Time expired)3028218:02:0030282Worth, Trish, MPMs WORTH8V5AdelaideLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Education, Training and Youth Affairs10—Many of us become so busy in this life that we do not often enough take the time to reflect on what we can be doing in the future and what has already been achieved. I note on some reflection that this is the 20th anniversary of the political exchange program, and I know that members from all political parties have benefited from this program. I visited the United States for the Bush-Dukakis election in 1988, and one slogan that stuck in my mind from that time—although I also have many happy memories and gained some very good experience—was that George Bush Sr wanted to see a `kinder, gentler America'. One of the things that I thought about when I came here over eight years ago was that I wanted to see a kinder, gentler Australia and I wanted to see more people benefit from what government can do and from what we should all be setting out to achieve. I guess I could speak for a lot longer than 10 minutes on this, but I would just like to mention some things that I am proud this government has achieved and that I know my fellow Australians have benefited from. Along the `kinder, gentler Australia' line, we have introduced gun control and we have paid back the dreadful debt that this government inherited, which we must do for our children's sake. I know it is not an original line, but it has been said that debt for the next generation is a form of child abuse. I note too from reading the Sydney Morning Herald on the weekend that the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling at the University of Canberra has done some work which has shown the benefits that have resulted for Australian families since the Howard government came to power in 1996.I particularly note that 25 per cent of the families in my electorate are sole parent families and they have benefited significantly from this government. But every family studied—from the affluent, dual income couples to the most struggling sole parents— has more disposable income now thanks to the Howard government. Before the GST tax changes and compensation, a sole parent on welfare with two children had disposable income of $312 a week; after those changes, their new disposable income is $371—an increase of $59 or 19 per cent. Single income families on average weekly earnings with two children have also benefited. Prior disposable income was $565 a week, and the current disposable income is $653—an increase of $88 a week or 16 per cent.A few weeks ago, the TV program A Current Affair had a feature on some time that I spent with Chris and Des Morgan and their family when I agreed to live on their budget for a week. I enjoyed the challenge, as I was reminded of how careful I had had to be when my own children were young and I was the only income earner. I much admired the way Chris and Des managed with their three beautiful children. The exercise brought home to me the benefits of this government's policy—Des earns approximately $29,500 per year, and the family receives family allowances of $11,300 per year and is entitled to a health care card.It is important that we continue to help those not so well off in our community. To do so, we need a good, strong government in this country, a government capable of making tough decisions so that not only we but also our children and grandchildren are better off. Steven Gianni, director of social action research at the Brotherhood of St Laurence, was quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald as saying:The changes that have occurred have really benefited families. The Government should be congratulated.The Howard government has been good for families. We have given families, whether they be one- or two-parent households, a legitimate and feasible choice of both parents continuing to work—if there are two parents—or, if they wish instead, of one parent remaining at home. Unlike the previous Labor government, which allowed support for single income families to drop by four per cent in real terms, we are looking after these families.I turn now to the issue of health, and I note that the Leader of the Opposition and some members opposite have wanted us to talk about health and education—it is as though we should be shivering in our boots and not wanting to discuss these subjects. I say, `Let's bring it on. Let's talk about health and education as long as you like, because we have done a great job in both areas.' The Leader of the Opposition was quoted in an article by Paul Kelly in the Weekend Australian as saying:We say, we are responsible. that is, for the health of all Australians—We, the national government—and he is obviously hoping to be there—should take these matters on. That's what this dispute, fundamentally, is about.I think this would be rather surprising to state governments, who like to think that they have the control of schools and public hospitals. I note that Paul Kelly did add:This has a Whitlamite ring. Where, but where, is the money? He also went on to say:Kim fouled up. He should never have introduced his daughter into the health debate. It was a serious mistake, and it was compounded by more blunders involving media briefings and Beazley exaggerations of his daughter's plight. Beazley made a mistake in political judgment ...I note that the Leader of the Opposition has not as yet said sorry.Further on health, Australians will not forget that it was the Labor Party that left only half our children immunised in 1996, it was Labor that allowed an exodus of doctors from rural areas, and it was the Labor Party that failed to improve the health of the Aboriginal population. Australians will also remember how the Labor Party placed Medicare and our public hospital system under great strain because it ignored the private health system for 13 years. In contrast to Labor's poor record on health, the coalition has strengthened Medicare, and the Howard government will be spending a record $29 billion on health this year. We have committed an extra $750 million to Medicare to allow doctors to better treat patients with asthma, diabetes and mental illness and to improve the rates of cervical cancer screening amongst women, particularly those living in rural Australia. The coalition has also provided the states and territories this year with a record $6.7 billion for their public hospital systems.It almost seems that the opposition needs to be reminded that the health of the citizens of this country is not just about public hospitals. Public hospitals and their accident and emergency systems are enormously important—and I have to say that I have personally benefited from them, as I know many others have as well. But there are issues like asthma, which affects two million Australians, including one in four primary school children, one in seven teenagers and one in 10 adults, and around 700 people a year die from asthma. We now have a special project running and an asthma-friendly schools program—and I was pleased to launch the South Australian leg of that only a few months ago. There is now a national diabetes strategy, which was launched in 1999. We are doing more now for mental health than has ever been done before. As we heard the Minister for Health and Aged Care say in question time today, we are leading the world in this area. We have a strategy that covers consumer rights, linking mental health services with other sectors, the mental health work force, legislation, research and evaluation, standards, monitoring and accountability. The National Depression Initiative, Beyond Blue, forms the focal point for our efforts to address the health burden of depression on the Australian community—and depression is a leading cause of illness and disability in Australia. We have had a National Suicide Prevention Strategy. We know that most people use their GP as the first point of entry for help with mental health issues. In recognition of this, the government has provided $120 million over four years to assist GPs to develop their skills in mental health diagnosis, care planning and treatment.This strategy has been taken into our schools with the Mind Matters program. We have so many other things happening. The campaign to reduce smoking in Australia has resulted in Australia having the lowest level of smoking of any country in the world. We have an excellent program also for educating young people about drugs in schools so that hopefully they will have healthier and happier lifestyles. We have provided information for parents and for teachers about bullying in schools, which of course can be a serious issue for young people. (Time expired)3028418:12:0030284Hollis, Colin, MPMr HOLLISDH4ThrosbyALP00—There are two issues I wish to raise in the grievance debate. One is the endless saga of the Child Support Scheme; the other relates to the timely exposure in the Weekend Australian about border control, which the Howard government is failing miserably to police.I and many other members from both sides have been critical of the Child Support Scheme and its administration for many years. We have all argued—because we see these cases every day in our offices—that the scheme, its administration and the assessments made need major reform. We start from the principle that parents are responsible for raising their children; they are responsible for the emotional and financial wellbeing of their children. This responsibility continues, especially when the parents separate or divorce. I must say that, in the vast majority of cases, both custodial and non-custodial parents do recognise this responsibility. The non-custodial parents that I have encountered since the Child Support Scheme was introduced over a decade ago do recognise their continuing responsibility to their children. What they argue for is that there be some fairness in the payment of child support. They argue for the assessment to be based on net rather than gross income. It is unreasonable, in my view, that the assessment of the payee is based on gross income. No-one in Australia gets what is stated on his or her tax return at the end of the financial year. In the last few years, some of the arguments we have had in this place about reforming child support have led to the implementation of amendments to the legislation. I am on the record as supporting these changes that I feel have made child support administration fairer. I particularly support the reforms to take into account the second family of payees. Why should the second family of a payee come off second best to the first family? But there are flaws in the government's reform in this case that have been brought to my attention by a particular constitutent's case. In a letter to me, dated 13 August, my constituent said:This legislation will allow me to be able to earn extra income, through overtime, to benefit my daughter from my second marriage ... However, the thrust of the new reforms requires the circumstances of the second family to be known by the provision of the financial details of the second wife to the Child Support Agency. In other words, the CSA needs to know the financial details of the second wife to find out whether it is necessary for the payee to work overtime to support the child from the second marriage or whether the second wife can fully support the child herself. My constituent objects to his second wife being taken through this process, and I must say that I tend to agree. He also has the added complication of funding ongoing legal costs to obtain contact with the children from his first marriage. This is a problem with the Child Support Scheme. Every time we fix up one area, another anomaly appears. It is like the dam wall: every hole we plug just creates extra pressure elsewhere until it, too, breaks. I have said before in this place that the Child Support Scheme needs some major reform. The more I see these types of cases coming through my office, the more I become convinced that this legislation should be set aside and that we need to start again. We passed legislation in this place, which came into effect on 30 June, to give some potential to second families to have some financial security. Instead, the situation is now more complicated. I do not suggest that making the Child Support Scheme fairer will be easy; we already have some experience in this attempt. But we have an obligation to try. I do not believe that we can keep amending legislation in the faint hope we get it right. The current legislation does not work; it is not fair; it is frustratingly complicated. We are further adding to the emotional battle that too many separating and divorced parents are involved in. And it is all at the expense of the children that the legislation was supposed to act for. Throw out this law and let us start again: that has been my constant call. We can design a new system; we can make it benefit children; we can take away the use of these kids as pawns in a battle between warring parents. They are owed a system that works.The second issue I raise is the expose in the Weekend Australian of our borders. Frankly, they are open all hours because the Howard government has failed miserably to ensure their protection. Throughout the two terms of this government, the exposure of Australia's borders has been a constant feature of attention. We have the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs brutally and ruthlessly attacking asylum seekers coming to Australia, locking them up and demonising them. But our borders are exposed and vulnerable. Illegal immigrants, trade in wildlife, illicit drugs and other items are brought to Australia every single hour of the day without detection. Today in the Australian, on page 4, is the headline `Boatpeople second to airport illegals'. The government has been warned about these problems since 1996 when it took the axe to law enforcement agencies in Australia by security intelligence. The report over the weekend made the startling claim that just three in every 10,000 shipping containers are physically inspected by Customs. The Minister for Justice and Customs said today that Australian ports would grind to a halt if we were forced to inspect every shipping container. I have a busy port in my electorate, Port Kembla, which has over 500 ship visits each and every year. It is one of Australia's busiest port facilities on the east coast of Australia and, with the activities of the Port Kembla Port Corporation to attract more use of the port, it will become even busier in the years ahead. We used to have in the Illawarra something like 16 Customs officials based at the waterfront in Port Kembla, just a step away from the wharf. There are now just four or five officials there. The Port Kembla Customs officials, whom I have had much to do with and greatly respect for their diligence and professionalism in difficult circumstances, are no longer based at Port Kembla. They are now located in the Wollongong central business district, in Ellen Street, Wollongong. They work office hours: 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. They are at least 15 minutes away from the port facilities. But, more importantly, they service a hugely diverse geographic area from Helensburgh in the north of the Illawarra to the Victorian border in the south. I am confident that Port Kembla is a wide-open port. We are just over an hour from the Sydney central business district and centres like Liverpool, Campbelltown and Cabramatta. I have invited each and every one of the five Customs ministers in this government since 1996 to visit Port Kembla with me. None has ever taken up my invitation. I remember vividly my last conversation with a Customs minister. It was former Customs Minister Truss, after a dinner in the Great Hall. We crossed paths and we talked about him visiting Port Kembla. I said that I was keen for him to come and I promised I would not make his visit political. I wanted him to visit, inspect Port Kembla, talk to Customs officials, officials from the port corporation, the MUA, business and other groups. He never came. In fact, he flew over my electorate on the way down to see the member for Gilmore a couple of years ago. He did not dare set foot in Throsby but flew right over it. We have had the saga of the cameras at Port Kembla, and I have raised it many times in this place. The government told me, in an answer to a question on notice, that cameras would be put into Port Kembla to increase surveillance. As I recall, it was the then Customs Minister Vanstone who issued a media release late one night saying that Port Kembla would have the good fortune to have nine surveillance cameras. At the time I welcomed the announcement, except that I pointed out that I had been promised such cameras by Minister Truss some months earlier. In fact, after much fanfare I made some routine inquiries of some people at the port about the cameras, only to discover they were damaged and had been boxed up and taken back to Sydney. If it were not so serious, it would have been a joke. I am now told that the cameras are at the port and are operating, but they are monitored in Melbourne. Can you believe it? What a farce! Imagine it: we will have an official in the middle of the night, in Melbourne, detect some suspect incident on the ship, someone coming down the gangway in Port Kembla or people rushing up and down the gangplank carrying all sorts of things off the ship. He or she from Melbourne will ring the Customs office in Ellen Street, Wollongong, and get an answering machine because the people work there from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The next attempt will be the much vaunted flying squad rushing down the F6 from Sydney. As the flying squad speeds down the F6 trying to head off the so-called `importers' at Port Kembla, the importers will be speeding their way up the F6 to disappear into metropolitan Sydney. It is a joke. They will wave to each other as they pass in the night.The fact is that Australia's ports, airports and borders are wide open. This government's cutbacks to law enforcement, Customs and the Federal Police have left our borders vulnerable and exposed. Labor have revealed our policy responses and we will establish an Australian coastguard. The government last week criticised this, but they have been penny wise and pound foolish. In fact, they have disregarded the fact that this country has a huge coastline and that every available resource, particularly of personnel, must be directed to ensure territorial integrity. Smugglers from all over the world know that Australia is an easy touch to get into and get things out of because there is little or no effective vigilance at our ports. (Time expired)3028718:23:0030287May, Margaret, MPMrs MAY83BMcPhersonLP10—Gold Coast city, Australia's sixth largest city, is the fastest-growing region in Australia. Part of its attraction is the surf and sand, the climate and the range of living styles available in the city, from high-rise on the coastal strip to rural residential in the hinterland. Queensland is also attracting increasing numbers of people captivated by its mellow lifestyle. It is an attractive place to live and is considered a good place to raise children in a safe and protected environment.Queensland is also a state with chronic system failure—the failure of the Department of Families, to protect abused children due to massive underfunding. The seriousness of the problem is seen in our child abuse numbers, with Queensland having the highest rate per capita of substantiated child abuse cases, followed by the Northern Territory, Victoria and South Australia. We also spend less on child protection than any other state.The 1999 Commission of Inquiry into the Abuse of Children in Queensland Institutions—the Forde inquiry—found that Queensland spent the lowest percentage on child protection relative to all other states and territories. The Forde inquiry recommended the families department budget be boosted by $103 million to meet the national average per capita welfare spending for children and to maintain the increase in line with the national average. Also, a report to state parliament estimates that the Queensland families department needs an extra $171 million to function properly. But we have a state government that has chosen to ignore the findings of the Forde inquiry and the report to its parliament by allocating very little extra funding—for example, $25 million in recurrent funding in the last two years of its last term, an additional $20 million in the next two years and over $5.2 million in the last budget. This allocation is contemptible and grossly inadequate to protect abused children. The department needs far more funding to operate in a satisfactory manner and to address its unrealistic workloads and the inadequate support and training given to workers expected to carry out work far beyond their experience. The effect of this lack of funding is felt directly on the Gold Coast, where we have no free, state funded counselling service focusing on young children. This is not only negligence on the government's part but incredible considering that we have some of the worst child abuse in numbers in the country. I have had numerous approaches by representatives of the Abused Child Trust, asking what can be done to get the state government to face up to its obligations and provide a full-time service.The Abused Child Trust runs Contact House on the Gold Coast, which is staffed two days a week by a psychologist. Funding for this service does comes not from the Beattie government but from Pacific Fair Shopping Centre and the Broadwater-Southport Rotary Club. An urgent need has been identified for the provision of a full-time service on the Gold Coast so that counselling can be given to abused children. The work the trust does is imperative. The analogy used is that of the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff: it is there to pick up the pieces and put them together again.I call on the Beattie government to urgently direct funds into the establishment of a contact house on the Gold Coast so as to provide the level of support that abused children need and to help break the cycle of abuse.It appears that abuse is a learned behaviour, which, without intervention, is likely to continue from generation to generation. The consequences of abuse are serious and pervasive. Relationships may be dysfunctional. Low esteem and self-worth, compounded by lack of education, can develop into mental health problems that further limit the victims' capacity to achieve human and economic potential, and they are more likely to have further adverse life experiences. I will read some extracts from the Forde inquiry on the effect of physical, sexual and mental abuse: There are seven main outcomes of physical abuse: aggressive and violent behaviour, non-violent criminal behaviour, substance abuse, self-injurious and suicidal behaviour, emotional problems, interpersonal problems, and academic and vocational difficulties.There is now little doubt about the relationship between childhood physical abuse and emotional and psychological problems in later life. These problems include anxiety, depression, hostility, paranoid thoughts, psychosis and disassociation disorders.Adolescents and adults who exhibit violent behaviours have often been abused as children. On another form of abuse the inquiry report said:Child sexual abuse is now widely regarded as causing mental health problems in adult life. Specifically, child sexual abuse has an impact on social, sexual and interpersonal functioning, and affects the child's developing capacities for trust, intimacy, mastery of their world.A history of child sexual abuse is reported to be associated with insecure and disorganised attachments, poor self-esteem and increased rates of relationship breakdown.Finally, on emotional abuse, the inquiry report says:There is a developing agreement that emotional maltreatment is a fundamental cause of negative developmental outcomes for children.For those children exposed to psychological abuse over some years, the resulting inability to develop good relationships with others creates a vulnerability to further abuse.It also says that adults who suffer abuse as children have experienced profoundly disturbed lives as a result of that abuse and they are likely to have more negative life experiences than other people.The chronic underfunding of the Department of Families is subjecting these underprivileged people to a further abuse, that of systems abuse. The system is replicating the abuse and neglect patterns attributed to its client group. Ultimately, the effectiveness of leaders as leaders will be tested by the achievement of purpose in the form of real and intended social change. I call on the Beattie government to show leadership, bring about social change and not continue to ignore and fail Queensland's abused children. There are now seven Labor state members on the Gold Coast. My challenge to them is to lobby their government to provide funding to ensure that abused children on the Gold Coast have adequate full-time services to address their very serious needs.Sitting suspended from 6.29 p.m. to 8.00 p.m.3028820:00:0030288Adams, Dick, MPMr ADAMSBV5LyonsALP00—My grievance today is about health and health funding. It does not matter where I turn in my electorate, health is the number one issue, and that is because the government have cut the funding of public hospital facilities. The whole issue seems to revolve around that. If Tasmania, at the very least, could access some of the $3.5 million that has been allocated to be spent on government advertising in Tasmania since July this year and reallocate it to health, we might be able to do something about our waiting lists. I have been watching the advertisements that the government have been running. Some of them talk about programs that were introduced ages ago. Why the government should want to bother trying to get people to sign up for them now really beats me.Some $500,000 a month is being used on government advertising in Tasmania; that is, Tasmania's share of the $20 million a month is being squandered nationwide. I am sure that the advertising agencies and the media are very happy with that program, but it is doing nothing to help those who really need the services that could be put in place with that sort of money. The government's trumpet has been blown long enough and the tune has become very tedious. The community wants funding for services. The member for Bass, Michelle O'Byrne, has pointed out that $500,000 would fund 21 acute care beds and 24 surgical beds for a month. She is right. Those are the sorts of things that the government should be funding—not propping up the advertising budget of a couple of media outlets. I will tell the House about some things that are happening in my electorate of Lyons. I had a recent case of a man from Queenstown who was waiting for an operation. His operation had been scheduled and he was advised to go to Hobart. He had to make arrangements for someone to look after his house and pets, organise his affairs while he was away, and find a HACC car to take him to Hobart, which is a 3½-hour trip one way. When he arrived, he was prepared and then he waited. After a few hours he was told that surgery for the day had been cancelled and that he would have to go home. They could not give him another date, as they were behind with surgery and there were no beds available for him to wait in, so he had to trail all the way back to Queenstown, unravel all his arrangements, and wait for the next time. Maybe his operation was not done because his life was not threatened, but he was in pain and he had been for some time. His time had come up and he spent quite a lot of money sorting out his affairs and arranging his transport to and from Hobart, and still he had to wait. Another case involved a man who was waiting to have a knee investigation carried out. Once again, he was in pain and considerable discomfort. He could not walk easily and he had been waiting for 18 months for the investigation to see what could be done. He still has not been seen to, although they say that he is now on top of the list. I dread to think how long he will have to wait after that process has been carried out.We have similar problems with dental care. I have heard some horrible stories about pensioners waiting for years to have their teeth fixed. One woman who rang me recently had been waiting for two years to have her dental plate fixed, and in all that time she had been unable to eat properly. I finally persuaded the clinic that the case was urgent. She was not alone in having difficulties in having her teeth attended to. Ever since pensioners have been unable to get the dental health care they had under the previous Labor government, we have had calls every week about sad, disturbing cases of people being left out of the health care loop. I cannot be told that it is the responsibility of the state government; it is everybody's responsibility that there is proper health care for all Australians, whether or not they have money. The federal government is not allocating sufficient funds to cover services, particularly services in the country.There are endless stories of health disasters and of people having to wait an unreasonable time just to get the preliminaries done. Another tooth story had a patient waiting in huge pain for two months. Finally, he was told to go up to Launceston for assistance, on a sit and wait basis. That means that one does not necessarily get an appointment. Fortunately, on that occasion he was looked at and the tooth was packed, but not fixed. He had to wait another few weeks to have the tooth pulled, and still he had a problem with pain. It is not a question of health in Australia; it is a question of avoiding sickness by all possible means, as it is quite possible that you will have to wait in misery to get help.Then there is the question of finding and keeping GPs in Tasmania. As I mentioned the previous time I spoke on health, Tasmania has a problem with doctors' practices in country areas. One area has been reclassified as a status 1 metropolitan practice because of the enormous difficulties in recruiting doctors in rural practices. The government keeps saying through the bureaucrats that there are enough doctors to meet population needs and that local doctors should enter medical practice in areas where population needs for medical care are not met. However, unless there are some incentives and a good backup system for doctors, they are not going to move to the country. One doctor on the east coast literally has to close his practice to have some time off. Others close their books to new patients, leaving them to travel hundreds of kilometres to gain assistance. I suggest that the whole state should be deemed rural, as we have small isolated populations that cannot be called metropolitan by any stretch of the imagination. I contend that anything outside the immediate boundaries of the Hobart and Launceston regions should be rural. Areas such as New Norfolk and Sorell have great difficulties because they are not attached to a major medical facility or hospital. They cannot get relief staff easily, and any temporary help through the OTD scheme is being allowed only for a temporary period. We cannot expect doctors to come here for a year and then be replaced. It often takes six to 12 months to find one, anyway. I know that many rural Tasmanian doctors go to the government for help, but help is not forthcoming. Their arguments are cogent and they do not want anything more at this stage than for those areas to continue to be recognised as rural areas, or RRMA 5 areas, and the half-and-half status proposed in some of the cases just does not work. Somehow, this important issue has to be dealt with. This is having an impact on other health services and, once again, it seems that people in the country having to travel to cities for assistance are consigned to long and intolerable waiting lists. We have heard what it is like in Western Australia, where they probably have similar problems for their country clients.I am very aggrieved by this government's inability to see the problems in the rural areas. But maybe they do see and they do not care about them, because it is only in certain regions which have small numbers of voters that they do not seem to care. Is this the cynical exercise again? Spend heaps of money on advertising because lots of people are likely to see it, but do not bother to fix a problem which will affect only a few thousand. This is where this government continually goes wrong.I keep asking about the situation of the doctors in New Norfolk and I still have not received from the Minister for Health and Aged Care a reply or even a letter acknowledging my letter. That dates back about six months. That is an appalling state of affairs. We need more money to be spent on health care, aged care and disability services, and we then need to consider the needs of our youth, too—education, child care, children's health, and one could go on. It is time for a change in government, and I think that will happen very soon.3029020:10:0030290Nelson, Dr Brendan, MPDr NELSONRW5BradfieldLPParliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence10—For almost six years I have had the privilege to represent the electorate of Bradfield, which is on what is known as the Upper North Shore of Sydney. Following the redistribution, it extends from North Willoughby up the Pacific Highway through Chatswood, north to Wahroonga, across to West Pymble on the western side and to Castle Cove on the eastern side. I wish to speak about some issues which, whilst in one sense specific to my own electorate, affect almost every Australian to varying degrees.Most of us harbour deep reservations about the sort of society and the kind of world that we will leave our children. Although we are extremely concerned about our day-to-day endeavours and the problems we face in life, I think most of us are particularly concerned about the extent to which we nurture the idealism of our children and we protect their vulnerable transition to adulthood. Over the last two years, I have noticed in my electorate a deteriorating situation in relation to the behaviour of a small minority of young people, some of whom come from my area and some of whom do not, in respect of congregation in and around train stations and platforms, the dealing of drugs, assaults by some young people on others, and the presence of alleged gangs. A couple of days ago, I said to one of my constituents who seemed to think that this was not an issue about which we ought to be concerned, `You need to understand that two levels of crime are being committed in our society. The first, which we do not expect but which we come to accept as part of human endeavour, is the sorts of crimes that are perpetrated against adults. The second is a world of increasing fear for young people who live in Sydney and who move in and around Sydney, particularly late in the afternoon and early in the evening. That is a world to which we adults seem oblivious.' One of my constituents sent me a letter which in part read:Dr Nelson, my son was seriously assaulted right outside his school by an ethnic gang. He spent several days in hospital. I was horrified to learn he had been the go-between in a drug deal but had then refused to cooperate. The police have been wonderful, but do parents have any idea what's going on?This is just one of around 30 frightening and, sadly, typical comments that have been made to me since I have spent the last year peeling an onion of misbehaviour by some people in and around train stations on the North Shore.Four months ago, I surveyed young people in my area in an attempt to find out directly from them what their concerns were. Eleven hundred and seventy-nine young people responded to the survey and 79 per cent said that they were aware of assaults, 200 had been direct witnesses and a staggering 69 per cent confirmed the dealing of illicit drugs in and around train station precincts. I suppose like most parents, I asked myself why this might be the case. Some of the most important research that has been done in Australia in relation to the concerns of young people has been done by the Victorian Centre for Adolescent Health. Last year, it published its survey of 9,000 students in years 7, 9 and 11, and it found extensive evidence of a direct correlation of antisocial behaviours and substance abuse such as under-age drinking, smoking, using cannabis, violence against others and self-harm. The three worst risk factors identified by young people were poor family management and discipline—for example, allowing truancy and under-age drinking, an atmosphere of constant family infighting and the ready availability of drugs. In contrast, young people saw as protective of them opportunities for positive community involvement, such as sport and youth groups, rewards from parents for good behaviour and the belief, for want of a better expression, in moral values—in a sense, living in a society that defines in some real sense the difference between what is right and what is wrong.Following the survey of the young people, I then interviewed about 30 who had indicated that they would like to speak to me about these issues. One 15-year-old girl put it rather perceptively when she said, `I think the problem is that a lot of parents don't know how to be parents.' This comment was made in the context of me asking how young people got access to the amount of alcohol that they do. Contrary to popular opinion, the number one drug problem with young people is alcohol, in particular binge drinking on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights. She said that they get it from two sources. One is that they pay someone who is 18 or older to buy the alcohol for them, but the other major source of alcohol is parents, because some parents seem to be of the view that their children are less likely to try illicit drugs if they provide them with alcohol. If we are to have any hope of instilling in our young people the confidence to be able to say no to the things which we know are not good for them, the first thing we have to do is to learn to say no to them.One of the other things which I have responsibility for in the government in the defence area in particular is that of cadets. Not all of the things of the 20th century are necessarily those which we wish to take into the 21st, but Defence Force cadets give young people in particular a sense of belonging. They give them a sense of the need to understand the importance of working with one another, a sense of embarking upon a journey of self-development, a sense of understanding the importance of working in a team, a sense of self-esteem and, though it might seem like an old-fashioned value, a sense of self-discipline.When I saw images on television about six weeks ago where it was reported that Aboriginal young people were rioting in Redfern and when I see images constantly on a daily basis now of problems in Cabramatta in south-western Sydney and also in Bankstown, I think that it is a pity that the New South Wales state government did not respond positively to the proposals of the Commonwealth government to let us at least pilot the integration of some Defence Force cadet units in some of those schools which are at the epicentre of the social and personal crises besetting the families and lives of some of the young people who seem to be causing more than their fair share of problems that our society is having. The Howard government has embarked on a significant range of reforms in cadets. We have increased the budget which is available for cadets by 25 per cent, so that $30 million per annum is now available for cadet activities. The first Director-General for cadets, Major-General Darryl Low Choy, has been appointed, and I recently announced the appointment of the Deputy Director-General for the cadets directorate, which will comprise 20 people in the Defence headquarters here in Canberra, and that is Ms Natalie Howson. Apart from increasing opportunities for young people in cadets to integrate into cadet units, other opportunities include firearm education, handling and training, the computerisation of cadet units, and $840,000 worth of funding to increase opportunities for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people to involve themselves in cadet activities. I just wondered, if we put aside some of the ideological opposition that I understand some sections of the Labor movement have to Defence cadets, whether or not it would be worth trialling a cadet unit. If the Aboriginal people in Redfern or the Vietnamese community in Cabramatta were prepared to trial the introduction of a cadet unit modified to suit the specific circumstances of the young people and the families in those areas, we from the Commonwealth government and from the Department of Defence could play a role in, for example, bringing Aboriginal cadets from Redfern to the Top End of the country where a significant number of Aboriginal soldiers, both men and women, have joined Norforce and can provide some positive role models for young Aboriginal people living in our cities in the context of traditional cultural values. There is a lot of hand-wringing about the problems besetting young people, with much less emphasis focused on some of the solutions. I think Australian Defence Force cadets provide one potential opportunity for that, not to mention reminding parents of the responsibilities that we all have. (Time expired)3029220:20:0030292Roxon, Nicola, MPMs ROXON83KGellibrandALP00—I want to speak this evening on the issue of refugees and, in particular, on the issue of the detention centre in my electorate, the Maribyrnong detention centre, and the policies that we are currently using for the continued detention of a number of people in that centre. It turns out that it is probably an appropriate day for us to be talking about this when the Prime Minister has been discussing the attitude that we as a nation are taking to turning away some several hundred people that have been picked up by a Norwegian boat off our northern coast in international waters. Whilst I do not pretend to know the detail about that issue, and I understand that there are some good reasons why we may not accept those people, it is hard as a backbencher and as a person to not worry that we might be doing something that in a couple of years time or in five, 10 or 20 years time we might think was really not the right way to treat people that have come from such difficult circumstances.It is in relation to this that I want to talk about the detention centre, because I think that all of us understand that there are some people in this community that do need to be detained. In fact, we do not need to have them come to Australia from other countries; we have a number of them who are home-bred and who do not comply with our laws, and we keep them in prison when they have been convicted of the criminal offences that they have committed.The detention centre in my electorate, the Maribyrnong detention centre, which has been there for a long time, has not had much controversy surrounding it. This is because the people that have until recent times been held in the detention centre in Maribyrnong—which houses only about 80 people, so it is not of the scale of Woomera or Port Hedland—mostly arrived in Australia on valid visas and by and large they are people who have been held in detention over the last 10, 15 or 20 years because they have been repeated breachers of their visas. For example, they have overstayed their visas or they have had deportation orders which they have not complied with. A number of people would be in a category where they have been convicted of criminal offences here. People may not know that people who have permanent residency, once convicted of a serious enough criminal offence, will be deported back to their country of origin. In the community there is not a large amount of argument that those people are appropriately in detention centres and appropriately being deported. In particular, in Maribyrnong there are a large number of criminal deportees of Vietnamese background. The reason that there are a large number held at the moment is that Vietnam has refused to accept people who are being deported under these circumstances. So there are definitely people in our community who should and can be detained for good reason and deported for good reason.It is only in more recent times that Maribyrnong has seen a mix of the people who have been held in its detention centre extend to the people who are asylum seekers, who have not committed any offence and who have arrived in this country, perhaps without the appropriate papers but seeking asylum as they are permitted to do under international law. We are now seeing coming up at the Maribyrnong detention centre a number of the issues that are being raised in other detention centres. I think the humanitarian grounds and considerations are different in circumstances of people who have arrived in that way.I would like to talk a little bit tonight about whether we are doing the right thing with our detention policy. It is something that I understand is incredibly difficult but I do think we should try to look outside the current way of thinking. I am fearful that we might look back at the generations of people that were held in detention centres and in 20 or 30 years time will talk about them being another stolen generation. People argue that at the time the way the Aboriginal people were treated was something that was done in the best interests of those people. I know people argue about that, but it seems to me now very clear that that was a very inhumane way to treat people. I am worried that that is exactly what we will relive in another 10, 15 or 20 years with respect to the way we are treating these people.I visited the Maribyrnong detention centre in March this year. Although I am not a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration, which was doing an inquiry into this matter, I went along with them as the local member and found that it was very interesting. But I was appalled to learn, for example, that there were three high school aged children held in the detention centre who were not permitted to go to school. There were a number of primary school children who were going to the local school. The staff of the detention centre took them to school of the morning and picked them up in the afternoon. But the high school aged children were not permitted to do that.When I read what our policies are, they always include a commitment to saying that children held in detention should get educational support. It is a nonsense to say that 12-, 13- and 14-year-old boys who have been held in detention for over 18 months and not been to school are getting proper educational support. It is not as though we have a single teacher in there teaching them, either. They have one paper between them, they occasionally have access to the computer and they have some books, but otherwise they have no educational facilities at all. It seems to me the only reason they do not have access—I have been writing and campaigning on this issue since I was there—is because the federal and state governments cannot agree on who would actually pay for those students to be in a local state school.The local school has said that they are happy to have them. In fact, the Maribyrnong Secondary College, which is the closest school there, is very ethnically mixed and would be entirely appropriate. They are happy to take on the challenges of educating people who are held in detention, but the state government says these people do not fit within their educational funding grounds because the people are detainees and therefore the responsibility of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; the department of immigration says that they do not have to pay anything extra for their education. It seems to me pretty outrageous.Of course in the current environment every Western country is going to be a destination for asylum seekers and we cannot expect to be immune from those concerns. To date, we have been relatively protected by our physical remoteness, lack of land borders and strictly controlled visa regime. But it seems, now that access to Northern Hemisphere countries is becoming increasingly restricted and there are improvements in communication and travel, that we have seen the emergence of a profitable international people smuggling industry. We seem to be becoming a more attractive destination. If we look at the numbers of people who are coming to this country, we need to acknowledge that introducing more domestic legislation will not deter people from arriving in this country; nor will it deter the smugglers who organise the boats. The figures over the last five years have risen dramatically in face of this government's stricter domestic legislative changes. I do not say they are causally linked, but it is clear that the steps being taken by this government are not working.I would also like to raise the issue that, according to the figures of the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, there are nearly 59,000 people estimated to have overstayed their visas and who were illegally present in Australia at 30 June last year. The current number of boat arrivals is less than 10 per cent of that figure, yet the Howard government does not seem to be interested in taking any action on those overstaying their visas and who are thus here illegally at that time but focuses only on the asylum seekers—those who are often in the most desperate of circumstances. When you look at the figures of how many people are accepted once they go through the application process, the rates are something like 90 per cent of those asylum seekers who arrive by boat and are detained compared to about 10 per cent of those who have arrived on a valid visa and then seek to stay here and who apply at that time.I am very concerned because, when I visited the detention centre, assurances were made to me by both ACM and the department of immigration that as a local member of parliament I could visit at any time of my choosing. Sadly, when I have asked to visit again, both the minister and ACM have declined my request, and I am very concerned that the minister is hiding something. If these centres are well managed and humane, as the minister would have us believe, he should welcome a visit from the local member of parliament at any time. I do acknowledge that this issue is very tricky, and I am delighted to say that I will have the opportunity later in the year to travel to both Iran and Finland, and refugee policy and equivalent detention systems will be the key things that our delegation will look at. You know how small our problem is when you realise that in Iran there are 1.9 million refugees, which makes our situation pale into insignificance. (Time expired)3029420:30:0030294Lawler, Tony, MPMr LAWLER834ParkesNP10—The largest centre in my electorate of Parkes is an outstanding model of this government's approach to improving the lives of people in regional areas of Australia, especially in western New South Wales. On Friday, Dubbo took a huge leap towards becoming a major university centre, with confirmation that all 80 places recently allocated by the federal government to Charles Sturt University will be in the city of Dubbo. Twenty of the places are regional places and 60 have been awarded to Charles Sturt University from the Backing Australia's Ability program. It was confirmed on Friday afternoon that the 60 places from the Backing Australia's Ability program were to be based in Dubbo. With normal attrition rates, it is estimated that the new places will result in at least 220 additional students at the Dubbo campus over the next four years. As a result, I believe that Dubbo has just turned the corner towards being a university city and a centre of excellence for learning and education. I credit local visionaries and this government for making this huge difference. For its part, the federal government has invested heavily in this project, and the money could not have been better spent in terms of the impact this will make on people's lives in Dubbo, in the towns of the surrounding district, and in the region as a whole. The 80 new places are on top of the numbers that will already be flocking to the city—not to mention the staff and associated positions that must follow. As well as being a major boost to Dubbo's educational standing, this announcement will also have huge benefits in terms of the type of professionals Dubbo can attract and the economic spin-offs in the housing and hospitality industries, for example. The benefits for the broader region will be equally terrific, and the opportunity for young people in western New South Wales to study closer to home should arrest, to some degree, the flow of our best and brightest from Dubbo and the west to the metropolitan areas. I was speaking recently at the orientation at the Dubbo campus of the university, and the dean informed me that 300 people are currently undertaking a tertiary education at Charles Sturt University in Dubbo—and that was before these new places were announced— who would not have had an opportunity to achieve a tertiary education before. That is 300 people who would not have been studying elsewhere and would not have achieved a tertiary education at all. The Dubbo campus recently staged a Tin Shed Ball that, for most Dubbo residents, was the first high-profile student event in the city. I am sure that, as these campus occurrences continue, the reality will hit that Dubbo is no longer just the service centre to the vast western plains; it is also host to a university and everything that comes with that honour. More importantly, the consolidation of the university's operations will greatly enhance efforts to address other issues in the lives of people in the region—most notably health services. In conjunction with the clinical school that this government has also seen fit to locate in Dubbo, and the MRI that we hope will be announced very shortly—despite members nearby having different opinions—the framework is in place to accelerate strategies to increase the availability of health professionals in country areas like ours.In addition to the popular scholarships that are in place to help country students become doctors and to attract city students to regional areas, the university will in future be able to use its facilities and education network to boost those objectives—because, without doubt, the shortage of all manner of health professionals in western New South Wales remains a key concern for people and is the major inhibitor to the quality of life enjoyed.I feel obliged to again point out that it is not just GPs that are chronically insufficient in numbers— even in Dubbo; the scarcity extends to all allied health professionals: nurses, medical specialists, dentists, pharmacists, drug and alcohol counsellors and psychologists. My vision is that there is nothing that can stop us now from addressing these issues. With the cooperation that has been shown by the leaders of Charles Sturt University and Sydney University in establishing the clinical school, and with the willingness they have shown to share facilities, including administrative facilities, there is no reason that some of the courses offered by Charles Sturt University at some of its other campuses could not in the near future be extended, through technology, to Dubbo and the western region. To be sure, the new tertiary infrastructure—although complemented with the new senior college for years 10 to 12 that has been funded with $9 million worth of federal assistance—will not result in overnight miracles. In fact, by the time the real dividends are harvested from this investment in the future, there is every chance that this government, many of the ministers, and hopefully most of the opposition, will have changed. These steps provide long-term answers that may take 10 years to have a major impact— whether that be an increase in health professionals or a dramatic end to the brain drain and the city drift of academics and talented young people—while short-term solutions, in the form of the aforementioned bonded scholarships, will bring some benefit. For example, the number of GPs in Dubbo rose by a quarter this year compared with this time last year, due to the federally funded program that places recent graduates in country areas. I understand that there are 25 more doctors in the region under the practice placement program run by the Royal Australian College of GPs. These GPs operate out of the premises of an existing GP, who acts in a mentor role, offering the visitors experience in running a practice and a taste of country lifestyle. They are in the various towns for six-month rotations, and this is a concerted approach to addressing the shortage of GPs in rural and regional areas. To its credit, this government has also spent huge sums of money implementing meaningful, long-term solutions that are of little political or publicity value to this government but that are undertaken because they are the right thing to do. Too often the cynical will say: `Votes are the bottom line. If you want to get the support of your MP, mention the ballot box backlash.' In this case, and others too numerous to mention, the motivation has been to get the best outcome for the community.I mentioned earlier the red-letter status of the boost in campus numbers, and I should briefly explain the significance for those colleagues who might be unaware. Until this university campus became a reality, the 320,000 square kilometres of western New South Wales that comprise my electorate had no university. Other New South Wales centres like Armidale, Bathurst, Orange, Wagga and Albury have been able to boast of their tertiary facilities and enjoy the numerous economic, demographic and social benefits they entail—but, alas, until recently, Dubbo could not. The vast tract of western New South Wales, for which Dubbo the largest population centre and primary service centre, lost its best and brightest every year, forced away not only to Newcastle, Sydney and Wollongong but also to other regional centres. But this government has changed that situation for the better of all involved, and for that this government deserves recognition. What is more, this government has implemented these huge improvements with additional scope for addressing other regional concerns like health services. Make no mistake: initiatives like the university and the medical school are among the most far-reaching and beneficial initiatives that the Dubbo region has seen in my adult life. In addition to the telecommunications revolution under way out west, via the hugely successful Networking the Nation program, and the massive investment in the environment through the Natural Heritage Trust, this government has been a tonic for regional New South Wales. While work remains to be done, solutions to problems that a decade ago under Labor seemed intractable have been tackled with courage and commitment by this government. As I mentioned, it is often said that sometimes the longer term solutions do not draw the praise that they perhaps should, but it is quite clear to any thinking person that, if these changes were implemented 10 years ago, many of the crises that we are facing today in my region simply would not be part of our lives. If the establishment of the Royal Flying Doctor base in Dubbo to service the outlying towns and provide visiting specialist services to places like Burke, Brewarrina, Cobar, Wilcannia and Tibooburra had been implemented five years ago we would not have some of the health problems that we now have in those areas. If the clinical schools that were announced in the last budget had been implemented 10 years ago, we would not have the shortage of doctors that we now have. If the Department of Rural Medicine that was established in Broken Hill by this government early in my term of government—it was a policy that had come from the first term of the government—had not been established, there would be 60 fewer jobs in Broken Hill and the delivery of health service teaching to people who live in the Wilcannia, Burke, Brewarrina and Wanaaring areas simply would not have happened. The number of Aboriginal people who have graduated with a diploma of health sciences from the Department of Rural Health has been incredible, and it has been my great honour to have met some of these outstanding young students. As I said, the things that this government has put in place to turn around the problems faced by people who live in my area need to be recognised and the government congratulated. (Time expired)10000Gash, Joanna (Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER)Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs Gash)—The question is:That grievances be noted.Question resolved in the affirmative. 10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—In accordance with standing order 104, I shall now proceed to put the question on the motion moved earlier today by the Manager of Opposition Business, on which a division was called for and deferred in accordance with the standing order. No further debate is allowed. 5T4Brereton, Laurie, MPMr Brereton—The opposition does not wish to press for a division on this matter.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MadamMadam DEPUTY SPEAKER—In view of the request, the division will no longer proceed.Committees30297302973029720:41:0030297Jull, David, MPMr JULLMH4FaddenLP10—On behalf of the Joint Select Committee on the Intelligence Services, I have pleasure in presenting the committee's advisory report on the Intelligence Services Bill 2001, the Intelligence Services (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001 and certain parts of the Cybercrime Bill 2001.Ordered that the report be printed.MH4Jull, David, MPMr JULL—The Intelligence Services Bill 2001 makes a historic contribution to the development of the Australian intelligence community. For the first time, the functions of both the Australian Secret Intelligence Service and the Defence Signals Directorate are provided for in legislation. The findings of the 1995 commission of inquiry into the Australian Secret Intelligence Service provide the basis for the IS Bill. One of the key recommendations of the commission of inquiry was the need for a legislative base for ASIS. The key features of the IS Bill include the provision of immunities for both ASIS and DSD, the provision of rules to protect the privacy of Australians and the creation of a Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO and ASIS—the PJCAA. The focus of the review was the accountability mechanisms applying to the use of the immunity provisions under clause 14 of the bill. The examination of the IS Bill identified a number of unintended consequences. The committee's recommendations, however, will eliminate these concerns and ensure that the accountability framework is effective. I shall discuss individually the key clauses of the IS Bill which require amendment. Clause 6—The functions of ASISParagraph 6(1)(e) provides a degree of flexibility for the government in its tasking of ASIS by allowing ASIS `to undertake such other activities as the responsible minister directs'. The accountability provisions applying to 6(1)(e) include the need for the responsible minister to consult with other ministers and make the direction in writing, which would be made available to the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security. In addition to this, the committee recommended that, if the minister gives a direction under paragraph 6(1)(e), he or she must, as soon as practicable after the direction is given to the head of ASIS, advise the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO and ASIS of the nature of the other activity to be carried out.Clauses 8 and 9—Ministerial directions and authorisationThe privacy of Australians is paramount. Recommendations 2 and 7 will enhance accountability of the operation of the agencies. Recommendation 7 seeks to amend clauses 8 and 9 of the bill to require authorisation by the responsible minister for any activity specifically directed towards obtaining intelligence concerning Australian persons or Australian organisations overseas. In addition, the minister, in giving such an authorisation, must be satisfied that the Australian person or organisation overseas is engaged in, or is reasonably suspected of being engaged in or of being likely to engage in, activities prejudicial to Australia's national security. An authorisation of this nature will have effect for six months, whereupon it will lapse unless renewed by the minister. Recommendation 2 makes a similar requirement in relation to the operation of ministerial directions made under paragraph 6(1)(e).Clause 11—Limit on agencies functionsParagraph 11(2)(c) of the bill provides for ASIS or DSD, in carrying out their functions, to communicate to the appropriate law enforcement agencies any intelligence that is relevant to serious crime. There were some concerns about the accountability mechanisms applying to this provision. Under the nationality rules which apply to ASIS and DSD, both agencies are required to record instances of collection and reporting on Australians, and provide records to the IGIS. Recommendation 4 will strengthen this accountability mechanism by requiring the responsible minister in relation to ASIS and the responsible minister in relation to DSD to consult with the Attorney-General before making the rules relating to the communication and retention of information concerning Australian persons. Clause 14—Liability for certain actsClause 14, relating to immunities for both ASIS and DSD, proved to be the most contentious provision in the bill. The committee's scrutiny of this clause was rigorous and thorough. The examination revealed an unintended consequence of clause 14 which would have permitted ASIS to conduct certain activities beyond its requirements. The implementation of recommendation 6 will remove this possibility and provide a framework which ensures that immunities are only granted in cases where an activity is done in the proper performance of a function of the agency. In addition, recommendation 5 requires the development of protocols to guide the operations of clause 14. In particular, recommendation 5 states that clause 14 should not come into effect until the protocols are provided in writing to the IGIS.Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO and ASISI conclude by focusing on the role and the functions of the proposed Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO and ASIS. The history of parliamentary oversight of the Australian intelligence community is a chequered one. The IS Bill, together with the committee's amendments, will herald a new era of parliamentary oversight of Australia's key intelligence agencies. The PJCAA will replace the existing Parliamentary Joint Committee on the ASIO. The PJCAA will examine the administration and expenditure of ASIO and ASIS, and will be required to provide the parliament with an annual report of its activities. In addition, the committee has proposed a range of amendments which enhance parliamentary scrutiny through expanding the powers of the PJCAA. These additional powers include:the requirement that the Minister advise the Committee of the nature of any direction made under paragraph 6(1)(e) regarding ASIS undertaking such other activities as the responsible Minister directs;the requirement to be briefed by the IGIS on the protocols relating to clause 14, and the privacy rules made under clause 15; andthe requirement that DSD be subject to scrutiny by the Committee.The committee's recommendations will enhance the Intelligence Services Bill 2001 by providing an effective accountability framework which will provide confidence for the parliament and the Australian public.In conclusion, I would like to express the committee's appreciation for the efforts of those who gave evidence to our inquiry. I would especially like to acknowledge the excellent advice and guidance provided by Hilary Penfold, head of the Office of Parliamentary Counsel, in the latter stages of the inquiry. I would also like to thank the members of the committee for their time and dedication in conducting this inquiry. Finally, I thank the secretarial staff who were involved in the inquiry: Grant Harrison, Katie Hobson and our inquiry secretary, Stephen Boyd. I commend the report to the House.20:48:0030298Brereton, Laurie, MPMr BRERETON5T4Kingsford-SmithALP00— by leave—I am pleased to speak this evening on the report of the Joint Select Committee on Intelligence Services on the Intelligence Services Bill 2001. At the outset can I say that the legislation under review is long overdue. The government has been very slow to implement the 1995 Samuels commission recommendations to put ASIS on a statutory basis and subject to a degree of parliamentary oversight. Foreign Minister Downer has taken more than five years to produce the bill that he eventually introduced into this parliament on 27 June this year.The Joint Select Committee on Intelligence Services has produced what I think is a valuable bipartisan report. I would like to join with the chairman in thanking all my colleagues on the committee for the constructive approach that they adopted to the work of the committee. Our task was greatly assisted by the chairmanship of the honourable member for Fadden, the excellent work of the committee secretariat and the valuable contributions from the First Parliamentary Counsel, Hilary Penfold QC and from Nathan Hancock of the Parliamentary Library. Labor members of the committee urged the adoption of 11 major recommendations designed to improve the bill and ensure appropriate protection for the privacy and rights of Australians at home and overseas. All our recommendations have been adopted in this report. My remarks tonight will highlight a number of these recommendations which, if adopted by the government, will make the bill much more acceptable than at present. The legislation under review is intended to establish a framework for accountability and parliamentary oversight. It also serves in a legal sense to empower ASIS and the DSD to conduct activities in performance of their functions. Whatever the current practice and intentions, this will be a new legal reality within which future decisions about possible overseas intelligence operations will be made.Sections 6 and 7 of the bill establish the primary functions of ASIS and DSD as obtaining intelligence about the `capabilities, intentions or activities of people or organisations outside Australia'. ASIS may also undertake such `other activities' overseas as the responsible minister directs. Section 11(1) provides that the agencies' functions are to be performed `only in the interests of Australia's national security, Australia's foreign relations or Australia's national economic well-being'. These are concepts left undefined in the bill. ASIS and DSD will be legally empowered to collect intelligence on foreign persons and organisations overseas and on Australian persons and organisations overseas. The bill makes no distinction between persons or organisations on the basis of nationality other than in the provisions of section 15 relating to the privacy rules.It needs to be understood that this is a different approach to that taken in the New Zealand Government Communications Security Bureau Bill introduced into the New Zealand parliament in May this year. That legislation authorises New Zealand's signals intelligence agency to collect `foreign intelligence' defined as `information about the capabilities, intentions or activities of a foreign organisation or foreign person'. The New Zealand bill largely, but not totally, excludes New Zealand citizens and organisations from the scope of the GCSB operations.In evidence to the select committee, ASIS and DSD emphasised that in the normal course of operations neither agency targets Australian citizens overseas. Both agencies stated their purpose is `foreign intelligence' collection, though this is a term not used in the bill. The agencies emphasised the significance of the nationality rules that place constraints on the handling of information relating to Australian citizens that may be obtained incidentally in the course of foreign intelligence collection.ASIS and DSD did acknowledge, however, that in certain limited circumstances it could be permissible under current practice to collect intelligence on Australian citizens. I put it to the House that very careful consideration needs to be given to the circumstances in which intelligence concerning Australian citizens overseas could be authorised. While it may not be current prac-tice, intelligence collection activities focused on Australian citizens overseas will be permitted under this bill, but the conditions under which this could happen are not properly identified or defined.It is possible to envisage limited circumstances in which intelligence collection relating to an Australian citizen overseas could be in the national interest—for example, an Australian engaged in espionage or terrorism against Australia. However, reliance on the nationality rules appears to be an insufficient long-term safeguard for the privacy and interests of Australian citizens overseas. This is especially so when comparison is made to the stringent legislative controls on covert intelligence collection by ASIO within Australia for national security purposes.Accordingly, the select committee recommends that the bill be redrafted to include a specific authorisation process comparable to the special powers provisions of the ASIO Act 1979 for any activities specifically directed towards obtaining intelligence concerning Australian persons or organisations overseas. Any such intelligence should relate to questions of national security and national security alone, and any authorisation should have effect for six months whereupon it would lapse unless renewed by the minister. These provisions would be an important safeguard for the rights and privacy of Australian citizens overseas. A definition of the key concept of national security is also required. `Security' is defined in section 4 of the ASIO Act 1979. Drawing upon this precedent and considering the need to cover issues such as people smuggling, `national security,' we believe, should include protecting Australia from espionage, sabotage, politically motivated violence, promotion of communal violence, attacks on Australia's defence system, acts of foreign interference and unauthorised movements of persons or objects across Australia's national borders.The select committee gave careful consideration to the question of `other activities' which may be conducted by ASIS under section 6(1)(e). Section 6(4) provides that in performing its functions ASIS must not plan for or undertake paramilitary activities or activities involving violence against persons or the use of weapons. Paragraph 6(4) requires clarification through, we believe, the definition of `paramilitary activities.'Given that section 6(1)(e) will allow the responsible minister to expand the function of ASIS without recourse to legislative change, the committee concludes that a measure of parliamentary scrutiny is appropriate. In addition to providing the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security with a copy of any direction made under section 6(1)(e), the minister should be required to advise the parliamentary committee of the general nature of the `other activity' to be performed by the agency and to do so as soon as practicable after the direction is given. The committee further recommends that any authorisation of `other activities' in relation to Australian citizens or organisations overseas should also be covered by a specific authorisation procedure and be limited to activities which directly enhance or protect Australia's national interest. The committee gave lengthy consideration to the immunity provisions contained in section 14 of the bill. Labor members of the committee spent considerable time exploring precisely what activity the immunity provisions could cover and how immunity might work in practice. While the establishment of immunities for actions inside and outside Australia is not without precedent, the controlled operations provisions of the Crimes Act being one example, any legislation of this nature must be approached with caution.The report makes a number of important recommendations that will significantly narrow the potential scope of the immunities provided by the bill and establish safeguards and protocols for their operation. In this, the committee was assisted by the valuable drafting input from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. Amongst other safeguards, the report recommends the bill be amended to make it clear that the immunity provisions do not permit any act inside Australia which ASIO could not do without proper authorisation under the ASIO Act 1979, the Telecommunications (Interception) Act 1979 or the Telecommunications Act 1997. Such a measure will ensure that there is no back door for covert intelligence collection in Australia outside the established legal checks and balances.The committee further recommends that the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security should have the responsibility of certifying that an act has been done in proper performance of the agency's functions and may therefore be covered by the provisions of section 14. Other recommendations urged by Labor and adopted by the committee include provision for the Attorney-General to be consulted in respect of the privacy rules concerning Australian persons and protocols to govern the operation of section 14 immunities provision for the parliamentary committee to be briefed on the privacy rules and immunity protocols, and amendments to the bill to ensure the arrangements for briefing the Leader of the Opposition about ASIS are the same as those relating to ASIO. Finally, the committee has adopted our recommendation that the scope of the new Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIS and ASIO be expanded to include DSD. As the report notes, DSD is the most significant defence intelligence collection agency and it is highly desirable that it be subject to oversight by the parliamentary committee. The bill as drafted is quite unsatisfactory in its failure to provide adequate safeguards for the rights and privacy of Australian citizens at home and abroad. The bipartisan report of the joint select committee provides a way forward, and I hope that the government will agree to each of the committee's recommendations. The opposition shadow cabinet, our caucus committee on national security and trade and the full caucus will now consider the bill, this report of the select committee and any consequent amendments the government proposes to make. I anticipate that we will then be ready to deal with the bill when it is brought on for debate on Tuesday of the parliament's next sitting week. 21:00:0030301McArthur, Stewart, MPMr McARTHURVH4CorangamiteLP10—by leave—I am delighted to participate in this debate on the report of the Joint Select Committee on Intelligence Services. I commend the chairman and members of the committee, who deliberated long and hard on a number of the provisions and recommendations. I thank the secretariat for their excellent work in presenting the report.As members would be aware, this report originates from the development of the Intelligence Services Bill 2001 to give statutory recognition to the ASIS operation and the ASIO operation. From having heard the various points of debate over two days, and from my time as a member of the ASIO committee, I have come to understand the fundamental problem facing this parliament in developing a statutory background for both of these organisations. This goes back to the original focus of the IS Bill, where the Australian Secret Intelligence Service, ASIS, was established by executive direction on 13 May 1952. It was only in 1977 that the government publicly acknowledged the existence of ASIS as Australia's foreign intelligence agency.The Samuels and Codd report, which was the basis of this legislation—which previous governments had not been prepared to bring to the parliament, but this government did—made some recommendations that the legislative basis for ASIS, which details the level of accountability and oversight, is the basis of this legislation. Other key elements of the IS Bill are the provision for immunities for ASIS and DSD in respect of the proper conduct of their functions, particularly in clause 14, which other members have alluded to; the provisions to protect the privacy of Australians; the creation of a Parliamentary Joint Committee of ASIS and ASIO; and the protection and indemnity of ASIS staff in their operations.The report refers to the Hope royal commission. The first Hope recommendation is the fundamental aspect of the report:The fundamental consideration favouring parliamentary sanction for ASIS is that the parliament is the instrument of democratic control of the government in this country, so a statute establishing ASIS is a statute authorising the minister to act to control the service on behalf of the parliament itself, speaking for the people and the ministers responsible to the parliament in a general way for ASIS.That is the fundamental problem that the committee and the drafter of the legislation are facing. The Samuels and Codd report specifically addressed the problems of ASIS operational control, which has been a problem facing ASIO and the ASIS committee. I quote:On the contrary, its operational management is well structured and its tactical decisions are thoroughly considered and in major instance subject to external approval. Its operational people are skilled and discreet, and the product it gathers is well regarded by its customers and professional assessors.The committee looked at this fundamental dilemma. The committee thought that the section D notice in general had not been very effective since 1952. The committee looked fairly carefully at the issue of whether ASIS should include paramilitary activities. It was quite clear from the discussions that that was not included in the statute nor in the intent of the operation. As other members have alluded to the House, clause 14 was a major point of discussion by the committee as to how the definition of those persons should be considered. In my assessment, the Inspector-General Intelligence Services indicated that he was not alarmed about clause 14 and stated:... given that my own office will, on a regular basis, be doing what it does: inspecting the operations of the agencies and ensuring that the capacity for the agencies to undertake these sorts of operations with that kind of immunity is not abused. I think it is fair to say that I have seen no instances of a desire on the part of the agencies to abuse their privileges in the past, and I have every reason to believe that they will not do so in the future. If I observed any instances of that, obviously I would take necessary action.The problem of clause 14 is a very important aspect of the debate, which the committee deliberated on at great length. I am happy that the Inspector-General will consider these matters carefully. I will confine my remarks to those aspects of the report. I commend the report to the parliament. I commend all those members of the parliament, both House of Representatives and Senate, who participated in a genuine discussion to reach a conclusion on a very sensitive bit of legislation in the hope that these agencies would come under parliamentary control yet be effective in providing intelligence to the Australian community and be responsive and effective in their operational activities on the ground.21:06:0030302McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY4I4WatsonALP00—I seek leave to make a statement.Leave granted.QI4Price, Roger, MP4I4McLeay, Leo, MPMr LEO McLEAY—I was about to make a short statement but my colleague the member for Chifley wants me to make a long statement. I could be tempted if that were necessary. The member for Kingsford-Smith pulls a face, so who knows. I enjoyed the work of this committee. I compliment, as did my colleague the member for Kingsford-Smith, the work of the committee chairman. It is rather unusual in this place to find that a committee that looked into the affairs of the security apparatuses of Australia could come down with a unanimous report albeit six years later than it probably should have. Five years into the term of this government is a bit of a long time after the recommendation of the royal commission and the follow-ups; nevertheless, better late than never.Some credit needs to be given to the Chairman of the Joint Select Committee on the Intelligence Services, Mr Jull, for his work on the committee. I would also, I think begrudgingly, give some credit to the people who represented the security services on the committee, because they tried to help the committee to achieve the aims that we wanted—which was to ensure that Australians would be given a reasonable satisfaction that their security services were not peering into their lives and that they were not using the immunities that were proposed in this bill that may have allowed them to do that through the back door.The committee was very much helped in its work by the fact that we had open committee meetings. It is probably the first time in the history of the security services in this country that we have had sitting at one table in an open committee meeting the director of DSD, the director of ASIO and the director of ASIS. It was rather interesting to remember the paranoia in the press about the security services and look at who was sitting in the gallery for that meeting—not many of the lazy journalists who inhabit this building could be bothered to come down and see these people coming out into the light of day. If it had been Britain or Washington where these things take on a little bit of interest, at least one or three of them may have been there. But down here in Australia, they were probably more interested in something that someone could hand out to them to write. The fact that the three directors of those services turned up at a public meeting and argued their case was, for the aficionados, an interesting parliamentary event, but I did not see it in the paper so maybe it never happened. A lot of the credit for having the three directors there goes to the chairman of the committee and the government members were open minded for a change—and Mr Jull certainly was that.The committee was helped very much by a very enlightening exposition we had from the First Parliamentary Counsel, Hilary Penfold, on one of those interesting afternoons where parliamentary committees come into their own. House of Representatives committees do not often examine legislation. We tend to get up and argue about it, but there is not much in-depth analysis. Maybe our Senate colleagues would tell us they do this all the time, but it proved to be an interesting afternoon for the members of the House of Representatives committee to have this interaction with Ms Penfold and the bureaucrats around the table with Ms Penfold. We saw people arguing for what might be the best approach—all this at a public committee meeting that none of the lazy journalists bothered to come along to. I think that crystallised in a lot of our minds where we should go with this legislation. I had a very significant problem with the original legislation that was before the House, in particular clause 14. I have been a member of the ASIO committee for this parliament, and I recall years ago how there was this absolute paranoia in Australia about ASIO—that they were tapping everybody's phone, they were under everybody's bed, they were sharing time with the reds and you never knew who was going to get out in the morning with you. But the Hawke government legislated for a committee to look at ASIO—admittedly, it had very finely drawn terms of reference, including that the Prime Minister had to nominate you and that the Deputy Speaker could not be a member of the committee, which we are fixing in this legislation—and that was progress. Since that time, there has been less criticism of ASIO. I would have been happier if this legislation mirrored the ASIO legislation. One of the exercises that we went through with Ms Penfold was that she gave us some guidance about how this legislation could and, in some areas, could not mirror the ASIO legislation. I went into this as a sceptic, but I am probably at the stage now where I think what she was saying was right.At the outset, I was very concerned with clause 14 of this legislation, which provided indemnities for ASIS officers who committed crimes against Australian legislation both within Australia and overseas. I was most particularly concerned with paragraph 14 (c) of the proposed legislation which was about `Liabilities for certain acts'. Clause 14 said:A person—and that could be any person—is not subject to any civil or criminal liability for any act done inside Australia if: (a) the act is preparatory to, in support of, or otherwise directly connected with, overseas activities of the agency concerned; and (b) the act: (i) involves aiding, abetting, counselling, procuring or otherwise planning or attempting to carry out; or (ii) is otherwise directly connected with; some other act outside Australia that would amount to an offence if that other act were committed in Australia; and (c) the act is done in the proper performance of a function of the agency.It struck me that paragraph (c) would have allowed ASIS people to burgle their way across this country in the same way that some of those famous people in that Spycatcher novel did across the UK without any limitation upon their activities provided that they were acting in accordance with some properly ticked off proposal for ASIS to work outside Australia. Quite frankly, I did not think that was good enough. I think if we passed legislation that would allow the security services to do that, we would be found very wanting by the Australian people for what we had done. Paragraph 2.84 of the report summarises what ASIS said, to their credit, and I hope their sincerity, in evidence to the committee. The report states:ASIS indicated that the proposed amendments to clause 14 `will narrow the scope of the immunity by excluding acts which do not have such a close connection as that required by subclause (b)(i).' In particular, ASIS emphasise that paragraphs 14(2) (a) and (c) `make it clear that any act which was outside the agencies' specific statutory functions would not be covered by the immunity.'Both their assurances—and I am not taking their assurances at face value—and the proposals that were also put forward by the parliamentary counsel and are recommended in this committee's report show that, if the government does pick up the recommendations of the committee, we will be closing off the opportunity that people would have to use ASIS's legislation to pursue activities against Australian citizens here in Australia. I think the proposals in the current legislation in clause 14 are not good enough; but, if the government is willing to pick up the unanimous recommendations of the committee about changes to clause 14 and changes to the limits of the immunities that will be provided to ASIS agents, we are then at least trying to mirror, in some of the provisions of this act, the provisions that are in the ASIO Act. ASIS said to the committee that they themselves would not be carrying out these functions in Australia and, indeed, if they needed to carry out functions such as that, they would use ASIO and ASIO warrants to do it. They also said that they would enter into a protocol with the Inspector-General of Security that would bind them to do that. If ASIS do that, I think that is also progress. I commend the report to the House and I particularly commend the report to the government, because, as both the member for Kingsford-Smith and the member for Fadden have said, these are unanimous recommendations of the committee, recommendations which will move us on to a position where the rights of Australians will be protected and the proper obligations of the security services will be able to be taken into account and where we will have a parliamentary committee overseeing not just ASIO but also ASIS and DSD. If we do that, at least the people of this country can be sure that someone is keeping an eye on where these things are going. If we can lower the paranoia that there might be about the activities of the security services to the same extent that the changes we have made to the way ASIO works have lowered some of the paranoia there, then we have done some good work and have also protected the rights of Australian citizens. So I would commend the committee's report to the House and the government. I look forward to seeing whether the government has picked up the recommendations of the committee when we discuss the legislation shortly.21:18:0030304Melham, Daryl, MPMr MELHAM4T4BanksALP00—by leave— At the outset of my remarks on the advisory report of the Joint Select Committee on the Intelligence Services on the Intelligence Services Bill 2001, the Intelligence Services (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001 and certain parts of the Cybercrime Bill 2001, I endorse the comments made by the chairman of the committee, the honourable member for Fadden, and the deputy chairman of the committee, the honourable member for Kingsford-Smith, and also those made by the honourable member for Watson, which went to a lot of the details that are in the report. I will not go into the detail of the contents of the report. Suffice it to say that the report that has been presented to the parliament is a unanimous report with 18 recommendations, and I would strongly urge the government to pick up each and every one of those recommendations. The thing that I liked about the committee was that the committee looked at the legislation on its merits and did not break up along party political lines. We came to a unanimous conclusion in relation to each of these matters.There is no doubt that we are entering new territory with these bills before the House. I must say that, from my point of view, the thing that guided me was the question: who guards the guard while the guard guards you? Each of these recommendations will, I believe, if picked up by the government, in effect be able to answer that question in such a way that the Australian community and the international community in general can say that we have in a delicate situation got the balance right. I must say that there is a bit of history and form here. There are a number of cases that have gone to the High Court, and it is pretty clear that the agencies have to operate within the law. In relation to these bills, there are certainly, in terms of the way the current bills are drafted, some unintended consequences that have been identified. The immunities are too broad. Everyone accepts that, and I do not think there is anyone on the committee that would support the bill in its current form.What I think we do is establish with our recommendations an accountability regime that certainly allows the agencies to get on with their proper business and to follow, in effect, the policies that it is fair to say both sides of the House do agree with. We might not like it all, but it has to be done—that is the real world. But we do not abrogate our responsibilities. The committee's recommendations significantly provide some safeguards, in particular to the narrowing of clause 14. The recommendations also provide for parliamentary oversight, in particular of the Defence Services Directorate, and allow the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to play a key role in certifying whether acts have been done in the proper performance of the functions of the agencies. It is a very important step for DSD to be brought under a parliamentary committee, and obviously over time the committee will have a more substantial role than the current ASIO committee. I certainly commend this report to the parliament and to the government. I want to congratulate the chairman and the deputy chairman who between them, quite frankly, were the main driving force in relation to these recommendations. That is the way it is. We all played our roles as a committee. I congratulate the secretariat and the agencies for the way they conducted themselves. I also want to strongly commend to this House, again, the First Parliamentary Counsel, Hilary Penfold, whom we have had before the House of Representatives legal committee in the past. She did a brilliant job on short notice for the committee. The Parliamentary Library, Nathan Hancock in particular, again were outstanding. The parliament is well served by its servants. I commend the advisory report to the House and to the government.303053030521:22:0030305Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRNOK6Eden-MonaroLP10—by leave—I tabled earlier today the committee's report entitled Balancing tradition and progress: procedures for the opening of parliament, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee.Ordered that the report be printed.OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—by leave—I move:That the House take note of the report.QI4Price, Roger, MPMr Price—I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. OK6Nairn, Gary, MPMr NAIRN—This year has been a time to celebrate 100 years of national achievement. Throughout the year we have commemorated our successes and, in moments of reflection, considered our shortcomings. As the celebration subsides, it is time to think of new beginnings. Earlier today I tabled the procedure committee's report on the procedures for opening parliament.The report is titled Balancing tradition and progress. It revisits an earlier inquiry the committee undertook in 1995 which resulted in a number of modest proposals to streamline the existing opening procedures. The committee took a broader approach in this inquiry. In keeping with a theme we have developed in many of the reports we have presented during the life of the 39th Parliament, we chose to highlight the people's perspective.Perhaps because modern life is so superficially busy, many people have become unmindful of the rich history behind our public institutions. The early part of this report summarises the growth of the system of government we inherited, and identifies how the symbolism of our opening procedures might remind us of our journey from the rule of an all-powerful monarch. What becomes clear, however, when you look at the existing opening procedures is that not all of the history of the growth of our 21st century institution is commemorated. Our opening procedures are fundamentally unchanged since 1901. They largely ignore the Australian chapter in the history of our journey. In particular, they fail to capture the pre-eminent part the people play in making a parliament.The middle part of the report deals with apparent constitutional and institutional anomalies and deficiencies. More importantly, it raises the very issues I have just referred to. The committee has concluded that the ceremony at the opening of a new parliament should emphasise a number of things, namely: the people have spoken, parliament is an ancient but adaptable institution, the Australian system of government is a unique mixture of inherited and home-grown elements, and the Senate and the House of Representatives are equal partners in the parliament of Australia. The final part of the report contains our proposals to enhance the opening procedures so that an appropriate balance is struck between tradition and progress, between commemorating a historical struggle which continues to have lessons for us today and the need for an institution to adapt to a continually changing environment. First, we must involve the people. We propose an opening ceremony which starts in the forecourt of Parliament House and includes both indigenous and broader community participation.Representatives of the traditional owners of the land on which this building stands would conduct a simple ceremony to initiate proceedings. The incumbent Australian of the Year would make a formal statement to the assembled senators and members, commending their duty to all Australians. The members of both houses would then proceed to their respective chambers. The time honoured and indeed constitutionally significant rituals of declaring the parliament open, swearing in new members and electing presiding officers would ensue in each chamber, with minor modification to the existing procedures.Our Constitution makes equal partners of the Senate and the House. The opening procedures should reflect that equality. Our proposal would ensure that senators, too, could play a more active role than the existing procedures allow. The ceremony in the forecourt would be jointly attended. The formal declaration of the opening of parliament would be conducted simultaneously in both chambers. The Governor-General would deliver his or her speech to senators and members assembled in the Great Hall.The new ceremony would be more open to the public. Our existing procedures are built around three processions of members of this House: two to the Senate chamber and back, and one to meet the Governor-General in the Members Hall. The two diagrams at the back of the report show how much more effectively the ceremony which we propose would express the priority of the people and the symmetry between the two houses.We have made a number of ancillary recommendations, including: the appointment of state governors as deputies of the Governor-General instead of the justices of the High Court; consideration of revised forms of the oath and affirmation of allegiance; the appointment of a member, being a senior member of the House, to preside at the election of Speaker instead of the Clerk; the replacement of the privilege bill with a resolution of commitment to the Australian people; and a modernised procedure for preparing the address-in-reply.Our proposal cannot be implemented overnight. Some of our recommendations—those which involve proceedings in our chamber—could be adopted by the House acting alone. But our broad objective can only be achieved in the spirit of equal partnership if there is amicable consultation among all those who participate in the existing ceremony.I thank Robyn and John in the secretariat for their work in preparing this report. I commend our report to the House. I am pleased that my deputy, the honourable member for Chifley, will add to my words. Unfortunately, others were denied that opportunity earlier today. 21:28:0030306Price, Roger, MPMr PRICEQI4ChifleyALP00—I particularly want to thank the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure for his work on this report, Balancing tradition and progress: procedures for the opening of parliament, and I endorse every remark that he has made about the report. The procedure committee has developed a number of reports for consideration of the House and, more particularly, the Manager of Government Business. I hope the recommendations contained in this report meet with a better fate than some of the other worthwhile recommendations. The report is very timely, given that we will shortly be having a triennial shareholders meeting of this great nation of ours, where every Australian has a share and can cash in their vote to determine who shall have the privilege to represent them in this great House.I want to talk about the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games. Like most Australians, I watched it on television, and I was overwhelmed by the opening ceremony, in particular the way in which our indigenous community played their role in it. Every Australian will have seared in their memory that picture of Nikki Webster and the Aboriginal elder going hand in hand. It struck me as a citizen that that was the first time that I had seen our indigenous Australians participate in that way in a significant Australian event. We know that for our brethren from New Zealand, every time there is a sporting team there is a haka. The Maori culture is part and parcel of New Zealand. It is fitting and it is absolutely tremendous that today we are bringing down a report to the parliament, saying that at the beginning of the opening ceremony of a new parliament our indigenous community will play a significant role. As the report says, it is not for us to pre-empt what they should do, but one sincerely hopes that there will be a smoking ceremony and a welcoming ceremony on behalf of our local indigenous Australians. Our illustrious chairman pointed out the very question that stumped the former Premier of Queensland, Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen: the separation of powers. The committee rightly points out that there appears to be a contradiction in the appointment by the Governor-General of deputies who are High Court justices and it recommends a very appropriate remedy.We do not know in what way each and every Australian will cast their vote in the next election. As the report makes clear, we could have taken an even more radical approach, but, consistent with the evolutionary nature of our Centenary of Federation, we have brought forward a modest set of proposals. One hopes that, regardless of whether the coalition or our side have responsibility for the opening ceremonies, this bipartisan committee report will be looked at closely. Hopefully, we will see in the very first new parliament of the new century of the new millennium more relevant procedures which, as I have mentioned, appropriately incorporate our indigenous community.I again thank our chairman and committee members, particularly those who were unable to speak. I also record our thanks to the committee staff who have served us very well. Like the chairman, I commend the report to all honourable members and I sincerely hope that they will see their way clear to support its recommendations. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.Leave granted; debate adjourned.Bills30307R126030307Consideration resumed from 22 August.Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.21:34:0030307Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyIND10—I move: Clause 29, page 33 (lines 3-4), omit paragraph (a).This clause to the Workplace Relations (Registered Organisations) Bill 2001 seems fairly innocuous. I had discussions with the opposition spokesman and others concerning it. It is not a clause that has ever been used in the past, and it is not a clause that should be in issue. I was most taken aback some time ago when legislation was drafted to introduce the Multilateral Agreement on Investment, which was opposed by an awful lot of government members. Clause 29 allows arbitration tribunals to have discretion to use exactly the same powers which were overwhelmingly rejected by the joint party room, and I am sure that they would have been overwhelmingly objected to by the opposition in this place as well, and so they should be. Clause 29 dates back a long way, and it was agreed to under the influence of feelings about the free trade between the states. It also has the same free trade globalisation effect that many of us in this place object to strongly. Whilst it has not been an issue in the past, today many people who are associated with government in Australia, in the public service in the states as well as in this federal place, feel strongly about free trade, free markets and globalisation and they consider that clause 29 would give the courts powers that, frankly, I just would not like to see them have.In days past in the United States, trade unions banned any goods from Cuba. The trade unions in the United States are very patriotic organisations—blue-collar patriots, if you like. In Australia, we had trade unions opposing goods coming in from Germany in the 1930s because the Germans were participating in the overthrow of the socialist government in Spain. When I was on 24-hour call-up to go to Indonesia and, later on, to Vietnam as one of those stand-by militia, Sweden, under the influence of the trade unions and to an extent as a result of direct action of the trade unions, banned the provision of Carl Gustaf anti-tank rockets to the Australian Army. This idea that trade unions can intervene and stop trade for some purpose in Australia and in New Zealand, where trade unions banned French goods for a time because of nuclear testing, has real teeth and it is clothed in reality. I have given a number of historical examples to illustrate that fact. In the current age where we have runaway best sellers such as Naomi Klein's No Logo: Taking aim at the brand bullies and John Ralston Saul's The Unconscious Civilisation, it is clear that the Canadians appreciate far more the relationship between the South American countries and the United States. I think that relationship was best defined with the United Fruit Packaging Company. Every time that a South American government tried to put up the price of its fruit, the United States government would suddenly decide that that South American government were communists and they would send in the marines and overthrow that state's duly elected government.We are moving into a period in our history where more and more the Australian economy will be dominated by the big American corporations, whether it is the United Fruit Packaging Company, now known as Jaquita, or ConAgra in meat processing, or in relation to the oft-mooted takeover of Woolworths by Wal-Mart from the United States. We will be moving into a situation where it becomes very real to us. I have said on many occasions that I am very worried that if we go any further than we have gone in industrial relations in Australia, there will be a very definite undermining of the workers' right to collectively bargain. That is not something that people on either side of this House would agree to. (Time expired)21:39:0030308Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—I do not wish to speak at length on this matter, but out of respect for the member for Kennedy I should indicate that the government does not support his amendment. The particular provision has been in legislation since the 1970s. It has been the view of governments of both political persuasions that industrial action which seriously interferes with Australia's international trade should potentially at least be a ground for union deregistration. As the member says, this is not something that has ever been pursued; nevertheless, it should be there in case because Australia lives by trade. Trade is in our national interest. None of us would enjoy our prosperity were it not for the international trade which is the foundation of our economy. This is true for people in all parts of Australia. Whether we are directly dependent on international trade or whether we are indirectly dependent on it, this nation relies on it. Whether we be living in Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Mount Isa, Townsville or Mareeba, we depend upon international trade and it would be quite wrong to allow our international trade to be jeopardised in the way the member for Kennedy suggests. So, with great respect to the member and with sympathy for his feelings for some of his constituents who he feels, I think on the whole misguidedly, have been damaged by international trade, the government opposes this amendment.Amendment negatived.HX4Katter, Bob, MPMr Katter—On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Do I get a chance to speak again to this amendment?10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. D.G.H. Adams)—No.HX4Katter, Bob, MPMr Katter—Then I would like my vote to be recorded in the positive.10000Adams, Dick (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER—Hansard will show that member for Kennedy's vote was so recorded.21:42:0030308Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I had intended to move 14 amendments in various blocks that dealt with the same topics. However, as I understand that the government are willing to accept all the amendments that are circulated in my name, I propose for the convenience of the House to move the amendments as circulated in my name and seek leave of the House to have those amendments dealt with together. Leave granted. ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—I move amendments Nos 1 to 14:(1) Clause 5, page 3 (lines 13 to 16), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) encourage members of organisations to participate in their organisations' affairs; and(2) Clause 6, page 6 (lines 22 to 24), at the end of the definition of declaration envelope, add: The regulations must prescribe the form of a declaration envelope.(3) Clause 23, page 30 (lines 3 to 5), omit the clause.(4) Chapter 2, Part 3, page 32 (line 2) to page 44 (line 3), omit the Part, substitute:Part 3—Cancellation of registration27 Application for cancellation of registration (1) An organisation or person interested, or the Minister, may apply to the Federal Court for an order cancelling the registration of an organisation on the ground that: (a) the conduct of: (i) the organisation (in relation to its continued breach of an award, an order of the Commission or a certified agreement or its continued failure to ensure that its members comply with and observe an award, an order of the Commission or a certified agree-ment or in any other respect); or (ii) a substantial number of the members of the organisation (in relation to their continued breach of an award, an order of the Commission or a certified agree-ment or in any other respect); has prevented or hindered the achievement of an object of this Act; or (b) the organisation, or a substantial number of the members of the organisation or of a section or class of members of the organisation, has engaged in industrial action that has prevented, hindered or interfered with: (i) trade or commerce between Australia and a place outside Australia; (ii) trade or commerce between the States; (iii) trade or commerce within a Territory, between a State and a Territory or between 2 Territories; or (iv) the provision of any public service by the Commonwealth or a State or Territory or an authority of the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or (c) the organisation, or a substantial number of the members of the organisation or of a section or class of members of the organisation, has or have been, or is or are, engaged in industrial action that has had, is having or is likely to have a substantial adverse effect on the safety, health or welfare of the community or a part of the community; or (d) the organisation, or a substantial number of the members of the organisation or of a section or class of members of the organisation, has or have failed to comply with an injunction granted under subsection 127(6) or (7) of the Workplace Relations Act; or (e) the organisation, or a substantial number of the members of the organisation or of a section or class of members of the organisation, has or have failed to comply with an injunction granted under section 187AD of the Workplace Relations Act. (2) An organisation in relation to which an application is made under subsection (1) shall be given an opportunity of being heard by the Court. (3) Where the Court: (a) finds that a ground of the application has been established; and (b) does not consider that it would be unjust to do so having regard to the degree of gravity of the matters constituting the ground and the action (if any) that has been taken by or against the organisation in relation to the matters; the Court shall, subject to subsection (4) and section 28, cancel the registration of the organisation. (4) Where: (a) the Court finds that a ground of the application has been established; and (b) that finding is made, wholly or mainly, because of the conduct of a particular section or class of members of the organisation;the Court may, if it considers it just to do so, instead of cancelling the registration of the organisation under subsection (3), by order: (c) determine alterations of the eligibility rules of the organisation so as to exclude from eligibility for membership of the organisation persons belonging to the section or class; or (d) where persons belonging to the section or class are eligible for membership under an agreement of the kind referred to in sections 148 to 152—declare that the persons are excluded from eligibility for membership in spite of anything in the agreement. (5) Where the Court cancels the registration of an organisation, the Court may direct that an application by the former organisation to be registered as an organisation shall not be dealt with under this Act before the end of a specified period. (6) An alteration of rules determined by order under subsection (4) takes effect on the date of the order or on such other day as is specified in the order. (7) A finding of fact by the Court in proceedings under section 127 or Part VIIIA of the Workplace Relations Act is admissible as prima facie evidence of that fact in an application made on a ground specified in paragraph (1)(d) or (e), as the case requires.28 Orders where cancellation of registration deferred (1) Where the Federal Court finds that a ground of an application under subsection 27(1) has been established, the Court may, if it considers it just to do so, instead of cancelling the registration of the organisation concerned under subsection 27(3) or making an order under subsection 27(4), exercise one or more of the powers set out in subsection (2) of this section. (2) The powers that may be exercised by the Court, by order, under subsection (1) are as follows: (a) the power to suspend, to the extent specified in the order, any of the rights, privileges or capacities of the organisation or of all or any of its members, as such members, under this Act or any other Act , under awards or orders made under this Act or any other Act or under certified agreements; (b) the power to give directions as to the exercise of any rights, privileges or capacities that have been suspended; (c) the power to make provision restricting the use of the funds or property of the organisation or a branch of the organisation, and for the control of the funds or property for the purpose of ensuring observance of the restrictions. (3) Where the Court exercises a power set out in subsection (2), it shall defer the determination of the question whether to cancel the registration of the organisation concerned until: (a) the orders made in the exercise of the power cease to be in force; or (b) on application by a party to the proceeding, the Court considers that it is just to determine the question, having regard to any evidence given relating to the observance or non-observance of any order and to any other relevant circumstance;whichever is earlier. (4) An order made in the exercise of a power set out in subsection (2) has effect in spite of anything in the rules of the organisation concerned or a branch of the organisation. (5) An order made in the exercise of a power set out in subsection (2): (a) may be revoked by the Court, by order, on application by a party to the proceeding concerned; and (b) unless sooner revoked, ceases to be in force: (i) 6 months after it came into force; or (ii) such longer period after it came into force as is ordered by the Court on application by a party to the proceeding made while the order remains in force.29 Cancellation of registration on technical grounds etc. (1) A designated Presidential Member may cancel the registration of an organisation: (a) on application by the organisation made under the regulations; (b) on application by an organisation or person interested or by the Minister, if the Presidential Member has satisfied himself or herself, as prescribed, that the organisation: (i) was registered by mistake; or (ii) is no longer effectively representative of the members who are employers or employees, as the case requires; or (iii) is not free from control by, or improper influence from, a person or body referred to in section 17 or 18, as the case requires; or (iv) subject to subsection (5), if the organisation is an enterprise association—the enterprise to which it relates has ceased to exist; (c) on the Presidential Member's own motion, if: (i) the Presidential Member has satisfied himself or herself, as prescribed, that the organisation is defunct; or (ii) the organisation is an organisation of employees and has fewer than 50 members who are employees. (2) A designated Presidential Member may also cancel the registration of an organisation if: (a) the designated Presidential Member is satisfied that the organisation has breached an undertaking referred to in section 17 or 18; and (b) the designated Presidential Member does not consider it appropriate to amend the eligibility rules of the organisation under section 155. (3) A cancellation under subsection (2) may be made: (a) on application by an organisation or person interested; or (b) on application by the Minister; or (c) on the designated Presidential Member's own motion. (4) For the purposes of subparagraph (1)(b)(iv), the enterprise to which an organisation relates has ceased to exist if: (a) in the case of an organisation that relates only to an operationally distinct part or parts of the business that constitutes the enterprise—that part or those parts have ceased to exist, or the whole of the business has ceased to exist; or (b) in the case of an organisation that relates to the whole of the business that constitutes the enterprise—the whole of the business has ceased to exist. (5) Subparagraph (1)(b)(iv) does not apply if: (a) some or all of the business of the enterprise in question is now conducted by another enterprise; and (b) all the alterations that are necessary to enable the organisation to operate as an enterprise association in relation to the other enterprise have been made; and (c) the designated Presidential Member is satisfied that the organisation still meets the requirements of section 17 or 18.The Presidential Member must give the organisation a reasonable opportunity to alter its rules as provided in paragraph (b) before the designated Presidential Member considers cancelling the registration of the organisation on the ground referred to in subparagraph (1)(b)(iv).30 Cancellation to be recorded Where the registration of an organisation under this Act is cancelled, the Industrial Registrar shall enter the cancellation, and the date of cancellation, in the register kept under paragraph 11(a). 31 Consequences of cancellation of registration The cancellation of the registration of an organisation under this Act has the following consequences: (a) the organisation ceases to be an organisation and a body corporate under this Act, but does not because of the cancellation cease to be an association; (b) the cancellation does not relieve the association or any of its members from any penalty or liability incurred by the organisation or its members before the cancellation; (c) from the cancellation, the association and its members are not entitled to the benefits of any award, order of the Commission or certified agreement that bound the organisation or its members; (d) a designated Presidential Member may, on application by an organisation or person interested, make such order as the Presidential Member considers appropriate about the other effects (if any) of such an award, order or agreement on the association and its members; (e) 21 days after the cancellation, such an award, order or agreement ceases, subject to any order made under paragraph (d), in all other respects to have effect in relation to the association and its members; (f) the Federal Court may, on application by a person interested, make such order as it considers appropriate in relation to the satisfaction of the debts and obligations of the organisation out of the property of the organisation; (g) the property of the organisation is, subject to any order made under paragraph (f), the property of the association and shall be held and applied for the purposes of the association under the rules of the organisation so far as they can still be carried out or observed.(5) Clause 103, page 102 (line 4) to page 103 (line 20), omit the clause, substitute:103 Applications to the Federal Court for ballots (1) An application may be made to the Federal Court for a ballot to be held, to decide whether a constituent part of an amalgamated organisation should withdraw from the organisation, if: (a) the constituent part became part of the organisation as a result of an amalgamation under Chapter 3 Part 2 after 1 February 1991; and (b) the amalgamation occurred no less than 2 years prior to the date of the application; and (c) the application is made: (i) if the amalgamation occurred before the commencement of this Division—no more than 3 years after that commencement; or (ii) if the amalgamation occurred after the commencement of this Division—no more than 5 years after the amalgamation occurred. (2) However, an application cannot be made if: (a) during the last 12 months, the Court has rejected an application for a ballot to be held in relation to the constituent part of the organisation; or (b) a ballot was held that rejected the withdrawal of the constituent part. (3) The application may be made by: (a) the prescribed number of constituent members; or (b) a committee of management elected entirely or substantially by the constituent members, whether by a direct voting system or a collegiate electoral system; or (c) if the application relates to a separately identifiable constituent part—the committee of management of that part. (4) The application must be in the prescribed form and must contain such information as is prescribed. (5) A constituent member of an amalgamated organisation who is not a financial member is taken to be a constituent member for the purposes of subsection (3).(6) Clause 105, page 104 (lines 8 to 17), omit the clause. (7) Clauses 122 and 123, page 116 (line 3) to page 117 (line 13), omit the clauses, substitute:122 Orders of the Commission, awards etc. (1) This section applies to an order of the Commission, an award or a certified agreement that was, immediately before the day the registration takes effect, binding on the amalgamated organisation in relation to the constituent part of the organisation and its members. (2) On and from the day the registration takes effect, the order, award or certified agreement: (a) becomes binding on the newly registered organisation and its members; and (b) has effect for all purposes (including the obligations of employers and organisations of employers) as if references in the order, award or certified agreement to the amalgamated organisation included references to the newly registered organisation. (3) In this section:award includes an enterprise flexibility agreement that: (a) has effect under this Act immediately before the day on which the registration takes effect; or (b) continues to have effect under Schedule 9 to the Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 immediately before that day.(8) Clause 135, page 125 (line 15) to page 126 (line 6), omit the clause.(9) Clause 139, page 129 (lines 27 to 32), omit paragraph (1)(e).(10) Clause 139, page 130 (lines 1 to 3), omit subclause (2).(11) Clause 140, page 131 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add: (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d), rules of an organisation are taken not to discriminate on the basis of age if the rules do not prevent the organisation setting its membership dues by reference to rates of pay even where those rates are set by reference to a person's age.(12) Clause 277, page 245 (line 21) to page 246 (line 27), omit the clause.(13) Clause 289, page 255 (lines 21 to 26), omit subclause (2).(14) Clause 303, page 269 (line 4) to page 271 (line 23), omit the clause, substitute:303 Authorisation of financial assistance (1) Subject to this Division, the Minister may, on application made by a person under subsection (2), authorise payment by the Commonwealth to the person of financial assistance in relation to the whole or part of the person's relevant costs, if the Minister is satisfied: (a) that hardship is likely to be caused to the person if the application is refused; and (b) that in all the circumstances it is reasonable that the application should be granted. (2) An application may be made to the Minister for financial assistance under this Division by the following persons (other than organisations) in the following circumstances: (a) a person who made an application under section 161 or 162, where the Federal Court granted a rule calling on another person, or an organisation, to show cause why an order should not be made under section 161 or 162 in relation to the other person or organisation; (b) a person who was a party, otherwise than as an applicant, to a proceeding under section 161 or 162; (c) a person who made an application under section 162, where the Court made an interim order under subsection 162(4); (d) a person who applied for an inquiry into an election, where the Court found that an irregularity happened; (e) a person who applied for an inquiry into an election, where the Court certified under subsection 304(1) that the person acted reasonably in applying; (f) a person who incurred costs in relation to an inquiry into an election, other than a person who applied for the inquiry; (g) a member of an organisation who made an application under subsection 212(5), where the Court declared that the person the subject of the application was not eligible to be a candidate for election or to be elected or appointed or had ceased to hold office; (h) a member of an organisation who made an application under subsection 212(5), where the Court certified under subsection 304(2) that the member acted reasonably in making the application; (j) a person who incurred costs in relation to an application made under subsection 212(5), other than the person who made the application; (k) a person who made an application to the Court under section 213 or 214, where, on the application, the Court granted the person leave under paragraph 213(2)(a) or 214(2)(a) or refused the person leave under paragraph 213(2)(b) or 214(2)(b); (m) a person who applied for an inquiry into a ballot under Chapter 3 Part 2, where the Court found that an irregularity happened; (n) a person who applied for an inquiry into a ballot under Chapter 3 Part 2, where the Court certified under subsection 304(3) that the person acted reasonably in applying; (o) a person who incurred costs in relation to an inquiry into a ballot under Chapter 3 Part 2, other than the person who applied for the inquiry; (p) a person who was a party to a proceeding under Chapter 10 Part 2; (q) a person who made an application under section 165, where the Court granted a rule calling on another person, or an organisation, to show cause why an order should not be made under subsection 165 in relation to the other person or organisation. (3) In subsection (1), relevant costs means: (a) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (2)(a), (c), (k) or (q)—the costs incurred by the person in relation to the application concerned; (b) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (2)(b) or (p)—the costs incurred by the person in relation to the proceeding concerned; (c) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (2)(d), (e), (m) or (n)—the costs incurred by the person in relation to the inquiry concerned; (d) in the case of a person referred to in paragraph (2)(f), (j) or (o)—the costs referred to in that paragraph; or (e) in the case of a member of an organisation referred to in paragraph (2)(g) or (h)—the costs incurred by the member in relation to the application concerned.I do not think that there will be a need for exhaustive debate on these matters, given the position that I now understand the government has adopted in relation to the amendments. However, I should refer to a couple of the key points associated with these amendments.Amendments Nos 1, 3, 5 and 6 deal principally with the bill's intention of creating new unions and making it easier to create new unions, and also making it easier to disamalgamate from organisations which are part of an amalgamated organisation. It seems very strange that the government has sought in the bill to include in the principal objects of the act to:Facilitate the registration of a diverse range of organisations of employers and of employees that are representative of their members that are able to operate effectively in the workplace relations system.Anybody with any knowledge of the history of industrial relations would know how destructive of the industrial relations system it is to have demarcation disputes. Nothing would generate more demarcation disputes than encouraging a wide diversity of unions that would inevitably present that problem. It seemed odd to me at the time that the government would want to go down that path. Irrespective of whether they sought the counsel of unions or the counsel of employers on that point, both would give a pretty clear answer. We were concerned about that and therefore moved the amendments, some of which I have just referred to. I am pleased that it seems that the government is of a mind to support them.The removal of the object of encouraging members to participate in the organisation's affairs was also a peculiar provision of the bill. I do not understand why the government would not want members of a union to be encouraged to actually participate in the democratic processes of the union. I can understand why the government may say for philosophical reasons that they do not want people to be in a union at all. However, when people have actually joined a union, it just does not make sense that the legislation should change things, as was proposed in the bill, so that people would not be encouraged by the industrial relations system to participate more fully in it. Labor does not support the proliferation of enterprise unions, and we do not support promoting easier access to disamalgamations. We viewed those new objects with a great deal of concern—hence our amendments Nos 1, 3, 5 and 6 that have been moved in my name. Amendment No. 2 is a straightforward enough issue that deals with the operation of union ballots. The government sought to rely upon recommendations of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, but in doing so it selectively chose which parts of the recommendations of that committee to adopt. We have in this amendment fully and fairly reflected the wishes of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters. Instead of endeavouring to skew the outcome, as I believe the bill originally did, the amendments proposed by us ensure that the recommendations from the joint standing committee are properly dealt with, as they should be. It did strike me as odd that the government would take that view in regard to a parliamentary committee on which it has a majority. This is a government controlled committee, and it was not even willing to include the recommendations of its own government controlled committee in the bill. I am pleased that it now seems willing to accept that by way of the amendments that have been moved in my name.There is a series of amendments that deal with the bill's proposal to make it easy to deregister unions and also to attack unions. They are amendments Nos 4, 14 and 12. I just quickly want to refer to a couple of aspects of those; I will not take up too much more time of the House. Our amendment No. 4 deals with the removal of the new provisions relating to the cancellation of registration. We reinsert in the legislation the existing provisions. (Extension of time granted) In this case, as with nearly all of the other amendments that we are moving, we have taken the view that the parliament should retain in the legislation the existing provisions of the 1996 act—that is, our amendments in many of these cases seek to reinsert what is already there. That is not Labor's law. This is not the provision that we would introduce were we in government, but we took a fairly pragmatic view of the situation confronting the parliament, not to mention the realistic appraisal of the resources available to an opposition in seeking to draft a complex bill of this kind. In doing that, we have put before the parliament amendments that maintain the status quo. From that perspective, it is not asking the government to go a long way, frankly. It is simply asking the government to accept what is already in the legislation, rather than pursuing a further agenda down the path which they set with their first wave, then their failed second wave and, as this bill in its earlier draft form would have engendered, a quite dramatic further leap down the road to undermining the rights of workers to collectively organise.The bill as it stands seeks to extend the grounds for cancellation of registration to include noncompliance with any court order, an order made under section 298U of the Workplace Relations Act, and a range of other provisions—an order made under section 21 and subsection 128. It also includes an order of the Federal Court under subsection 315(5). These provisions are deliberately widely cast to maximise the opportunities to deregister unions. They go well beyond the existing provisions and, in our view, are designed frankly to create a whole series of traps for organisations to unwittingly walk into at a later time.Our amendment No. 12 refers to clause 277 of the bill, which creates a criminal offence for breaches of a duty of good faith or the use of a position or information in relation to the financial management of a registered organisation. One of the things that the government has misunderstood in the operations of industrial relations is that officers of unions by definition include people who are members of a union conference or council and are therefore honorary people—that is, they spend most of their time as policemen or as electricians or as teachers or whatever, but for a day or two a year they come along as elected representatives to a union conference as members of that union conference. They are treated here as if they were company directors and, effectively, the obligations that are applied to company directors were being applied to those individuals. That is a very excessive application of the law to people who are simply undertaking what amounts to a useful community role on behalf of the people in their workplace. Clause 277 we think extended the reach unreasonably to those people. Our amendment 14 removes clause 303 and reinserts the current provisions relating to the granting of financial assistance. That was an interesting provision because, for reasons best known to itself, the government wanted to make it easier—more readily available—for people to get legal aid in order to take actions on internal union matters. At a time when legal aid is hard to come by for those in the general community who are in need of legal aid to deal with criminal matters, family matters or personal litigation, it does seem strange that the government would want to extend the availability of legal aid to those involved in internal union arguments. But that is in fact what the government's bill was proposing to do. I am glad that the government has now taken a different attitude to that or at least is willing to accept a different outcome from that.The final reference that I might make is in relation to union dues and arrears, which is the subject of our amendments 9 and 10. The government has proposed to insert a provision which to us is totally superfluous. There is already a prohibition on unions claiming more than one year's arrears. (Extension of time granted) I was rather taken aback by the comments of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business in his second reading speech, I think it was, where he referred to a case where, allegedly, a union sought to recover union dues ranging back through a number of years. I am sure, as his advisers would tell him, that is beyond the scope of the act and any rule in a union that purported to give it that power would of course not stand up under any challenge. I am not quite sure why the government wanted to pursue this particular amendment, but in any event I have moved our amendments that would remove those provisions from the bill, and again I am pleased that the government has indicated a willingness to accept those amendments.In all, I have moved 14 amendments to the bill during this consideration in detail. There was a second reading amendment which the government is not in a position, I believe, at this stage to accept. That second reading amendment was, as I said in my address on the second reading, a threshold issue for us. We do not believe it is desirable that there be two acts of parliament established to deal with these matters: industrial relations should not be decimated or fragmented. Organisations are an integral part of the industrial relations system and they should be covered in the same piece of legislation. I am very pleased that the government has seen its way clear to accept the amendments in detail. I would hope that the minister and his advisers may be able to look again at the prospect of whether or not these new provisions could be contained within the one piece of legislation. We would then find ourselves in complete agreement, which would be a very odd event in this place in recent years on industrial relations. But I understand that there are some complexities in that task and that is obviously a matter for some further consideration.But we have endeavoured to be realistic in the way in which we have approached this bill. I acknowledge that the government have amended their exposure draft enormously between last year and when the bill appeared in the parliament, and I appreciate that, since this bill appeared, the government have been willing to accept virtually all of our amendments in detail. For that, I thank them.21:56:0030316Albanese, Anthony, MPMr ALBANESER36GrayndlerALP00—I rise to support the 14 amendments moved by the shadow minister, which I am pleased to see have got the agreement of the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business, the member for Warringah. It is appropriate perhaps to take the opportunity in debating a bill which is about trade unions, the Workplace Relations (Registered Organisations) Bill 2001, to place on record the important role played by trade unions in Australia. I want to particularly refer to workers in the biggest factory in my electorate, a factory that is now very well known. It is called Tristar and it is in the industrial area of Marrickville, an area that I am proud to represent and I am proud to indeed call my home. Today, I tabled a petition in the House signed by 197 employees of Tristar which said that it:... draws to the attention of the House our strongest objection to comments made by Tony Abbott, Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business during the recent industrial dispute, in particular, that we were `guilty of treason' and `traitors' for exercising our right to take lawful industrial action to protect our accrued employee entitlements.We believe that the comments by the Minister were unfair to workers at Tri Star who are legitimately concerned about the protection of their accrued entitlements and who were lawfully pursuing the protection of those entitlements under the Workplace Relations legislation established by the Coalition Government. We also believe that his comments were an attempt to escalate and prolong the industrial dispute in order for the Federal Government to use it in their attacks against the Australian Union movement.Your petitioners therefore request that the House call upon the Minister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business to withdraw the statements he made about the workers at Tri Star and offer a public apology to the workers at Tri Star and their families.I think what that petition draws to our attention is that as politicians all of us are involved in the cut and thrust of political debate. What those of us who might be critical of leaders of trade unions or leaders of employer organisations or political parties should be very careful about is that we do not brand people who are working-class Australians and who are merely defending what are their entitlements.Just down the road, also in Marrickville, there was a company called Champion Printing. I attended the picket line twice there. It was a company which employed some 45 people, represented by the AMWU like the workers at Tristar. They arrived at work one day and were told that they no longer had jobs, and they were marched off the site by a security firm. They were owed two weeks pay and all their entitlements, totalling over half a million dollars. Those workers received nothing. Those workers were in a position where they were concerned about where their next meal was coming from.We hear a lot of rhetoric about the importance of the family and keeping families together. I would suggest that, as the minister has stated, having a job is very important for the structure of our society and for social structures including the family. Those workers, whether they be at Champion Printing— after the event, on a picket line trying to stop the problem of losing their entitlements—or at Tristar, deserve our respect, and we need to be very careful about the language we use and to ensure that workers are not used as political footballs. I believe that the AMWU and Doug Cameron provided enormous leadership in representing the workers at Tristar. A few years ago, I sat down and worked out a plan to give Tristar, when it was TRW, 24-hour operations in consultation with Marrickville Council, to make sure that the company stayed onshore in Australia. I commend the amendments to the House. (Time expired)22:01:0030317Katter, Bob, MPMr KATTERHX4KennedyIND10—In addressing the amendments before the House on the Workplace Relations (Registered Organisations) (Consequential Provisions) Bill 2001, the opposition spokesman spoke about the proliferation and formation of smaller unions. These can be very destabilising in the industrial environment and, whilst there is no doubt that the remarks he made are correct, it must be realised that a lot of union members—including the ones that I represent—are very remote geographically and, I might add, tribally and organisationally, from the people who lead and control these unions who are based in Brisbane or even in Sydney. In some unions you have shearers—a very tough, rough and ready lot at the best of times and men who are used to hardship—and you have a lot of people who are virtually computer operators. If you have groups that are so completely different and one group controls that union, the interests of the smaller group are going to be very subservient to the interests of the larger group. Anyone who has had any experience with trade unions would realise the sort of problem I am talking about. Today this is exacerbated dramatically by the fact that the trade unions, with a shrinking membership, are desperately seeking site coverage. To secure site coverage, they enter into very close relationships with big corporations. The classic case that is quoted in the mining fields of Australia is fly-in mining, which of course is enormously destructive of family life, enormously destructive of Christian values, and, quite frankly, enormously destructive of mining operations. The huge increase in fatalities and mining accidents came in the four years after the introduction of fly-in mining. Whilst I fully agree with the remarks made by the opposition spokesman, it must be realised by the opposition and by the government that we have potentially very serious situations arising. A really big employer in my electorate, Colonial Sugar Refining, is up for sale and could at any time be bought by foreign bidders—and there is at least one big foreign company interested in buying them up. Most of our cooperative mills have been taken over by a foreign company, Finasucre, and of course probably the bulk of our mining jobs at the present are in foreign hands. If the trade unionists take action to improve their lot or to protect themselves, and suddenly they are heavied by a foreign corporation, and the foreign corporation is able to use section 29 as their argument, then I feel that we could have an awful lot of problems arising from that particular section. If it is so superfluous and has not been needed in the past, one would ask why it is needed now.We have trade unions in my electorate, and there is a good case for saying that sometimes we would be better served by a locally based trade union grouping with a number of industries. But of course the free trade policies have simply closed down whole industries. The tobacco industry has closed down, dairying has had dreadful damage done to it, and the maize board is now in the hands of the receiver in my area. With the beef industry, we are allowed 7,000 tonnes into Europe and people talk about free trade. With sugar, when the world price of sugar drops clean in half and the Europeans simply double the price, people must realise when they make these statements that people are laughing at them. I would plead with them not to make those sorts of statements out where we produce the export dollars, because there may be a very angry reaction.Whilst I accept the arguments of both the government and the opposition about smaller, more natural, more localised trade unions, I ask both sides of the House to realise that there are occasions when our interests are totally subservient to a huge union that is totally unreactive to the local people. (Time expired)22:06:0030318Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—As has been said on previous occasions in the course of debating the Workplace Relations (Registered Organisations) Bill 2001, the government's intention all along was not to introduce a bill on contentious matters but to introduce a bill which is, as far as is humanly possible, an expression of the consensus of all the people with an interest in the regulation of registered organisations. For that reason, the government has been prepared at every step in this process to consider and, as far as is humanly possible, to take into account all the various concerns that have been put to us by trade unions and others and, most recently, by members opposite. I am disappointed that the opposition has not been prepared to accept the government's proposals to provide for further disamalgamations of unions and the government's proposals to provide legal aid to those who take on the might and power of large trade unions. Nevertheless, in the interests of having a bill which is an improvement in the governance of these organisations, I am prepared to cooperate in this matter. I am not sure that the opposition's amendments improve the bill, but they certainly do not destroy it. As the member for Brisbane has pointed out, where the opposition has disagreed with the government, it has simply restored the status quo. On that basis, it is right that the government should allow this bill to be amended along these lines on the principle that a small step forward is better than no progress at all and on the principle that it is better to have something rather than nothing. The member for Brisbane has indicated that he would like the government to look further at the question of rebundling the act. I do not promise that we will do that, because it is a complex piece of drafting that is required and time is very limited. Nevertheless, if it can be done, we will certainly have a look at it because, having gone down the path of trying where possible to do things by as near to consensus as we can, I do not want to depart from that path. I also want to maximise the chance of getting this bill passed—a bill that will advance the governance of these organisations—this side of an election.In conclusion, I thank the member for Brisbane for the constructive approach that he has taken. I am delighted that we have been able to agree, if not on everything, at least on some significant changes to improve the way these organisations operate. I commend the bill to the House and present the supplementary explanatory memorandum.Amendments agreed to.22:10:0030319Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—by leave—I move government amendments 1 to 12 and 14:(1) Clause 61, page 64 (after line 4), after subclause (2), insert: (2B) It is a defence to an offence against subsection (2) if the person had a reasonable excuse for not complying with a requirement made under subsection (1).Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter mentioned in subsection (2B), see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.(2) Clause 112, page 107 (line 3), at the end of subclause (1), add “The expenses of conducting such a ballot are to be borne by the Commonwealth.”.(3) Clause 113, page 108 (after line 6), after subclause (2), insert: (2B) It is a defence to an offence against subsection (2) if the person had a reasonable excuse for not complying with a requirement made under subsection (1).Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter mentioned in subsection (2B), see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.(4) Clause 140, page 131 (after line 7), at the end of the clause, add: (2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(d), rules of an organisation are taken not to discriminate on the basis of age if the rules do not prevent the organisation setting its membership dues by reference to rates of pay even where those rates are set by reference to a person's age.(5) Clause 180, page 171 (line 8), at the end of subclause (1), add “The expenses of conducting such an election are to be borne by the Commonwealth.”.(6) Clause 191, page 177 (after line 24), after subclause (2), insert: (2C) It is a defence to an offence against subsection (2) if the person had a reasonable excuse for not complying with a direction under subsection (1).Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter mentioned in subsection (2C), see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.(7) Clause 197, page 184 (after line 30), after subclause (3), insert: (3A) It is a defence to an offence against subsection (3) if the organisation had a reasonable excuse for contravening subsection (1) or (2).Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter mentioned in subsection (3A), see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.(8) Clause 197, page 184 (after line 33), at the end of the clause, add: (4A) It is a defence to an offence against subsection (4) if the officer or employee had a reasonable excuse for contravening subsection (1) or (2).Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter mentioned in subsection (4A), see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.(9) Clause 200, page 187 (after line 10), after subclause (5), insert: (5B) It is a defence to an offence against paragraph (5)(a) if the person had a reasonable excuse for contravening a requirement made under subsection (2).Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter mentioned in subsection (5B), see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.(10) Clause 261, page 238 (line 29), omit all the words from and including “employer” to the end of subclause (6), substitute:employer of: (a) the member making the application for information; or (b) the member at whose request the application was made.(11) Clause 262, page 239 (after line 8), at the end of subclause (1), add “This subsection is subject to subsections (2) and (2A).”.(12) Clause 262, page 239 (after line 18), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The Commission may only make an order authorising the inspection of financial records that relate to the suspected breach mentioned in paragraph (2)(b). (14) Clause 338, page 291 (line 16), at the end of paragraph (2)(f), add: ; and (g) pecuniary penalties not exceeding: (i) in the case of a body corporate—25 penalty units; or (ii) in any other case—5 penalty units; for contravening civil penalty provisions in the regulations.These amendments are highly technical amendments and cover a number of subjects. These amendments are designed to clarify that the government does, in fact, bear the cost of any disamalgamation ballot that takes place, will insert reasonable excuse defences in relation to strict liability offence provisions and will clarify the intended operation of the relevant part of the act to provide for access by members to the financial records of reporting units. I commend the amendments to the House.22:11:0030320Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—Our understanding is that these amendments are purely technical and they do not alter the substance of the operation of the act. On that basis, we will not be opposing them.Amendments agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.30320Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills30320R129930320Consideration resumed from 23 May on motion by Mr Abbott:That the bill be now read a second time.Question resolved in the affirmative.Bill read a second time.30320Bill—by leave—taken as a whole.22:13:0030320Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—by leave—I move government amendments 1 to 4:(1) Clause 2, page 2 (after line 12), after subclause (4), insert: (4A) Items 1 and 2 of Schedule 4 commence on the 28th day after the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. (2) Schedule 1, page 24 (line 17), omit all the words from and including “employer” to the end of subclause (6), substitute: employer of: (a) the member making the application for information; or (b) the member at whose request the application was made. (3) Schedule 1, page 24 (after line 25), at the end of subclause (1), add “This subsection is subject to subsections (2) and (2A).”. (4) Schedule 1, page 25 (after line 5), after subclause (2), insert: (2A) The Commission may only make an order authorising the inspection of financial records that relate to the suspected breach mentioned in paragraph (2)(b).These amendments are very minor amendments, except for one. The significant amendment is designed to respect the religious beliefs of religious groups. I think it is very important in our society that we conduct ourselves such that the conscientious religious beliefs of groups are respected. There are some very limited circumstances in which religious groups should be given special consideration, and it is to meet those limited circumstances that one of these amendments has been moved by the government.Under very strict conditions, the right of entry onto premises will be denied to the officers of registered organisations. Those circumstances are very restrictive. First of all, there must be no more than 20 employees on the premises in question; second, all of the employees at the relevant premises must be employed by an employer who is the holder of a conscientious objection certificate in force under section 267 of the act; third, none of the employees employed at the premises can be a member of the registered organisation in question; fourth, the registrar must on application of the employer endorse a certificate issued to that employer under section 267 if the registrar is satisfied that the employer is a practising member of a religious society or order whose doctrines or beliefs preclude membership of an organisation or body other than the religious society or order of which the employer is a member; and, fifth, a registrar must not so endorse the relevant certificate unless satisfied that at the time application is made for endorsement all of the employees employed by the applicant have agreed that the applicant's certificate should be endorsed.This certainly is not open slather for organisations to avoid what would ordinarily be the requirements of the act. This certainly does not permit people to routinely avoid right of entry by union officials, but it is an attempt to allow people's conscientious views to be properly recognised in our society. I should point out that the amendment the government is proposing is highly restrictive. It is in fact more restrictive than amendments which have been made to the relevant industrial legislation in such jurisdictions as New South Wales, by the state Labor government, and New Zealand, by the New Zealand Labor government. Nevertheless, we have moved it in the highly restrictive form because, again, we do not wish to give other members of this House any grounds for complaint. We do not wish to give other members of this House any grounds for objecting. That is why we have moved the amendment in question.10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Does the minister have a supplementary explanatory memorandum? If so, the House would be obliged if he could present it.EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTT—I do present it.10000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER—I thank the minister.22:17:0030321Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVISET4BrisbaneALP00—I understand the reasons for the amendment before the chamber at the moment. The government have been involved in discussions, as we have in the opposition, with those who have a direct interest in the operations of these provisions. I think it is fair to say that many members of this parliament have met with representatives of the Brethren—who are, I notice, in the gallery this evening—who have a concern about the existing legislation and believe that these provisions would be important for their operations. I do not for one minute doubt their sincerity in that, nor do I for one minute not respect the rights of those people who are conscientious objectors to hold their belief properly and without persecution or any other burden. I am not, though, going to support this amendment. I think the amendment before us is actually in a—10000Nehl, Garry (Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER)Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—As a matter of clarity, I believe the question before the House is that amendments (1) to (4) be agreed to. EZ5Abbott, Tony, MPMr Abbott—That was my fault; I was doing that.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—Thank you. I should therefore put the following on the record. I did say to the minister that I would not be seeking to divide on this matter, and I do not intend to seek to divide on this matter. I am not, as it turns out, opposed to the other aspects. I thank you for pointing out that we are in fact dealing with amendments (1) to (4). My comments relate to amendment (2), which was the subject of the bulk of the minister's contribution a moment ago.The proposal is that the right of entry of a union official would be restricted not by virtue necessarily of the wishes of the employees but by virtue of the conscientious objection of the employer. I notice in the amendment that has been moved that there is some mechanism by which the employees have agreed that the applicant's certificate should be endorsed. I recognise that as an improvement and a legitimate effort on the part of the Brethren, I suspect, and the government to endeavour to meet the concerns that we have raised. I suspect that is a pretty tight way of dealing with events.I had in my mind in discussions outside this chamber on this matter the circumstances that came before the public's attention at the Hindu temple at Helensburgh, just north of Wollongong, where some of us will recall that there were some stonemasons from India who were being grossly exploited in that situation. It did occur to me over recent days, as we have been grappling with this issue, that it may well be that an organisation like that could qualify under the terms of earlier drafts of this amendment. That is a concern, obviously. We would not want to see a situation where people would be subjected to totally unacceptable conditions without the union being in a position to actually enter the premises and satisfy itself that the law of the land was being met. Indeed, had the union not been able to enter the premises of the Hindu temple in Wollongong, those events would have gone on unchecked, I imagine, for much longer. The amendment that has been presented here late tonight does pick up a number of the concerns that have been raised in discussions over the course of the last week, and I acknowledge that. I imagine it will get passage through the Senate. Because of my concerns about the principles involved of restricting access—with the key criterion being the conscientious objector views of the employer rather than the employee—and, frankly, because this matter has hit us in the course of the last two weeks or thereabouts—SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—No Labor Party has ever rejected this.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—I am not intending to support it, nor do I intend to divide on it.SD4Cadman, Alan, MPMr Cadman—Well, you are over there.ET4Bevis, Arch, MPMr BEVIS—Before you get too excited, Alan, I am not intending to divide on it. (Time expired)Amendments agreed to.22:23:0030322Abbott, Tony, MPMr ABBOTTEZ5WarringahLPMinister for Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business10—Mr Deputy Speaker, I now move a further government amendment:Page 59 (after line 25), at the end of the Bill, add:Schedule 4 - Amendments about entry to premisesWorkplace Relations Act 19961 Subsection 285C(1)Omit “A”, substitute “Subject to subsections (2) and (3), a”2 At the end of section 285CAdd:(3) The person may not enter premises if all of the following conditions are satisfied:(a) no more than 20 employees are employed to work at the premises;(b) all the employees at the premises are employed by an employer who is the holder of a conscientious objection certificate in force under section 267, that has been endorsed by the Registrar as provided in subsection (4) ;(c) none of the employees employed at the premises is a member of an organisation.(4) Subject to subsection (5), a Registrar may, on the application of an employer, endorse a certificate issued to that employer under section 267, if the Registrar is satisfied that the employer is a practising member of a religious society or order whose doctrines or beliefs preclude membership of an organisation or body other than the religious society or order of which the employer is a member. (5) A Registrar must not endorse a certificate under subsection (4) unless satisfied that, at the time application is made for endorsement, all of the employees employed by the applicant have agreed that the applicant's certificate should be endorsed.(6) An application under subsection (4) may be made at the time of an application under section 267 or at any later time.(7) The endorsement of a Registrar under subsection (4) remains in force for the period that the certificate remains in force.Note: A certificate issued under section 267 remains in force for the period (not exceeding 12 months) specified in the certificate, but may be renewed. A Registrar's endorsement under subsection 4 does not remain in force when a certificate is renewed, but a new application for endorsement may be made.3 Paragraph 285C(3)(b)Omit “section 267” substitute “section 178 of the Registered Organisations Act”.4 Subsection 285C(4)Omit “section 267”, substitute “section 178 of the Registered Organisations Act”.5 Subsection 285C(6)Omit “section 267”, substitute “section 178 of the Registered Organisations Act”.6 Subsection 285C(7)In the note, omit “section 267”, substitute “section 178 of the Registered Organisations Act”Amendment agreed to.Bill, as amended, agreed to.30323Bill (on motion by Mr Abbott)—by leave—read a third time.Bills30323The following bills were returned from the Senate without amendment or request:Corporations (Compensation Arrangements Levies) Bill 2001Corporations (National Guarantee Fund Levies) Amendment Bill 2001Corporations (Fees) Amendment Bill 2001States Grants (Primary and Secondary Education Assistance) Amendment Bill 2001Finance and Administration Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Bill 2001Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Bill 2001Bills30323R133630323Message received from the Senate returning the bill and acquainting the House that the Senate has agreed to the bill as amended by the House at the request of the Senate.Miscellaneous3032310000DEPUTY SPEAKER, MrMr DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr Nehl)—Order! Mr Speaker has received the following message from the Senate:The Senate acquaints the House of Representatives of the following resolution agreed to by the Senate this day:The Senate condemns the Government for:(a) misusing the issue of literacy for political advantage;(b) manipulating statistics about literacy achievement; and(c) providing $145 million to wealthy category one schools which could have been better used improving literacy for students in government and needy non-government schools. The Senate requests the concurrence of the House in this resolution.Motion (by Mr Entsch) agreed to:That consideration of the message be made an order of the day for the next sitting.Bills30323R125630323Bill returned from the Senate with amendments.Ordered that the amendments be taken into consideration forthwith. Senate's amendments—(1) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6(lines 26 to 30), omit paragraph (d), substitute: (d) funds are able to be withdrawn or transferred from the facility on the instruction of, or by authority of, the depositor: (i) without any prior notice to the ADI that makes the facility available; or (ii) if the ADI that makes the facility available is included in a class of ADIs specified in regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph—subject to a prior notice requirement that does not exceed the period specified in those regulations in relation to that class of ADIs; whether or not the withdrawal or transfer will attract a reduction in the return generated for the depositor as mentioned in subparagraph (c)(i); and(2) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (after line 8), after the definition of disqualified individual, insert:execution-related telephone advice has the meaning given by subsection 946B(1).(3) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 14 and 15), omit “subsection 766B(1)”, substitute “section 766B”.(4) Schedule 1, item 1, page 9(after line 30), after the definition of general insurance product, insert:holder,in relation to a financial product, means the person to whom the financial product was issued, or if it has (since issue) been disposed of to another person who has not themselves disposed of it, that other person (and hold has a corresponding meaning).(5) Schedule 1, item 1, page 11 (line 2), omit “or (l)”.(6) Schedule 1, item 1, page 13 (after line 9), after the definition of recognised affiliate, insert:relevant personal circumstances, in relation to advice provided or to be provided to a person in relation to a matter, are such of the person's objectives, financial situation and needs as would reasonably be considered to be relevant to the advice.(7) Schedule 1, item 1, page 17(before line 1), after subsection (3), insert: (3A) For the avoidance of doubt, none of the following are taken to give rise to the issue of a financial product to a person (the client): (a) the client making a further contribution to a superannuation fund of which the client is already a member; (b) the client making a further deposit into an RSA maintained in the client's name; (c) the client making a further payment under a life insurance investment product; (d) the client making a further deposit into a deposit product; (e) the client engaging in conduct specified in regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph in relation to a financial product already held by the client.(8) Schedule 1, item 1, page 20(line 30), omit “subsection (5) or (7)”, substitute “subsection (5), (6) or (7)”.(9) Schedule 1, item 1, page 22(lines 13 to 19), omit subsection (6), substitute:Superannuation products and RSA products (6) For the purposes of this Chapter: (a) if a financial product provided to a person is a superannuation product or an RSA product, the product is provided to the person as a retail client; and (b) if a financial service (other than the provision of a financial product) provided to a person who is not covered by subparagraph (c)(i) or (ii) relates to a superannuation product or an RSA product, the service is provided to the person as a retail client; and (c) if a financial service (other than the provision of a financial product) provided to a person who is: (i) the trustee of a superannuation fund, an approved deposit fund, a pooled superannuation trust or a public sector superannuation scheme (within the meaning of the Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993)that has net assets of at least $10 million; or (ii) an RSA provider (within the meaning of the Retirement Savings Accounts Act 1997); relates to a superannuation product or an RSA product, that does not constitute the provision of a financial service to the person as a retail client.(10) Schedule 1, item 1, page 23 (line 33) to page 24 (line 5), omit notes 1, 2 and 3 to subsection (9), substitute:Note 1: There is no such presumption in relation to the provision of a product or service that is or relates to a general insurance product, a superannuation product or an RSA product. Whether or not such a product, or a service relating to such a product, was provided to a person as a retail client is to be resolved as provided in subsection (5) or (6), as the case requires.Note 2: In criminal proceedings, a defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in paragraphs (7)(a) to (d) (see subsection (8)).(11) Schedule 1, item 1, page 30(line 15), omit “may be still be”, substitute “may still be”.(12) Schedule 1, item 1, page 30(after line 33), after paragraph 764A(1)(b), insert: (ba) any of the following in relation to a managed investment scheme that is not a registered scheme, other than a scheme (whether or not operated in this jurisdiction) in relation to which none of paragraphs 601ED(1)(a), (b) and (c) are satisfied: (i) an interest in the scheme; (ii) a legal or equitable right or interest in an interest covered by subparagraph (i); (iii) an option to acquire, by way of issue, an interest or right covered by subparagraph (i) or (ii); (13) Schedule 1, item 1, page 32 (lines 17 to 20), omit subparagraph (k)(ii), substitute: (ii) a contract to exchange one currency (whether Australian or not) for another that is to be settled immediately;(14) Schedule 1, item 1, page 32(lines 21 to 29), omit paragraph (l).(15) Schedule 1, item 1, page 34 (lines 18 to 21), omit paragraph (m), substitute: (m) a contract to exchange one currency (whether Australian or not) for another that is to be settled immediately;(16) Schedule 1, item 1, page 34(lines 24 and 25), omit paragraph (o).(17) Schedule 1, item 1, page 35(lines 1 to 9), omit paragraph (s), substitute: (s) any of the following in relation to a managed investment scheme (whether or not operated in this jurisdiction) in relation to which none of paragraphs 601ED(1)(a), (b) and (c) are satisfied and that is not a registered scheme: (i) an interest in the scheme; (ii) a legal or equitable right or interest in an interest covered by subparagraph (i); (iii) an option to acquire, by way of issue, an interest or right covered by subparagraph (i) or (ii);(18) Schedule 1, item 1, page 37 (line 5), omit “the provision of an exempt document”, substitute “the provision or giving of an exempt document or statement”.(19) Schedule 1, item 1, page 37 (lines 12 to 15), omit paragraphs (3)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) the provider of the advice has considered one or more of the person's objectives, financial situation and needs; or (b) a reasonable person might expect the provider to have considered one or more of those matters.(20) Schedule 1, item 1, page 37 (lines 18 to 20), omit subsection (5), substitute: (5) The following advice is not financial product advice: (a) advice given by a lawyer in his or her professional capacity, about matters of law, legal interpretation or the application of the law to any facts; (b) except as may be prescribed by the regulations—any other advice given by a lawyer in the ordinary course of activities as a lawyer, that is reasonably regarded as a necessary part of those activities; (c) except as may be prescribed by the regulations—advice given by a tax agent registered under Part VIIA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, that is given in the ordinary course of activities as such an agent and that is reasonably regarded as a necessary part of those activities. (6) If: (a) in response to a request made by a person (the inquirer) to another person (the provider), the provider tells the inquirer the cost, or an estimate of the likely cost, of a financial product (for example, an insurance product); and (b) that cost or estimate is worked out, or said by the provider to be worked out, by reference to a valuation of an item (for example, a house or car to which an insurance policy would relate), being a valuation that the provider suggests or recommends to the inquirer;the acts of telling the inquirer the cost, or estimated cost, and suggesting or recommending the valuation, do not, of themselves, constitute the making of a recommendation (or the provision of any other kind of financial product advice) relating to the financial product. (7) If: (a) in response to a request made by a person (the inquirer) to another person (the provider), the provider tells the inquirer information about: (i) the cost of a financial product; or (ii) the rate of return on a financial product; or (iii) any other matter identified in regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph; and (b) the request could also have been complied with (but was not also so complied with) by telling the inquirer equivalent information about one or more other financial products;the act of telling the inquirer the information does not, of itself, constitute the making of a recommendation (or the provision of any other kind of financial product advice) in relation to the financial product referred to in paragraph (a). (8) Subsections (5), (6) and (7) are not intended to affect, in any way, the determination of whether situations not covered by those subsections do, or do not, constitute the provision of financial product advice.(21) Schedule 1, item 1, page 37 (lines 21 to 29), omit subsection (6), substitute: (9) In this section:exempt document or statement means: (a) a document prepared, or a statement given, in accordance with requirements of this Chapter, other than: (i) a Statement of Advice; or (ii) a document or statement of a kind prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph; or (b) any other document or statement of a kind prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.(22) Schedule 1, item 1, page 37(line 31), after “conduct”, insert “(whether engaged in as principal or agent)”.(23) Schedule 1, item 1, page 38(line 10), after “own behalf”, insert “(whether directly or through an agent or other representative)”.(24) Schedule 1, item 1, page 38(after line 12), after subsection (3), insert: (3A) For the purposes of subsection (3), a person (the agent) who deals in a product as an agent or representative of another person (the principal) is not taken to deal in the product on the agent's own behalf, even if that dealing, when considered as a dealing by the principal, is a dealing by the principal on the principal's own behalf. (25) Schedule 1, item 1, page 39(after line 12), at the end of section 766D, add: (2) Paragraph (1)(a) does not apply to a person stating prices at which they propose to acquire or dispose of financial products if: (a) the person is the issuer of the products; and (b) the products are superannuation products, managed investment products or financial products referred to in paragraph 764A(1)(ba) (which relates to unregistered managed investment schemes). (26) Schedule 1, item 1, page 39 (lines 14 to 34), omit subsections 766E(1) and (2), substitute: (1) For the purposes of this Chapter, a person (the provider) provides a custodial or depository service to another person (the client) if, under an arrangement between the provider and the client, or between the provider and another person with whom the client has an arrangement, (whether or not there are also other parties to any such arrangement), a financial product, or a beneficial interest in a financial product, is held by the provider in trust for, or on behalf of, the client or another person nominated by the client. (2) The following provisions apply in relation to a custodial or depository service: (a) subject to paragraph (b), for the purposes of this Chapter, the time at which a custodial or depository service is provided is the time when the financial product or beneficial interest concerned is first held by the provider as mentioned in subsection (1); (b) for the purposes of Part 7.6, and of any other provisions of this Act prescribed by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph, the continued holding of the financial product or beneficial interest concerned by the provider as mentioned in subsection (1) also constitutes the provision of a custodial or depository service.Note: Because of paragraph (a) (subject to regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (b)), the requirements of Part 7.7 relating to financial services disclosure need only be complied with before the product or interest is first held by the provider. However, because of paragraph (b), the provider will be subject to the licensing and related requirements of Part 7.6 for so long as they continue to hold the product or interest.(27) Schedule 1, item 1, page 40 (line 4), after “registered scheme”, insert “, or the holding ofthe assets of a registered scheme”.(28) Schedule 1, item 1, page 44(after line 35), after subsection (8), insert: (8A) Nothing in this section, other than subsections (7) and (8), excludes or limits the operation of subsection 601FB(2) in relation to the provisions of this Chapter or to proceedings under this Chapter.(29) Schedule 1, item 1, page 46 (lines 5 to 9), omit the definition of clearing and settlement arrangements, substitute:clearing and settlement arrangements, for transactions effected through a financial market, means arrangements for the clearing and settlement of those transactions. The arrangements may be part of the market's operating rules or be separate from those operating rules.(30) Schedule 1, item 1, page 48 (lines 5 to 9), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) to the extent that it is reasonably practicable to do so, do all things necessary to ensure that the market is a fair, orderly and transparent market; and(31) Schedule 1, item 1, page 48 (line 19), omit “in”, substitute “on or in relation to”.(32) Schedule 1, item 1, page 50 (line 35), omit “an individual”, substitute “a person”.(33) Schedule 1, item 1, page 53 (lines 1 to 20), omit section 792G, substitute:792G Obligations to notify people about clearing and settlement arrangements in certain circumstances (1) If, in relation to a category of transactions, being all transactions or a class of transactions effected through a licensed market, the market licensee: (a) does not have any clearing and settlement arrangements for transactions in that category; or (b) has clearing and settlement arrangements for transactions in that category, but they are not arrangements with the operator of a clearing and settlement facility for the clearing and settlement of such transactions through the facility;the market licensee must, before a person becomes a participant in the market, give the person written advice: (c) if paragraph (a) applies—that the licensee does not have any clearing and settlement arrangements for transactions in that category, and that it is the responsibility of the parties to such transactions to make their own arrangements for the clearing and settlement of such transactions; or (d) if paragraph (b) applies—setting out particulars of the clearing and settlement arrangements for transactions in that category.Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)). (2) Within a reasonable time before a market licensee ceases, in relation to a category of transactions, being all transactions or a class of transactions effected through a licensed market, to have clearing and settlement arrangements (the terminating arrangements) with the operator of a particular clearing and settlement facility for the clearing and settlement of such transactions through the facility, the market licensee must give the participants in the market written advice: (a) if the terminating arrangements are not being replaced by any other clearing and settlement arrangements—that the licensee will no longer have clearing and settlement arrangements for that category of transactions, and that it will be the responsibility of the parties to such transactions to make their own arrangements for the clearing and settlement of such transactions; or (b) if the terminating arrangements are being replaced by new clearing and settlement arrangements—setting out particulars of the new arrangements.Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)).(34) Schedule 1, item 1, page 62 (line 13), omit “in”, substitute “on or in relation to”.(35) Schedule 1, item 1, page 77 (line 17), omit “an individual”, substitute “a person”.(36) Schedule 1, item 1, page 100 (lines 1 to 3), omit paragraph 850B(b), substitute: (b) in relation to a body other than the Australian Stock Exchange Limited—if an approval of a higher percentage is in force under Subdivision B in relation to the body and in relation to the person, that higher percentage; or (c) in relation to the Australian Stock Exchange Limited—if the regulations prescribe a higher percentage in relation to the Australian Stock Exchange Limited in relation to the person, that higher percentage. (37) Schedule 1, item 1, page 100 (after line 3), at the end of section 850B, add: (2) Regulations made for the purposes of paragraph (1)(c) may not take effect earlier than the day after the last day on which the regulations may be disallowed under section 48 of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901.(38) Schedule 1, item 1, page 102 (line 4), after “body”, insert “(other than the Australian Stock Exchange Limited)”.(39) Schedule 1, item 1, page 112 (line 22), omit “Record-keeping etc.”, substitute “Miscellaneous”.(40) Schedule 1, item 1, page 113 (after line 24), at the end of Part 7.4, add:854B Exemptions and modifications by regulations (1) The regulations may: (a) exempt a person or class of persons from all or specified provisions of this Part; or (b) provide that this Part applies as if specified provisions were omitted, modified or varied as specified in the regulations. (2) Without limiting subsection (1), regulations made for the purposes of this section may declare that provisions of this Part are modified so that they apply (with or without further modifications) in relation to persons, bodies or situations to which they would not otherwise apply. (3) For the purpose of this section, the provisions of this Part include: (a) definitions in this Act, or in the regulations, as they apply to references in this Part; and (b) any provisions of Part 10.2 (transitional provisions) that relate to provisions of this Part. (41) Schedule 1, item 1, page 120 (lines 8 to 11), omit paragraph (c), substitute: (c) the operator of a clearing and settlement facility, if: (i) there are clearing and settlement arrangements (as defined in section 790A) for some or all transactions effected through the market; and (ii) those arrangements are with the operator of the facility; or(42) Schedule 1, item 1, page 156 (lines 6 to 11), omit the definition of representative, substitute:representative of a person means: (a) if the person is a financial services licensee: (i) an authorised representative of the licensee; or (ii) an employee or director of the licensee; or (iii) an employee or director of a related body corporate of the licensee; or (iv) any other person acting on behalf of the licensee; or (b) in any other case: (i) an employee or director of the person; or (ii) an employee or director of a related body corporate of the person; or (iii) any other person acting on behalf of the person.(43) Schedule 1, item 1, page 157(lines 3 to 12), omit paragraph (b), substitute: (b) the service is the issue, variation or disposal of a financial product by the person (the product provider) pursuant to an arrangement (an intermediary authorisation) between the product provider and a financial services licensee under which: (i) the financial services licensee, or their authorised representatives, may make offers to people to arrange for the issue, variation or disposal of financial products by the product provider; and (ii) the product provider is to issue, vary or dispose of financial products in accordance with such offers, if they are accepted; provided that the offer pursuant to which the issue, variation or disposal is made was covered by the financial services licensee's Australian financial services licence; (ba) the service is the entry into of an intermediary authorisation referred to in paragraph (b);(44) Schedule 1, item 1, page 157 (lines 23 to 26), omit paragraph (e).(45) Schedule 1, item 1, page 157 (after line 26), after paragraph (e), insert: (ea) the service is the provision of general advice and all of the following apply: (i) the advice is provided in a newspaper or periodical of which the person is the proprietor or publisher; (ii) the newspaper or periodical is generally available to the public otherwise than only on subscription; (iii) the sole or principal purpose of the newspaper or periodical is not the provision of financial product advice; (eb) the service is the provision of general advice and all of the following apply: (i) the advice is provided in the course of, or by means of, transmissions that the person makes by means of an information service (see subsection (6)), or that are made by means of an information service that the person owns, operates or makes available; (ii) the transmissions are generally available to the public; (iii) the sole or principal purpose of the transmissions is not the provision of financial product advice; (ec) the service is the provision of general advice and all of the following apply: (i) the advice is provided in sound recordings, video recordings, or data recordings; (ii) the person makes the recordings available to the public by supplying copies of them to the public and/or by causing the recordings (if they are sound recordings) to be heard by the public, causing the recordings (if they are video recordings) to be seen and heard by the public, or the contents of the recordings (if they are data recordings) to be displayed or reproduced for the public; (iii) the sole or principal purpose of the recordings is not the provision of financial product advice;(46) Schedule 1, item 1, page 158 (lines 14 to 16), omit subparagraph (g)(ii), substitute: (ii) the service is one in relation to which APRA has regulatory or supervisory responsibilities;(47) Schedule 1, item 1, page 159(lines 11 to 16), omit subsection (5), substitute: (5) The exemption under paragraph (2)(ea), (eb) or (ec), or an exemption under paragraph (2)(k) or (l), may apply unconditionally or subject to conditions: (a) in the case of the exemption under paragraph (2)(ea), (eb) or (ec), or an exemption under paragraph (2)(k)—specified in regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph; or (b) in the case of an exemption under paragraph (2)(l)—specified by ASIC in writing published in the Gazette. (6) In this section:information service means: (a) a broadcasting service; or (b) an interactive or broadcast videotext or teletext service or a similar service; or (c) an online database service or a similar service; or (d) any other service identified in regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.(48) Schedule 1, item 1, page 161(after line 3), at the end of section 911B, add: (3) If, as mentioned in paragraph (1)(d), the provider holds their own Australian financial services licence covering the provision of the service, then, for the purposes of the other provisions of this Chapter, the service is taken to be provided by the provider (and not by the principal) unless regulations made for the purposes of this subsection provide otherwise.(49) Schedule 1, item 1, page 162 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraph (a), substitute: (a) do all things necessary to ensure that the financial services covered by the licence are provided efficiently, honestly and fairly; and(50) Schedule 1, item 1, page 162 (lines 21 to 26), omit paragraph (g), substitute: (g) if those financial services are provided to persons as retail clients—have a dispute resolution system complying with subsection (2); and(51) Schedule 1, item 1, page 162 (after line 30), at the end of section 912A, add: (2) To comply with this subsection, a dispute resolution system must consist of: (a) an internal dispute resolution procedure that: (i) complies with standards, and requirements, made or approved by ASIC in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph; and (ii) covers complaints against the licensee made by retail clients in connection with the provision of all financial services covered by the licence; and (b) membership of one or more external dispute resolution schemes that: (i) is, or are, approved by ASIC in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph; and (ii) covers, or together cover, complaints (other than complaints that may be dealt with by the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal established by section 6 of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993) against the licensee made by retail clients in connection with the provision of all financial services covered by the licence. (3) Regulations made for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(a)(i) or (2)(b)(i) may also deal with the variation or revocation of: (a) standards or requirements made by ASIC; or (b) approvals given by ASIC.(52) Schedule 1, item 1, page 164(line 31), omit “this Act”, substitute “the financial services laws”.(53) Schedule 1, item 1, page 168 (lines 12 and 13), omit “significantly limiting or restricting the APRA body's ability to carry on”, substitute “preventing the APRA body from being able to carry on”.(54) Schedule 1, item 1, page 168 (lines 32 and 33), omit “significantly limiting or restricting the ADI's ability to carry on”, substitute “preventing the ADI from being able to carry on”.(55) Schedule 1, item 1, page 171 (after line 14), at the end of section 915B, add: (4) ASIC may suspend or cancel an Australian financial services licence held by the trustees of a trust, by giving written notice to the trustees, if: (a) the trustees of the trust cease to carry on the financial services business; or (b) a trustee who is a natural person: (i) becomes an insolvent under administration; or (ii) is convicted of serious fraud; or (iii) becomes incapable of managing their affairs because of physical or mental incapacity; or (c) a trustee that is a body corporate becomes an externally-administered body corporate; or (d) the trustees lodge with ASIC an application for ASIC to do so, which is accompanied by the documents, if any, required by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.Note 1: For fees in respect of lodging applications, see Part 9.10.Note 2: If there is only one trustee, subsection (1) will apply (if the trustee is a natural person), and subsection (3) will apply (if the trustee is a body corporate).(56) Schedule 1, item 1, page 173(lines 14 to 28), omit subsection (1), substitute: (1) If a financial services licensee, or a related body corporate, is a body (the APRA body) regulated by APRA, other than an ADI (within the meaning of the Banking Act 1959),the following provisions apply: (a) ASIC cannot suspend or cancel the licensee's licence if doing so would, in ASIC's opinion, have the result of preventing the APRA body from being able to carry on all or any of its usual activities (being activities in relation to which APRA has regulatory or supervisory responsibilities), unless ASIC has first consulted APRA about the proposed action; (b) if ASIC suspends or cancels the licensee's licence and paragraph (a) does not apply to that action, ASIC must, within one week, inform APRA of the action that has been taken.(57) Schedule 1, item 1, page 174 (lines 1 and 2), omit “significantly limiting or restricting the ADI's ability to carry on”, substitute “preventing the ADI from being able to carry on”.(58) Schedule 1, item 1, page 175 (after line 7), after subsection 916A(3), insert: (3A) A person must not give a purported authorisation if that purported authorisation is void to any extent under subsection (3).Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)).(59) Schedule 1, item 1, page 175 (after line 15), after subsection 916B(2), insert: (2A) A person must not give a purported authorisation if that purported authorisation is contrary to this section.Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)).(60) Schedule 1, item 1, page 175 (line 20), at the end of subsection 916B(3), add “in writing given to the body corporate”.(61) Schedule 1, item 1, page 175 (after line 25), after subsection (5), insert: (5A) If a licensee gives consent under subsection (3) to a body corporate, the licensee must keep a copy of the consent for 5 years after the day on which it ceases to have effect. Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)).(62) Schedule 1, item 1, page 175 (after line 27), at the end of section 916B, add: (7) An authorisation of an individual as mentioned in subsection (3) may be revoked at any time by: (a) the licensee; or (b) the body corporate that gave the individual the authorisation;giving written notice to the individual. (8) If a person revokes the authorisation of an individual under subsection (7), that person must inform, in writing, the other person who could have revoked the authorisation. (9) To avoid doubt, an authorisation given as mentioned in subsection (3) is taken, for the purposes of sections 916C to 916F, to be given by the body corporate, not the licensee.(63) Schedule 1, item 1, page 176 (lines 8 to 10), omit subsection 916C(3), substitute: (3) A person must not give a purported authorisation if that purported authorisation is in breach of this requirement.Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)).(64) Schedule 1, item 1, page 176 (after line 20), after subsection 916D(2), insert: (2A) A person must not give a purported authorisation if that purported authorisation is given in breach of this requirement.Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)). (2B) The requirement in subsection (1) does not prohibit a financial services licensee from being an authorised representative in circumstances covered by section 916E.Note: In a prosecution for an offence based on subsection (2A), a defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in this subsection. See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code.(65) Schedule 1, item 1, page 177 (line 5), after “ASIC”, insert “etc.”.(66) Schedule 1, item 1, page 177 (after line 11), after subsection 916F(1), insert: (1A) A person who authorises an individual to provide a financial service on behalf of a financial services licensee as mentioned in section 916B must give the licensee written notice (in accordance with subsection (2)), within 10 business days of the individual being authorised to provide the financial service, if the licensee's consent to the authorisation was given in respect of a specified class of individuals.Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)).(67) Schedule 1, item 1, page 177 (lines 19 to 23), omit subsection (3), substitute: (3) A person must notify ASIC, by lodging a written notice, within 10 business days if: (a) the person authorised a representative under section 916A or 916B and there is a change in any details relating to the representative that are required to be included under subsection (2); or (b) the person revokes the authorisation of a representative under section 916A or 916B.Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)).(68) Schedule 1, item 1, page 181 (lines 5 to 15), omit subsection (3), substitute:Financial service covered by multiple authorities: conduct within authority for one or more of them (3) If: (a) the representative is the representative of more than one of the licensees in respect of a particular class of financial service; and (b) the conduct relates to that class of service; and (c) the conduct is within authority in relation to: (i) only one of those licensees (the authorising licensee); or (ii) two or more of those licensees (the authorising licensees); then: (d) if subparagraph (c)(i) applies—the authorising licensee is responsible for the conduct, as between that licensee and the client; or (e) if subparagraph (c)(ii) applies—the authorising licensees are jointly and severally responsible for the conduct, as between themselves and the client.(69) Schedule 1, item 1, page 183 (line 3) to page 189 (line 23), omit Division 7.(70) Schedule 1, item 1, page 193 (line 30), omit paragraph (d).(71) Schedule 1, item 1, page 195(line 10), omit “(ii)”, substitute “(iii)”.(72) Schedule 1, item 1, page 204(line 14), omit “and”.(73) Schedule 1, item 1, page 209(after line 4), after subsection (4), insert: (4A) The regulations may define what constitutes a public forum for the purposes of subsection (4).(74) Schedule 1, item 1, page 211(lines 5 to 8), omit paragraph 941F(b), substitute: (b) the following conditions are satisfied: (i) there is a change in circumstances before the service is provided, and the Financial Services Guide does not contain the information it would be required to contain if it were given to a person immediately after that change; (ii) the fact that the Financial Services Guide does not contain the up to date information is materially adverse from the point of view of a reasonable person deciding, as a retail client, whether to proceed to be provided with the financial service;(75) Schedule 1, item 1, page 212 (lines 24 to 33), omit paragraph (g), substitute: (g) if the providing entity provides execution-related telephone advice (see section 946B)—a statement in relation to which the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the statement must indicate that the client may request a record of execution-related telephone advice that is provided to them, if they have not already been provided with a record of that advice; (ii) the statement must set out particulars of how the client may request such a record; (iii) any limitations in those particulars on the time within which the client may request such a record must be consistent with any applicable requirements in regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph or, if there are no such applicable requirements, must be such as to allow the client a reasonable opportunity to request a record of the advice; and(76) Schedule 1, item 1, page 212 (lines 34 to 38), omit paragraph (h), substitute: (h) information about the dispute resolution system that covers complaints by persons to whom the providing entity provides financial services, and about how that system may be accessed; and(77) Schedule 1, item 1, page 214 (after line 5), at the end of section 942B, add: (8) If: (a) the Financial Services Guide includes a statement to the effect that a client may request a record of execution-related telephone advice; and (b) the client is provided with execution-related telephone advice to which that statement applies; and (c) the client has not already been provided with a record of that advice;the providing entity must comply with a request made in accordance with that statement for a record of that advice.Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)).(78) Schedule 1, item 1, page 215 (lines 18 to 28), omit paragraph (h), substitute: (h) if the providing entity, when acting as representative of the authorising licensee or any of the authorising licensees, provides execution-related telephone advice (see section 946B)—a statement in relation to which the following requirements are satisfied: (i) the statement must indicate that the client may request a record of execution-related telephone advice that is provided to them, if they have not already been provided with a record of that advice; (ii) the statement must set out particulars of how the client may request such a record; (iii) any limitations in those particulars on the time within which the client may request such a record must be consistent with any applicable requirements in regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph or, if there are no such applicable requirements, must be such as to allow the client a reasonable opportunity to request a record of the advice; and(79) Schedule 1, item 1, page 215 (lines 29 to 34), omit paragraph (i), substitute: (i) information about the dispute resolution system that covers complaints by persons to whom the providing entity provides financial services when acting as representative of the authorising licensee or any of the authorising licensees, and about how that system may be accessed; and (80) Schedule 1, item 1, page 217 (after line 7), at the end of section 942C, add: (8) If: (a) the Financial Services Guide includes a statement to the effect that a client may request a record of execution-related telephone advice; and (b) the client is provided with execution-related telephone advice to which that statement applies; and (c) the client has not already been provided with a record of that advice;the providing entity must comply with a request made in accordance with that statement for a record of that advice.Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)).(81) Schedule 1, item 1, page 222 (lines 5 to 15), omit subsection (1), substitute: (1) The providing entity must only provide the advice to the client if: (a) the providing entity: (i) determines the relevant personal circumstances in relation to giving the advice; and (ii) makes reasonable inquiries in relation to those personal circumstances; and (b) having regard to information obtained from the client in relation to those personal circumstances, the providing entity has given such consideration to, and conducted such investigation of, the subject matter of the advice as is reasonable in all of the circumstances; and (c) the advice is appropriate to the client, having regard to that consideration and investigation.Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)).(82) Schedule 1, item 1, page 223 (line 4), omit “the client”, substitute “the client's relevant personal circumstances”.(83) Schedule 1, item 1, page 223 (lines 12 and 13), omit “objectives, financial situation and needs”, substitute “relevant personal circumstances”.(84) Schedule 1, item 1, page 223 (line 16), omit “objectives, financial situation and needs”, substitute “relevant personal circumstances”.(85) Schedule 1, item 1, page 224(lines 17 to 32), omit subsection (2), substitute: (2) The providing entity does not have to give the client a Statement of Advice if, before the execution-related telephone advice is provided, the client agrees to a Statement of Advice not being given in respect of the advice, or advice of that kind.(86) Schedule 1, item 1, page 225(after line 3), after subsection (3), insert: (3A) The providing entity must keep a record of the advice and, in doing so, must comply with any applicable requirements of regulations made for the purposes of this subsection.Note 1: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)). Note 2: For the client's right to a record of the advice, see subsections 942B(8) and 942C(8).(87) Schedule 1, item 1, page 225, lines 4 to 11, omit subsection (4).(88) Schedule 1, item 1, page 225(line 16), omit “(c)”, substitute “(b)”.(89) Schedule 1, item 1, page 232 (line 6), omit “financial situation and needs”, substitute “financial situation or needs”.(90) Schedule 1, item 1, page 232 (line 19), omit “financial situation and needs”, substitute “financial situation or needs”.(91) Schedule 1, item 1, page 233 (lines 36 and 37), omit paragraph (1)(c).(92) Schedule 1, item 1, page 234 (line 31) to page 238 (line 18), omit Division 5.(93) Schedule 1, item 1, page 243 (line 12), omit “or a member of a declared professional body”.(94) Schedule 1, item 1, page 244 (line 16), omit “or a member of a declared professional body”.(95) Schedule 1, item 1, page 257 (after line 6), after subsection (3), insert: (3A) For the purposes of paragraph (3)(c): (a) section 917C is taken to apply, despite section 917F; and (b) section 917D is taken not to apply.(96) Schedule 1, item 1, page 259 (line 13), after “client”, insert “;”.(97) Schedule 1, item 1, page 259 (line 14), omit subparagraph (iii), substitute: (iii) to the licensee in the licensee's capacity as a person acting on behalf of the client.(98) Schedule 1, item 1, page 263 (after line 8), at the end of Subdivision A, add:981H Money to which Subdivision applies taken to be held in trust (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), money to which this Subdivision applies that is paid to the licensee: (a) by the client; or (b) by a person acting on behalf of the client; or (c) in the licensee's capacity as a person acting on behalf of the client;is taken to be held in trust by the licensee for the benefit of the client. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to money that the licensee and the client agree in writing is not held in trust by the licensee for the benefit of the client. (3) The regulations may: (a) provide that subsection (1) does not apply in relation to money in specified circumstances; and (b) provide for matters relating to the taking of money to be held in trust (including, for example, terms on which the money is taken to be held in trust and circumstances in which it is no longer taken to be held in trust). (99) Schedule 1, item 1, page 268 (line 14), omit “money”, substitute “property”.(100) Schedule 1, item 1, page 287 (line 9), at the end of subsection 992A(2), add “, or to offering of managed investment products, hawking of which is prohibited by section 992AA”.(101) Schedule 1, item 1, page 287 (after line 11), at the end of section 992A, add: (3) A person must not make an offer to issue or sell a financial product (other than an offer to which subsection (1) applies) in the course of, or because of, unsolicited personal contact with another person unless the other person has been: (a) contacted only during the hours prescribed by the regulations and only if the person is not listed on the “No Contact/No Call” register in relation to the person making the contact; and (b) given an opportunity to: (i) register on a “No Contact/No Call” register maintained by the person making the contact at no cost to that person; and (ii) select the time and frequency of any future contacts; and (c) given a Product Disclosure Statement before becoming bound to acquire a financial product; and (d) clearly informed of the importance of using the information in the Product Disclosure Statement when making a decision to acquire a financial product; and (e) given the option of having the information in the Product Disclosure Statement read out to that person. Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)). (4) In addition to other penalties for breaches of this section, a failure to comply with this section gives the other person a right of return and refund exercisable within 1 month after the expiry date of the relevant cooling-off period for the financial product, or one month and fourteen days in the event that no cooling-off period applies to the financial product, subject to the following provisions: (a) on the exercise of the right to return the product: (i) if the product is constituted by a legal relationship between the client and the issuer of the product—that relationship is, by force of this subsection, terminated with effect from that time without penalty to the client; and (ii) any contract for the acquisition of the product by the client is, by force of this subsection, terminated with effect from that time without penalty to the client; (b) the regulations may provide for consequences and obligations (in addition to those provided for in paragraph (a)) to apply if the right to return a financial product is exercised; (c) the regulations may do any or all of the following: (i) provide that a specified subclass of financial products that would otherwise be covered by this subsection is excluded from this subsection; (ii) provide additional requirements to be satisfied before this subsection applies in relation to a class or subclass of financial products; (iii) provide that this subsection does not apply in relation to the provision of a financial product in specified circumstances.(102) Schedule 1, item 1, page 287 (after line 11), after section 992A, insert:992AA Prohibition of hawking of managed investment products (1) A person must not offer interests in managed investment schemes for issue or sale in the course of, or because of: (a) an unsolicited meeting with another person; or (b) an unsolicited telephone call to another person;unless the offer is exempted under subsection (2). Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)). (2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an offer of interests in managed investment schemes if: (a) the offer is not to a retail client; (b) the offer is an offer of interests in a listed managed investment scheme made by telephone by a financial services licensee; or (c) the offer is made to a client by a financial services licensee through whom the client has acquired or disposed of an interest in a managed investment scheme in the previous 12 months.(103) Schedule 1, item 1, page 292(lines 3 to 6), omit section 1011A, substitute:1011A Jurisidictional scope of Division (1) Subject to subsection (2), sections 1012A, 1012B and 1012C only apply in relation to offers and recommendations referred to in those sections that are received in this jurisdiction. (2) Section 1012B also applies in relation to issues referred to in subparagraph 1012B(3)(a)(iii) that are madein this jurisdiction. (3) The regulations may make provision dealing with the jurisdictional scope of some or all of the other provisions of this Division. The other provisions of this Division have effect subject to any such regulations.(104) Schedule 1, item 1, page 292 (lines 20 and 21), omit paragraph (e) of the definition of regulated person.(105) Schedule 1, item 1, page 301 (line 22) to page 302 (line 2), omit subsection (4).(106) Schedule 1, item 1, page 303(lines 8 to 10), omit paragraphs (8)(a) and (b), substitute: (a) the financial product is a financial product described in paragraph 764A(1)(ba) (which relates to certain managed investment schemes that are not registered schemes); and (b) the holder of the office (by whatever name it is known), in relation to the managed investment scheme, that corresponds most closely to the office of responsible entity of a registered scheme is an exempt body; and(107) Schedule 1, item 1, page 303(lines 14 and 15), omit “responsible entity of the scheme”, substitute “office holder referred to in paragraph (b)”.(108) Schedule 1, item 1, page 303(line 17), omit “responsible entity of the scheme”, substitute “office holder referred to in paragraph (b)”.(109) Schedule 1, item 1, page 303(after line 29), after subsection (9), insert:Recommendation, issue or sale situation—client is associated with registered scheme (9A) In a recommendation situation, an issue situation or a sale situation, the regulated person does not have to give the client a Product Disclosure Statement if: (a) the financial product is a managed investment product; and (b) the client is associated (within the meaning of subsection (9B)) with the scheme's responsible entity. (9B) For the purposes of subsection (9A), the client is associated with the scheme's responsible entity if the client is: (a) an executive officer of the responsible entity or of a related body corporate; or (b) a spouse, parent, child, brother or sister of a person who is an executive officer of the responsible entity or a related body corporate; or (c) a body corporate controlled by a person referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).(110) Schedule 1, item 1, page 305(line 29), omit “992A)”, substitute “992A”.(111) Schedule 1, item 1, page 311 (after line 8), after section 1012I, insert:1012IA Treatment of arrangements under which a person can instruct another person to acquire a financial productDefinitions (1) In this section:acquirer, in relation to a custodial arrangement, has the meaning given by the definition of custodial arrangement.client, in relation to a custodial arrangement, has the meaning given by the definition of custodial arrangement.custodial arrangement means an arrangement between a person (the provider) and another person (the client) (whether or not there are also other parties to the arrangement) under which: (a) the client is, or is entitled, to give an instruction that a particular financial product, or a financial product of a particular kind, is to be acquired; and (b) if the client gives such an instruction, a person (the acquirer), being the provider or a person with whom the provider has or will have an arrangement, must (subject to any discretion they have to refuse) acquire the financial product, or a financial product of that kind; and (c) if the acquirer acquires the financial product, or a financial product of that kind, pursuant to an instruction given by the client, either: (i) the product is to be held on trust for the client or another person nominated by the client; or (ii) the client, or another person nominated by the client, is to have rights or benefits in relation to the product or a beneficial interest in the product, or in relation to, or calculated by reference to, dividends or other benefits derived from the product.instruction includes a direction or request.provider, in relation to a custodial arrangement, has the meaning given by the definition of custodial arrangement.regulated acquisition means an acquisition of a financial product pursuant to an instruction by the client under a custodial arrangement, being an acquisition: (a) by way of issue by the issuer (the regulated person); or (b) pursuant to a sale by a person (the regulated person) in circumstances described in subsection 1012C(5), (6) or (8).regulated person, in relation to a regulated acquisition of a financial product, has the meaning given by paragraph (a) or (b) (as the case requires) of the definition of regulated acquisition.Obligation on provider to give client a PDS (2) Before a regulated acquisition of a financial product occurs pursuant to an instruction given by the client under a custodial arrangement, the provider must give the client a Product Disclosure Statement for the product if a Product Disclosure Statement for the product would, if there were an equivalent direct acquisition by the client, be required by subsection 1012B(3) or 1012C(3) (see subsection (3) of this section) to be given to the client by the regulated person before that acquisition occurred. For this purpose, an equivalent direct acquisition is an acquisition that would occur if: (a) the product were instead being offered for issue or sale direct to the client by the regulated person for the same price (or for the appropriate proportion of that price, if the transaction for the regulated acquisition also covers other products); and (b) the circumstances of that issue or sale to the client were otherwise the same as those in which the regulated acquisition will occur.Determining whether a PDS would have to be given for an equivalent direct acquisition (3) The following provisions apply for the purpose of determining whether the regulated person would be required by subsection 1012B(3) or 1012C(3) to give the client a Product Disclosure Statement for the financial product: (a) the effect of the provisions referred to in subsection 1012B(5) or 1012C(10), as the case requires, as they have effect subject to the following paragraphs, must be taken into account; (b) subsections 1012D(1) and (2) apply as if references in those subsections to the regulated person's belief in relation to a matter were instead references to the provider's belief in relation to that matter; (c) subsections 1012D(2) and (3) apply as if references to the client already holding a financial product of the same kind also included a reference to a person already holding a financial product of the same kind as a result of an instruction given by the client under a custodial arrangement; (d) sections 1012E and 1012F are to be disregarded; (e) section 1012G has effect in accordance with subsection (4).Modification of section 1012G (4) The following provisions apply in relation to section 1012G: (a) in determining for the purposes of subsection (2) whether the regulated person would be required by subsection 1012B(3) or 1012C(3) to give the client a Product Disclosure Statement for the financial product, subsection 1012G(2) applies as if the reference to the client instructing the regulated person (in an issue situation) that they require the financial product to be provided or issued immediately, or by a specified time, were instead a reference to the client instructing the provider that they require the financial product to be acquired immediately, or by a specified time; (b) if, because of subsection 1012G(2) as it applies because of paragraph (a) of this subsection, the provider does not have to give the client a Product Disclosure Statement for a financial product before a regulated acquisition of the financial product occurs pursuant to an instruction given by the client under a custodial arrangement: (i) subsection 1012G(2) applies in relation to the provider, the client and the regulated acquisition as if the obligation it imposes to comply with subsection 1012G(3) were imposed on the provider; and (ii) subsection 1012G(3) applies in relation to the provider, the client and the regulated acquisition as if the reference to the regulated person were instead a reference to the provider, as if subparagraph 1012G(3)(b)(i) were omitted and as if the reference in subparagraph 1012G(3)(b)(ii) to the day on which the financial product was issued or sold to the client were instead a reference to the day on which the regulated acquisition occurs.Modification of section 1013A (5) Section 1013A applies in relation to a regulated acquisition as if: (a) paragraph 1013A(1)(b) also covered a Product Disclosure Statement that is required to be given by subsection (2) of this section in relation to an acquisition covered by paragraph (a) of the definition of regulated acquisition in subsection (1) of this section; and (b) paragraph 1013A(2)(b) also covered a Product Disclosure Statement that is required to be given by subsection (2) of this section in relation to an acquisition covered by paragraph (b) of the definition of regulated acquisition in subsection (1) of this section.Provider is not an agent for the purposes of section 1015C (6) For the purposes of the application of section 1015C in relation to a regulated acquisition, the provider in relation to the relevant custodial arrangement is taken not to be an agent of the client.Provider is covered by sections 1015E, 1021F and 1021I (7) Sections 1015E, 1021F and 1021I apply in relation to a regulated acquisition as if the references to a regulated person were instead references to the provider in relation to the relevant custodial arrangement.Regulations may provide for other modifications (8) The regulations may provide for other modifications of provisions of this Part that are to have effect in relation to regulated acquisitions.(112) Schedule 1, item 1, page 316 (lines 1 to 4), omit paragraph (g), substitute: (g) information about the dispute resolution system that covers complaints by holders of the product and about how that system may be accessed; and(113) Schedule 1, item 1, page 316(line 15), at the end of subsection (1), add: ; and (k) any other statements or information required by the regulations.(114) Schedule 1, item 1, page 316 (line 15), at the end of subsection (1), add: ; and (l) if the product has an investment component—the extent to which labour standards or environmental, social or ethical considerations are taken into account in the selection, retention or realisation of the investment.(115) Schedule 1, item 1, page 316 (after line 31), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(l), products which have an investment component include superannuation products, managed investment products and investment life insurance products.(116) Schedule 1, item 1, page 317 (after line 8), after section 1013D, insert:1013DA Information about ethical considerations etc. ASIC may develop guidelines that must be complied with where a Product Disclosure Statement makes any claim that labour standards or environmental, social or ethical considerations are taken into account in the selection, retention or realisation of the investment.(117) Schedule 1, item 1, page 330 (line 3), at the end of subsection (2), add: ; or (f) it is a restricted issue that occurs in a situation covered by regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.(118) Schedule 1, item 1, page 337 (line 7), omit paragraph (1)(d). (119) Schedule 1, item 1, page 339(line 22), after “managed investment product”, insert “that is an ED security”.(120) Schedule 1, item 1, page 339(line 24), after “managed investment products”, insert “that are ED securities”.(121) Schedule 1, item 1, page 348 (after line 31), after subsection (2), insert: (2A) Subject to subsections (2B) and (2C), the money is taken to be held in trust by the product provider for the benefit of the person who paid the money. (2B) Subsection (2A) does not apply to money that the product provider and the person who paid the money agree in writing is not held in trust by the product provider for the benefit of the person. (2C) The regulations may: (a) provide that subsection (2A) does not apply in relation to money in specified circumstances; and (b) provide for matters relating to the taking of money to be held in trust (including, for example, terms on which the money is taken to be held in trust and circumstances in which it is no longer taken to be held in trust).(122) Schedule 1, item 1, page 354(lines 5 to 9), omit subsection (7), substitute:Content of confirmation (7) The confirmation of the transaction must give the holder the information that the responsible person reasonably believes the holder needs (having regard to the information the holder has received before the transaction) to understand the nature of the transaction.(123) Schedule 1, item 1, page 355 (lines 7 to 22), omit section 1017G, substitute:1017G Certain product issuers and regulated persons must meet appropriate dispute resolution requirements (1) If: (a) particular financial products are, or have been, available for acquisition (whether by issue or sale) by a person or persons as retail clients; and (b) the issue or sale of those products is not covered by an Australian financial services licence;both the issuer, and any regulated person obliged under subsection 1012C(5), (6) or (8) to give a retail client a Product Disclosure Statement for one or more of those financial products, must each have a dispute resolution system complying with subsection (2).Note 1: If the issue of particular financial products is covered by an Australian financial services licence, the requirement to have a dispute resolution system relating to the issue of the products is imposed by paragraph 912A(1)(g).Note 2: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)). (2) To comply with this subsection, a dispute resolution system must consist of: (a) an internal dispute resolution procedure that: (i) complies with standards, and requirements, made or approved by ASIC in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph; and (ii) covers complaints, against the person required to have the system, made by retail clients in relation to financial services provided in relation to any of those products; and (b) membership of one or more external dispute resolution schemes that: (i) is, or are, approved by ASIC in accordance with regulations made for the purposes of this subparagraph; and (ii) covers, or together cover, complaints (other than complaints that may be dealt with by the Superannuation Complaints Tribunal established by section 6 of the Superannuation (Resolution of Complaints) Act 1993), against the person required to have the system, made by retail clients in relation to financial services provided in relation to any of those products. (3) Regulations made for the purposes of subparagraph (2)(a)(i) or (2)(b)(i) may also deal with the variation or revocation of: (a) standards or requirements made by ASIC; or (b) approvals given by ASIC.(124) Schedule 1, item 1, page 361 (after line 21), after subsection (5), insert: (5A) The regulations may specify other circumstances in which the right to return the product (and have money paid to acquire it repaid) cannot be exercised.(125) Schedule 1, item 1, page 361(line 35), after “is to be”, insert “increased or”.(126) Schedule 1, item 1, page 362(line 2), omit “of managed investment products”, substitute “relating to certain managed investment schemes”.(127) Schedule 1, item 1, page 362(line 5), omit “managed investment product”, substitute “financial product described in paragraph 764A(1)(ba) (which relates to certain managed investment schemes that are not registered schemes)”.(128) Schedule 1, item 1, page 367 (line 7), omit “taken”, substitute “if the acquisition occurs in circumstances in which the party is required by a provision of this Part to have been given a Product Disclosure Statement for the product—taken”.(129) Schedule 1, item 1, page 387 (after line 20), after subsection (4), insert: (4A) For the purposes of paragraph (4)(b): (a) section 917C is taken to apply, despite section 917F; and (b) section 917D is taken not to apply.(130) Schedule 1, item 1, page 392(line 25), after paragraph 1041E(b), insert: ; and (c) when the person makes the statement, or disseminates the information: (i) the person does not care whether the statement or information is true or false; or (ii) the person knows, or ought reasonably to have known, that the statement or information is false in a material particular or is materially misleading.(131) Schedule 1, item 1, page 392(line 26), omit “this section”, substitute “this subsection”.(132) Schedule 1, item 1, page 392(line 29), omit “this section”, substitute “this subsection”.(133) Schedule 1, item 1, page 392(after line 31), at the end of section 1041E, add: (2) For the purposes of the application of the Criminal Code in relation to an offence based on subsection (1), paragraph (1)(a) is a physical element, the fault element for which is as specified in paragraph (1)(c). (3) For the purposes of an offence based on subsection (1), strict liability applies to subparagraphs (1)(b)(i), (ii) and (iii).Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.(134) Schedule 1, item 1, page 444 (after line 31), at the end of section 1074C, add: (3) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) confers a discretion to deal with a matter in the operating rules of a prescribed CS facility if there is an obligation under section 822A for that matter to be dealt with in those rules.(135) Schedule 1, item 1, page 460(line 20), omit “relating to financial products”.(136) Schedule 1, item 1, page 461 (after line 11), before subsection (1), insert: (1A) A person must not engage in conduct that results in the falsification of: (a) a book required to be kept by a provision of this Chapter; or (b) a register or any accounting or other record referred to in section 1101C.Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)).(137) Schedule 1, item 1, page 461(line 16), omit “1101D”, substitute “1101C”.(138) Schedule 1, item 1, page 461(line 32), after “subsection”, insert “(1A) or”.(139) Schedule 1, item 1, page 462(after line 7), after section 1101G, insert:1101GA How Part 9.3 applies to books required to be kept by this Chapter etc. (1) In this section:Chapter 7 book means: (a) a book (by whatever name it is known) that a provision of this Chapter requires to be kept; or (b) a document lodged under, or for the purposes of, a provision of this Chapter; or (c) a book relating to the business carried on by a financial services licensee or an authorised representative of a financial services licensee; or (d) a register or accounting record referred to in section 1101C. (2) Part 9.3 does not apply in relation to a Chapter 7 book except as provided in the following paragraphs: (a) section 1303 applies to a Chapter 7 book; (b) section 1305, and subsections 1306(5) and (6), apply to a Chapter 7 book as if references in section 1305 to a body corporate were instead references to a person; (c) regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph may provide that other provisions of Part 9.3 apply in relation to a Chapter 7 book, or a class of Chapter 7 books, with such modifications (if any) as are specified in the regulations.(140) Schedule 1, item 20, page 471(line 6), omit “registered scheme”, substitute “managed investment scheme”.(141) Schedule 1, item 20, page 471 (line 33) to page 472 (line 4), omit paragraph (l).(142) Schedule 1, item 20, page 473(lines 24 to 32), omit paragraph (l).(143) Schedule 1, item 20, page 475(lines 1 to 3), omit subsection (3).(144) Schedule 1, item 20, page 476 (line 23) to page 477 (line 10), omit subsections (12) and (13), substitute:Meaning of provide a custodial or depository service (12) For the purposes of this section, a person (the provider) provides a custodial or depository service to another person (the client) if, under an arrangement between the provider and the client, or between the provider and another person with whom the client has an arrangement, (whether or not there are also other parties to any such arrangement), a financial product, or a beneficial interest in a financial product, is held by the provider in trust for, or on behalf of, the client or another person nominated by the client.(145) Schedule 1, item 20, page 477 (line 14), after “registered scheme”, insert “, or the holding of the assets of a registered scheme”.(146) Schedule 1, page 506(after line 20), after item 252, insert:252A Section 9 (definition of on-market buy-back)Repeal the definition, substitute:on-market buy-back means a buy-back by a listed corporation on a prescribed financial market in the ordinary course of trading on that market.(147) Schedule 1, item 261, page 507 (line 30), after “APRA”, insert “, other than a trustee of a fund or trust referred to in any of subparagraphs (d)(i) to (iv)”.(148) Schedule 1, page 513(after line 15), after item 302, insert:302A Section 9 (definition of trading day)Repeal the definition, substitute:trading day of a financial market means a day on which the market is open for trading in financial products.(149) Schedule 1, item 323, page 516 (line 1), omit “an option approved by a securities exchange as”.(150) Schedule 1, page 520 (after line 4), after item 357, insert:357A Section 350Repeal the section, substitute:350 Forms for documents to be lodged with ASIC (1) A document that this Act requires to be lodged with ASIC in a prescribed form must: (a) if a form for the document is prescribed in the regulations: (i) be in the prescribed form; and (ii) include the information, statements, explanations or other matters required by the form; and (iii) be accompanied by any other material required by the form; or (b) if a form for the document is not prescribed in the regulations but ASIC has approved a form for the document: (i) be in the approved form; and (ii) include the information, statements, explanations or other matters required by the form; and (iii) be accompanied by any other material required by the form. (2) A reference in this Act to a document that has been lodged (being a document to which subsection (1) applies), includes, unless a contrary intention appears, a reference to any other material lodged with the document as required by the relevant form. (3) If: (a) this Act requires a document to be lodged with ASIC in a prescribed form; and (b) a provision of this Act either specifies, or provides for regulations to specify, information, statements, explanations or other matters that must be included in the document, or other material that must accompany the document;that other provision is not taken to exclude or limit the operation of subsection (1) in relation to the prescribed form (and so the prescribed form may also require information etc. to be included in the form or material to accompany the form).(151) Schedule 1, page 523(before line 1), after item 377, insert:377A Subsection 633(1) (table item 14)Repeal the item, substitute: 14The target must send a copy of the target's statement (and any accompanying report) to the operator of each prescribed financial market on which the target's securities are quoted.To be done on the day the target's statement is sent to the bidderSee also subsection (7)(152) Schedule 1, page 524(before line 4), after item 382, insert:382A Paragraph 636(1)(g)After “if any securities”, insert “(other than managed investment products)”.382B After paragraph 636(1)(g)Insert: (ga) if any managed investment products are offered as consideration under the bid and the bidder is: (i) the responsible entity of the managed investment scheme; or (ii) a person who controls the responsible entity of the managed investment scheme; all material that would be required by section 1013C to be included in a Product Disclosure Statement given to a person in an issue situation (within the meaning of section 1012B) in relation to those managed investment products;(153) Schedule 1, page 526 (after line 29), after item 398, insert:398A Paragraph 662B(1)(d)Omit “securities exchange”, substitute “market operator”.(154) Schedule 1, page 533(after line 3), after item 426, insert:426A Paragraph 724(1)(b)Omit “stock market of a securities exchange”, substitute “financial market”.(155) Schedule 1, item 457, page 542 (after table item 265A), insert: 265AASubsection 916A(3A)100 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.265ABSOLUTELYSubsection 916B(2A)100 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.265AGED CARESubsection 916B(5A)50 penalty units or imprisonment for 1 year, or both.265ADSubsection 916C(3)100 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.265AESubsection 916D(2A)100 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.(156) Schedule 1, item 457, page 542 (after table item 265B), insert: 265BASubsection 916F(1A)25 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.(157) Schedule 1, item 457, page 543 (after table item 269A), insert: 269AASubsection 942B(8)50 penalty units or imprisonment for 1 year, or both.269ABSOLUTELYSubsection 942C(8)50 penalty units or imprisonment for 1 year, or both.(158) Schedule 1, item 457, page 543 (after table item 270C), insert: 270CASubsection 946B(3A)50 penalty units.(159) Schedule 1, item 457, page 543 (table item 271A), omit the table item.(160) Schedule 1, item 457, page 546 (after table item 288C), insert: 288CASubsection 992A(3)25 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.288CONTRIBUTESubsection 992AA(1)25 penalty units or imprisonment for 6 months, or both.(161) Schedule 1, item 457, page 548 (table item 299A), omit “Section 1017G”, substitute “Subsection 1017G(1)”.(162) Schedule 1, item 457, page 549(after table item 307C), insert: 307CASubsection 1021M(1)50 penalty units.307CONTRIBUTESubsection 1021M(3)100 penalty units or imprisonment for 2 years, or both.(163) Schedule 1, item 457, page 549(table item 308B), omit the table item.(164) Schedule 1, item 457, page 550 (table item 310C), omit “Section 1041E”, substitute “Subsection 1041E(1)”.(165) Schedule 1, page 550(after table item 317B), insert: 317BASubsection 1101F(1A)50 penalty units or imprisonment for 12 months, or both.(166) Schedule 3, page 565 (after line 22), after item 10, insert:10A Section 9 (definition of old Corporations Law)Omit “Part 11.1”, substitute “Part 10.1”.(167) Schedule 3, item 29, page 571 (line 20), omit “for the purpose of discussing”, substitute “to discuss”.(168) Schedule 3, item 29, page 571 (after line 23), after subsection (1), insert: (1A) If the recorder invites the holder to call the recorder to discuss the takeover bid (whether or not for some other purpose as well), then the recorder must make a clear sound recording of all telephone calls that: (a) the holder makes to the recorder during the bid period; and (b) are made by the holder to discuss the takeover bid (whether or not for some other purpose as well).Note: Failure to comply with this subsection is an offence (see subsection 1311(1)).(169) Schedule 3, item 29, page 571 (after line 28), at the end of section 648J, add: (3) Subsection (1) or (1A) does not apply if the holder is a wholesale holder.Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (3). See subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code. (4) A holder of securities is a wholesale holder if: (a) the value of the securities equals or exceeds the amount specified in the regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph; or (b) a qualified accountant has given the holder a certificate referred to in paragraph 761G(7)(c) within the preceding 6 months; or (c) the holder is a professional investor; or (d) the holder is a person, or a member of a class of persons, prescribed in the regulations made for the purposes of this paragraph.(170) Schedule 3, item 29, page 572 (line 2), omit “At the beginning of the telephone call the”, substitute “The”.(171) Schedule 3, item 30, page 578 (table item 201A), after “648J(1)”, insert “, (1A)”.22:26:0030344Hockey, Joe, MPMr HOCKEYDK6North SydneyLPMinister for Financial Services and Regulation10—I move:That the amendments be agreed to. Again, it is just a very short process. I know that we are very short of time. The passage of the Financial Services Reform Bill 2001 and its related bills marks the implementation of the final major part of the 1997 Wallis report. It completes the major reform of the financial services industry in Australia that now represents more than seven per cent of the Australian economy and employs more than 330,000 people. The bill proposes three key reforms: a harmonised licensing disclosure and conduct framework for all financial service providers, a consistent and comparable framework for financial product disclosure, and a streamlined regulatory regime for financial markets and clearing and settlement systems. It will introduce a consistent framework of consumer protection across the financial services industry and, at the same time, it will cut compliance costs and remove regulatory barriers to the introduction of technological innovations. This bill has been subject to widespread consultation processes over the past three years. The government is very grateful to everyone who has taken the time and the trouble to provide feedback on the provisions of the bill. The process is continuing with a current round of consultation on the draft regulations to be made under the bill. In addition, these provisions have twice been considered by the Parliament Joint Statutory Committee on Corporations and Securities. I would like to thank all the members of that committee, including the chairman, Senator Chapman, and the secretariat, for their work on the FSR Bill. There were a number of amendments made in the Senate. Many of the amendments made by the government in the Senate were of a minor and technical nature and were intended to clarify the operation of the proposed new arrangements. A number of the amendments which were moved were the product of continued consultation between the government and stakeholders that has taken place since the introduction of the bill. The government amendments address a number of areas of concern and there are a number of issues to be dealt with. They cover the concerns of the PJC about the impact of the bill on insurance agents. The amendments made in the Senate will allow insurance agents more time to set in place arrangements for a transition into the new regime and will provide more flexibility in establishing arrangements with licensees. The amendments will clarify that contractual entitlements for remuneration will continue after the commencement of the bill. A media exemption has been inserted in the bill to ensure that media organisations will not require a licence to publish or broadcast information that falls within the definition of general financial product advice.Finally, provisions of the bill that relate to telephone monitoring in the context of takeover bids will be narrowed so that they apply only to calls made to retail investors. This amendment will ensure that these provisions provide protection for retail investors while not impeding the activities of institutional and professional investors in the wholesale market.Debate interrupted.Adjournment3034510000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—Order! It being 10.30 p.m., I propose the question:That the House do now adjourn.3034522:30:0030345Murphy, John, MPMr MURPHY83DLoweALP00—I wish to bring to this House's attention tonight a matter concerning the display of a large billboard advertisement on Parramatta Road near the intersection of Mosely Street, Strathfield during the months of July and August. The advertisement was for a product called Four Seasons(R) Condoms and depicted pictures of three sizes of condoms that are within that trade marked product range. I say `trade marked' by virtue of the existence of the symbol R with a circle being one of the symbols depicting a registered trademark.What is significant about this advertisement is the location of the billboard—that is, it is directly adjacent to St Andrew's Anglican Church, Strathfield. The proximity of the advertisement to the church raised immediate concerns from the parish secretary, Mrs Yvonne Coorey, the parish rector, Reverend John Woo, and many parishioners. Reverend John Woo first raised the objection to the existence of the billboard with the Advertising Standards Board. I quote from the ASB's letter to Reverend Woo, dated 23 July 2001. The letter says in part:I should mention that it is not the role of the ASB to determine the issue of whether outdoor advertisements for condoms should or should not be permitted in this country. This is a matter for the Parliaments of Australia. You may wish to express your concerns in this regard to your local Member of Parliament.The situation is such that the board showed its true colours by exhibiting a definite moral standard in choosing not to answer the question of whether advertisements for condoms should or should not be permitted in this location. With respect, that is not the question. There are in fact two questions: firstly, what moral code does the Commonwealth government bring to play in the enforcement of standards in any kind in civic society; secondly, was the advertisement sensitive to public morality? I refer to a letter on this issue from the Vice-Chancellor of the Australian Catholic University, Professor Peter Sheehan, dated 21 August 2001, addressed to me. Professor Sheehan is a person with some 20 years professional experience in censorship in Australia. He notes:There is a tension between prevailing public morality and the perspectives of those who are offended. I think the advertisement for condoms next to a church illustrates that tension well. To my mind, guidelines should be sensitive to such tension. The billboard shown in your material may not be explicit, but it should not have been placed there. It is an example, I am afraid, of holding legitimate moral perspectives up to public ridicule.I refer to the advertisement holding out that the product is a registered trademark. The ASB's letter says:Thank you for your letter dated 20 July 2001 complaining about an advertisement for Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty Ltd's Four Seasons condoms.A reasonable person would therefore assume that Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty Ltd was the owner of the product called Four Seasons Condoms and that this corporation was the registered trademark holder of this product. Not so, Mr Speaker. A recent search with IP Australia through a trademark examiner revealed that the words `Four Seasons' in the context of the word `condom' is actually the registered trademark of a Mr Graham William Porter.I refer to the Australian Association of National Advertisers Code of Ethics, which has as its first code, numbered 1.1:Advertisements shall comply with Commonwealth law and the law of the relevant State or Territory.We have here a situation where the advertiser differs from the registered trademark holder of the product name. Further, the ASB is a self-regulator acting under the auspices of state government jurisdiction on the matter of advertising. The simple truth here is that there is effectively no regulation of advertising.Following the ASB's puerile response to Reverend Woo, I tabled question on notice No. 2866 in this House on 20 August 2001. The question goes to the operation of enforcement of Commonwealth law, in this case the Trade Marks Act 1995. On the substantive issue of whether it was proper to exhibit a condom ad next to a church, the ASB morally predetermined the matter by saying all at once that the advertisement was moral, therefore licit to be exhibited. Too bad for those churchgoers or other people offended by the advertisement and/or its location. Instead, the ASB saw fit to recommend that a complainant should express their concerns in this regard to their local member of parliament—a true cop-out, a triumph for obfuscation. In this instance, the ASB is truly holding the public to ridicule. The ASB is merely pandering to those sectional interests that would deny the existence of any regulation. They are anarcho-capitalists that would advocate no regulation at all, owing no moral obligation and no obligation at all other than to their own profit.In this billboard case, the ASB breached its own AANA advertising standards by misleading Reverend Woo and his parishioners by implying that the advertiser and the registered trademark holder were one and the same person. Further, the ASB failed to accommodate prevailing public morality, failed to demonstrate due diligence in ensuring the said advertisement complied with Commonwealth and state law and further disparaged an alternative moral perspective.I condemn the ASB for their obfuscation. The ASB's letter was misleading in that it implied that the registered trademark was of a person other than Australian Therapeutic Supplies Pty Ltd. In this case, I support the observations of Professor Sheehan in calling for regulations that accommodate public sensitivity in relation to the positioning of billboard advertisements. (Time expired)3034622:35:0030346Haase, Barry, MPMr HAASE84TKalgoorlieLP10—I rise before the House this evening to bring to your attention the major significance of, and my continuing and enthusiastic support for, the proposed Outback Highway, which is destined to link Winton in Queensland with Laverton in Western Australia. This is a project that I have supported since before my election to parliament, one I spoke of in my first speech and one which I urge every member here tonight from Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia to support and ensure its success. This highway is a 2,800-kilometre stretch through some of the most rugged and desolate country in Australia. This is untamed, unspoiled outback Australia at its best. Next year, 2002, being the Year of the Outback, it is most appropriate that attention be given to this highway. Starting at Winton, it progresses through Boulia in Queensland, to Alice Springs, Uluru and Docker River in the Northern Territory and then into my patch, through Giles, Warburton and Laverton in the Western Desert and the Northern Goldfields of Western Australia. Of the most significance is the impact it will have on the numerous Aboriginal communities along the route. Of the 2,800 kilometres, 1,700 kilometres is basic gravel road. In total, $120 million is needed for the first stage of the project to bring it up to a type 3 all-weather gravel road. Then an additional $180 million is required for the full sealing of the unsealed portions.This is a major initiative for my electorate of Kalgoorlie, and a project that is absolutely vital for both the further development of the communities along this route and for the tourism industry of Western Australia. There is a very hardworking team of people lobbying for this highway, headed by the Chairman of the Outback Highway Development Council, Patrick Hill, of Laverton. This project has the support of the shires, the Aboriginal communities and the towns within regional Australia which will ultimately benefit through the provision of increased services, better cost-effective transport options, employment opportunities, resource and trade developments and much, much more.The project will have benefits for the communities on the Outback Highway route, certainly, but, of far more importance, the people of Kalgoorlie-Boulder say it will be a vital tourism route that will link the Stockman's Hall of Fame in Queensland with the soon to be opened Prospectors and Miners Hall of Fame in Kalgoorlie-Boulder. In addition, the highway will also have significant benefits for the tourism, transport and trade industries in other Western Australian areas. It is just as important for the mid-west and Gascoyne, the Pilbara and the south-east down to Esperance as it is to Kalgoorlie-Boulder. Local government in all of these regions are supportive of this, as are the shires and councils throughout Queensland.This is most likely one of the most advantageous projects that we as a government can support. It will provide people—in particular, indigenous people in remote Central Australia and the Western Desert—with a better quality of life. It is a project which captured the support of the past Western Australian government, which committed $25 million over a 10-year period. Whether this will be honoured by the new Labor government is not known.In the Northern Territory, the Labor Party promised $40 million over two terms. I would hope that this is not a promise they will break. Queensland has committed itself to $400,000 per year for four years. The Outback Highway Development Council will be lobbying this federal government for funds, and I believe significant support should be given—and this support matched by the state governments. The council do have an application for funds, under the coalition government's excellent Regional Solutions program, due to be determined in the next few weeks. I would urge that this application be treated favourably. The application is for $462,000 for a second feasibility study, which will focus on five areas: engineering, environmental, social, economic and cultural areas. At the moment, there are only two reliable east-west road links: the Eyre Highway along the southern regions, and the Victoria Highway across the Kimberley in WA and the Northern Territory. I urge every member here tonight to support this third strategic link and help make this outstanding vision a reality.3034822:40:0030348O'Byrne, Michelle, MPMs O'BYRNE84SBassALP00—I take this opportunity to raise a matter which has been of great concern to my electorate, and that is the effect of the Howard government's implementation of national competition policy. I know that I am not alone in my concern about the effect of this issue on my electorate: communities around the country are demonstrating their objection to the narrow and unfair interpretation of this policy put upon them.The Labor Party recognised the need for reform in this area in their last term in office. The Hilmer report in 1993, combined with the full consideration of this issue through the Council of Australian Governments, led to the 1995 COAG agreement, which outlined the new national competition policy. This policy was based on the recognition that lack of competition in certain sectors can impose burdens on consumers through high prices, poor services and a lack of choice, and can affect Australia's international competitiveness. Areas such as rail, shipping, water and electricity were targets of this reform.The effects of this policy were supposed to make prices fairer and to introduce benefits to the economy and to the community. Most importantly, national competition policy must serve the public interest, and this is where the Howard government's interpretation of this policy is wrong. When introducing national competition policy legislation to parliament in 1995, Labor made it clear that:It is important to understand that this government is not interested in reform or competition for its own sake. The package recognises that economic efficiency is one element of a broader public policy context which also includes social considerations. Explicit recognition is given to these broader elements of the public interest in the Bill and in the competition principles agreements.Unfortunately, under the Howard government this crucial element of this policy—community interest— has been all but ignored. The government has applied national competition policy in a way that is often lacking in community involvement, with little regard for public interest and without adequate consideration of its impact on employment or regional development.Unfortunately, yet again rural and regional Australia have been the losers in this government's city-centric approach. Rural and regional Australia's cries for a fair go are simply not heard by this Prime Minister. The pain that they experience is ignored. This brings me to an example from my own electorate, where the application of this policy has caused an unfair burden to be placed on the people of Launceston in relation to their water rates. Under national competition policy, the Launceston City Council recently introduced a user-pays system for water usage in Launceston, and the people in Launceston have been particularly outraged. My office has been flooded with calls from people who are very concerned about this new charge and, everywhere I go, I encounter community-run petitions.It is not that people in Launceston are not willing to make a fair contribution to the cost of the water; it is just that they object to paying something that their neighbours in the next shire do not have to pay. The object of national competition policy was to make prices fairer for people; it is hardly fairer if neighbours do not have the same situation. To say that a private operator could supply water to the people of Launceston and thereby compete with Launceston City Council appears somewhat ridiculous. Again, it is people in Sydney and Melbourne thinking that the rest of the country have the same needs and, indeed, service opportunities as they have. Well, they do not.The people of north-east Tasmania have their own needs and they are fed up with being disadvantaged because of their regional status. The Howard government must take responsibility for the pain it has inflicted on these communities. The Howard government seems quite happy to let national competition policy run rife, without giving a thought to the impact on Australian communities. Under a Labor government, national competition policy could serve the purpose for which it was intended. Labor would ensure that national competition policy was applied in a way that was actually of benefit to all communities.National competition policy must be closely overseen by the government to ensure that the community is involved and has control of the process. Most importantly, Labor will re-establish the critical role of the public interest test and work to ensure that it is fairly applied and is consistent in every application of national competition policy. This test must accurately reflect the concerns of the community in which it is applied. Labor will also work to make the National Competition Council more representative of all Australians, not just of those people who happen to reside in major metropolitan centres. I call on the government to take immediate steps to address the unfair application of this policy, introduce a clear and transparent public interest test and stop placing an unfair burden on the people of rural and regional Australia.3034922:44:0030349Thomson, Andrew, MPMr ANDREW THOMSONFB6WentworthLP10—I would like to make a few remarks about a special place in my electorate—that is, Bondi. Bondi has a special meaning to the Australian ear. It speaks of something very peculiar to this country. We are blessed not only with a harsh and unforgiving interior geography but also with perhaps the most welcoming coastline in the world. Bondi—to me and, I think, to a lot of people—means the right of every Australian to swim in the surf where there is a bright and clean expanse of soft sand and to enjoy ourselves in this way and be very proud of it.But Bondi is also home to a great variety of people and that, too, is an important metaphor for modern Australia. In Bondi you find all sorts of people: orthodox Jewish families, young backpackers, ex-wharfies, judges, doctors, bankers, jockeys, some Muslim families, union men, politicians, the odd crim, surfie chicks, dope smokers, journalists, actors, directors, models, writers, a few people of Maori descent and, occasionally, the odd little Eurasian girl splashing in the shallows on a hot summer's day. But what matters most in Bondi is that you live and let live. That is really the essence of this country, in my mind: the ease of living that depends on being good neighbours and even on trying to see the best in people who come from a background that is very different from your own.It makes me very sad to see, reported in the newspapers this weekend, that a candidate in the forthcoming election in my electorate has lapsed into some very unfortunate language about Maori people. Let me be very clear about this: nobody in Bondi is a `plague'. No-one on the basis of their race deserves comparison with the evil of drugs: today it might be Maoris, but tomorrow it will be Asians, and then it will be Jews after that. It should be remembered that words like `plague', `germs', `subhuman', `scum' and so forth were the sorts of epithets that were used in Nazi Germany to demonise Jewish people. I hope that we never hear words like `plague' uttered about people in Bondi ever again.3034922:47:0030349Jenkins, Harry, MPMr JENKINSHH4ScullinALP00—Tonight the Procedure Committee tabled a report titled Balancing tradition and progress: procedures for the opening of parliament, and I wish to comment about some of the issues that were raised in the committee's report. In discussing their recommendations for the procedures for the opening of parliament, they indicate the need for this parliament to be very much a contemporary organisation, an organisation that reflects that we are an institution in the 21st century.One of the proposals—and I think it is important that it be paraphrased in the words of the committee, where they say `first people, people first'—is that the ceremony should start with a smoking ceremony in the forecourt of Parliament House, indicating the depth and strength that we should place upon the contribution of our indigenous people. The other aspect is that the Governor-General's speech should be made to an assembled gathering in the Great Hall where senators and members of the House of Representatives could join together with the people of Australia as a contribution to the opening ceremony. In a pre-emptory article about the committee's report in this morning's Age, a section of the submission of the former Governor-General, Bill Hayden, was quoted, where he said:The Great Hall lacks the aura, the prestige and solemnity for an occasion such as the address by the governor-general for the opening of the parliament that is provided by the exclusive environment of the Senate. I think the former Governor-General is wrong. Harris, Fowler and Wright in House of Representatives Practice state:Directly beyond the Foyer is the Great Hall, the venue of parliamentary ceremonies and receptions, occasions of national significance and other functions. The Great Hall is one of the great spaces of this Parliament House. It has that wonderful tapestry of Arthur Boyd's painting of the Shoalhaven. It is a very important space in this place, and the former Governor-General should be reminded of that. It was the place in May 1988 where the Queen actually opened the building. It is part of the history of this building. It is an important aspect of Australia's way of life, and it is appropriate that it should be seen as a gathering place where the people of Australia can be involved in the opening of this parliament. Using the Great Hall would be an attempt to make sure that the proceedings of this parliament were relevant to all.Another recommendation of the committee is that we look at ways in which the oath that is administered to members at the opening of the parliament may be made more contemporary. The recommendation indicates that it should include recognition of the people of Australia. Any member who has attended a citizenship ceremony since the change to the new pledge of commitment would know how powerful the words are that we ask new Australians to pledge. We ask them to pledge:From this time forward, (under God) I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.A very powerful change has been made to the way in which we view the way we are coming together as Australian citizens.There are many ways in which we can make the parliament a better, more contemporary place. The conduct of question time is something that we could reflect upon. Mr Speaker, I know that your job in the chair is a very difficult one and that the standing orders are couched in a way that gives the government of the day the majority. Look at question time today, for instance, and, firstly, the dorothy dixer question to the Treasurer about the NATSEM study. As an opposition member, I yearn for some opportunity to be able to debate what the Treasurer said in his answer—to reflect upon the fact that disposable income is not the only test; that those things that families have to spend their money on are important. Secondly, we could look at the way in which one minister understandably used the opportunity of a question to give an answer that should have been a ministerial statement, while another minister continually used the opportunity to give a ministerial statement in the guise of an answer. It is no reflection on the chamber that that practice has developed and become allowed, but I think we as members of this House have to recognise that people out there in viewing the proceedings are questioning these things, and we should look at them to ensure that our procedures are contemporary. (Time expired)3035022:52:0030350Pyne, Chris, MPMr PYNE9V5SturtLP10—The coalition government has worked hard to give Australian consumers a better deal by dismantling the barriers to parallel importing on a number of products, such as CDs. The changes were brought about in part by the recommendations of the consumers' friend, Professor Allan Fels, and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. But there has been strong resistance from the Labor Party and some other quarters to extending this benefit to other products, such as books and computer software.I wish to use the opportunity of this debate to briefly comment on the distorted arguments put forward by one of those critics of parallel importing, Hilary McPhee. In an article in the Age on 18 May, Ms McPhee gave scant regard to the welfare of Australian readers. Ms McPhee's article advocated restrictions on parallel importing in Australia by referring to the Japanese government's restrictions on imported rice. Rice is culture, she said, and protecting Japanese rice is in the national interest. I assume from this that restrictions on the import of overseas books are protecting Australian culture and in the national interest. Has Ms McPhee asked Australian rice growers what they think of Japanese barriers to rice imports? They have gained a toehold in the market but, because of the development of rice varieties that appeal to Japanese palates and much lower production costs, they deserve greater market access. In Japan the rice consumer is almost defenceless against the political muscle of rice growers and the rest of the farm lobby. Ms McPhee says we need more competition, not less, `but as far as possible in our terms'. This hints at a contradiction. It is hardly competition if it is `in our terms', because we are not really competing but dictating market conditions. Readers have rights as well as authors and publishers, but they tend to get scant regard from those with a vested interest in retaining the current copyright laws that restrict the entry of overseas books. Restrictions allow higher prices to be charged for the protected product than would otherwise be the case. Foreign copyright holders are the prime beneficiaries. Australian readers pay more and, when imports of technical books and computer software are restricted, Australian industry bears a higher cost and this flows on to consumers.Not long ago Australians lived in a highly protected economy where inefficient industries sheltered behind high tariff walls. You, Mr Speaker, had your own battles in your own electorate with particular issues to do with high tariffs, and you fought them and led on the issue. Many `infant' industries the object of protection failed to mature into productive adults. We had high cost industry and unsatisfactory working and management practices that burdened export industries with high cost structures, making them less competitive. Few would argue that Australia is not better off today after substantial reform of trade policy. We have become far more competitive because we seek greater productivity rather than handouts or protection from government. Companies, including publishers, who operate in a competitive environment are under pressure to innovate and export.A hoary old argument frequently raised is that relaxing laws on importing books is a threat to Australian culture. It is never clearly explained why this is so or what exactly is our literary culture. Our best writers are published abroad—some books with an Australian culture, but others with universal themes. Has the importation of books and plays by writers such as Gore Vidal, Salman Rushdie or Tom Wolfe adversely affected Australian culture? According to the June 2000 report on parallel importing by the Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee, removing import restrictions does not undermine the efficacy of copyright as a stimulus to creativity. The report noted that within the European Community restrictions on parallel importing are prohibited. This ensures that even the smaller European economies can benefit from intense competition, low prices and the extended product range that a large integrated market brings. Removing the restrictions will provide Australia with the same benefits that other economies secure through their far larger internal markets.With import restrictions in place, the owners of copyrighted material have the power to charge higher prices to Australian consumers than would otherwise be the case. In addition, the suppliers of copyright material are getting fewer because of international mergers by publishing houses and, with less competition, prices generally remain higher. Hilary McPhee and the Labor Party should consider whether it is proper to deny Australians cheaper books while overseas writers and publishers reap the benefit. It was overseas publishers who first proposed import restrictions, and this was not in the interests of the Australian industry or Australian readers.3035122:57:0030351Fitzgibbon, Joel, MPMr FITZGIBBON8K6HunterALP00—This is an unexpected opportunity, but in the last few minutes available to me I would like to do two things. The first is possibly a little self-indulgent, but I wish to extend to my father a happy 65th birthday today. I know you, Mr Speaker, served in this place with him, as did the member for Scullin. I can report to the House that my father is alive and well and still living happily with my mother, Anne, in Cessnock. The second matter I want to raise is my very deep concern about national highway funding. I have raised on a number of occasions two very important road projects in my electorate. One is the project known as the Kurri Corridor, which would link the F3 Freeway to the New England Highway, north of Branxton. The other is an intersection where the New England Highway meets Weakleys Drive and Thornton Road. Both these projects are very important. I learned with some distress just last week that on the web site of the Minister for Transport and Regional Services is a statement that all national highway funding and all roads of national importance funding have been committed for the next three years.The two road projects I have just nominated are already well behind schedule because of national highway budget cuts over the last three, four or even five years. The web site message indicates to me that, under the government's current program, those two important road projects stand no chance of getting funding for at least the next threeyears. As I said, they are very important road projects in my electorate, both in economic transport terms and in safety terms, and they are very important to both the Lower and Upper Hunter. It is disappointing me greatly that the Howard government continues to reject these very important projects.10000SPEAKER, MrMr SPEAKER—I will use the opportunity of the 30 seconds that remain on the adjournment debate to extend to Mr Eric Fitzgibbon the best wishes of the House on his 65th birthday, and to thank the member for Hunter for alerting us to this happy occasion. It being 11 p.m., the debate is interrupted.23:00:0030352House adjourned at 11.00 p.m.Notices30352The following notices were given:0J4Ruddock, Philip, MPMr Ruddock to present a bill for an act to amend the Migration Act1958, and for other purposes.83ALivermore, Kirsten, MPMs Livermore to move:That this House condemns the complexity of the GST and the impact it has had on volunteer organisations in Australia.Answers to Questions in Writing30353The following answers to questions were circulated:30353(Question No. 2198)219830353Irwin, Julia, MPMrs Irwin83ZFowlerALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 30 November 2000:(1) Did he receive the necessary supporting documentation from the NSW Government in August 1999 for the provision of a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner for Liverpool Hospital under the Federal Adjustment and Relocation Scheme.(2) Did he state in a press release dated 23 December 1998 that subject to the supporting documentation, he expected the hospital to have an MRI as soon as possible.(3) Has he delayed the approval of funding for an MRI scanner for Liverpool Hospital under the Scheme; if so, why.(4) When will he approve funding for an MRI scanner at Liverpool Hospital.30353Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) No. An application was provided to the Department, however it did not meet the full eligibility criteria.(2) Yes.(3) No. Despite the issue of the MRI Adjustment and Relocation Scheme being put on hold pending the outcome of the Blandford Review of MRI, the funding would not have been approved, as the application did not meet the necessary eligibility criteria.(4) I have recently appointed the MRI Monitoring and Evaluation Group. Part of their charter is to revise the original Adjustment and Relocation Scheme in order to provide incentives for eligible MRI units to be relocated to tertiary referral hospitals without one. The Blandford MRI Review also recommended that up to seven additional units be recognised for eligibility. These are to be located in areas that are comparatively under-serviced and a tendering process will be used to determine these locations. While the specific criteria have not yet been established, Liverpool Hospital may well qualify under one or both of the schemes outlined above.30353(Question No. 2205)220530353Latham, Mark, MPMr LathamK26WerriwaALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 4 December 2000:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the recent report by the international health care coalition, Health Care Without Harm, into the possible health risks to newborns of exposure to chemicals such as ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP), a chemical found in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) medical products.(2) Are neonatal intensive care units aware of the possible risks of such PVC exposure to newborns and will these intensive care units be seeking to reduce the exposure.(3) Will he be requesting further research into the possible risks to newborns of such PVC exposure.30353Wooldridge, Dr Michael, MPDr Wooldridge8E4CaseyLPMinister for Health and Aged Care10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1) Scientific staff of the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) have been monitoring reports published in recent months on potential health concerns relating to phthalate plasticisers used in soft PVC products. This has included the recent report of the Health Care Without Harm (HCWH) coalition, whose October 2000 report was released in conjunction with public hearings held by the European Commission into environmental and health concerns associated with PVC products. These investigations have been focussed particularly on the potential for children to be exposed to phthalate plasticisers in soft PVC toys and other situations where relatively high exposures may be possible.The issues of main concern relate to the potential for phthalate plasticisers to affect the developing reproductive system of mammals. Such effects have been clearly shown in tests in rodents, although the exposure levels needed to produce these effects are relatively high in comparison with likely human exposures. There is also some doubt that rodents are a good qualitative predictor of the risk to humans, since other studies suggest that primates may be more resistant to these toxic effects of phthalates. It is noted that a number of evaluations of these data have been undertaken in recent years. Contrary to the conclusions of the HCWH report, a US Panel chaired by Everett Koop, a former US Surgeon General, reported in June 1999 that there appeared to be no significant health risks associated with current uses of phthalate plasticisers.At this time, there has been no regulatory action taken in the United States or Europe to limit the use of phthalates in soft plastics, although it is noted that plastics manufacturers are voluntarily investigating the introduction of alternative plasticisers in soft PVC toys and medical products. It is important that when new plasticisers are used in such products, their use is supported by extensive safety data which demonstrate that they are really safer than the phthalates which they will replace.(2) Given that evidence of risk is inconclusive, there has been no regulatory response proposed in Australia to date. Neonatal Intensive Care Units are the responsibility of State and Territory governments, and I am, therefore, not able to say if they have received any advice regarding the use of plastic products softened with phthalate plasticisers.(3) Scientific staff of the TGA will continue to monitor research findings from overseas and any regulatory actions taken by comparable countries. 30354(Question No. 2229)222930354Murphy, John, MPMr Murphy83DLoweALP00 asked the Minister for Health and Aged Care, upon notice, on 7 December 2000:(1) Why is ReVia (Naltrexone) listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Schedule only to treat those afflicted with alcohol addiction.(2) Will ReVia (Naltrexone) be reconsidered for listing on the PBS for treatment of opioid addictions.(3) Has his attention been drawn to a Media Release from Orphan Australia, dated 11 December 1999 titled `Naltrexone wins PBS Listing - but only for alcohol addiction' which states that surveillance figures on heroin deaths found that the only State where deaths are not increasing is WA, where the population-based naltrexone program run by Dr George O'Neil appears to be making a difference.(4) Does he accept that ReVia (Naltrexone) is the most successful method of treating opioid addiction in Australia at present; if not, what is the most successful method of treating opioid addiction.30354Wooldridge, 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 (PBAC) considered at its July 1999 and December 1999 meetings whether ReVia (Naltrexone) should be made available:(a) for use in the treatment of alcohol dependence within a comprehensive treatment program; and (b) for the maintenance of formerly opioid-dependent patients who have stopped taking opioids. Based on a large body of detailed clinical and economic data submitted by the manufacturer, the PBAC concluded that listing of Naltrexone as a pharmaceutical benefit for the treatment of alcohol dependence was justified. However, in treating opioid dependence, there was no evidence of significant efficacy based on relapse and retention rates. Coupled with major concerns about the toxicity of Naltrexone and its relatively high cost, the PBAC declined to recommend listing of the drug as a pharmaceutical benefit for this latter indication. The Government is unable to list a drug as a pharmaceutical benefit in the absence of a positive recommendation from the PBAC.(2) Naltrexone is not expected to be reconsidered for listing as a pharmaceutical benefit unless or until the manufacturer submits further data for the PBAC's consideration.(3) Yes.(4) No. As is the case with many health conditions, it is not possible to develop a `one size fits all' model of treatment for opioid dependence. Different treatment options work for different users. Individual patient factors and the quality of individual treatment settings have critical impact on the effectiveness of any treatment. Research conducted by the National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre in Sydney indicates that the most effective available treatments for heroin addiction involve drug replacement therapy supported by specialised psychotherapeutic or counselling programs. Presently, methadone maintenance is the best researched and most widely used of all currently available treatment options for opiate-dependent individuals. 30355(Question No. 2568)256830355Crosio, Janice, MPMrs Crosio7T4ProspectALP00 asked the Treasurer, upon notice, on 22 May 2001:(1) How many people have applied for the original $7000 First Home Owners Grant Scheme.(2) How many of these applications were (a) approved and (b) rejected.(3) How many applications from people living in the electoral division of Prospect have been approved for the First Home Owners Grant Scheme.(4) How many applications have been received for the First Home Owners Grant Scheme since the Government announced that the grant would be increased to $14 000.(5) How many of these applications were (a) approved and (b) rejected.(6) How many of these applications were received from people living in the electoral division of Prospect.(7) How many applications from people living in the electoral division of Prospect were (a) approved and (b) rejected.30355Costello, Peter, MPMr CostelloCT4HigginsLPTreasurer10—The answer to the honourable member's question is as follows:(1-7) The Commonwealth funds the First Home Owner Scheme. As I stated in the House on 7 August 2001, “the total value of grants paid to first home owners in 2000-01 was $1,057 million - that is $1,057 million out to the home buyers of Australia”. However, whilst the Commonwealth fully funds the scheme it is each of the States and Territories who administer the scheme. Accordingly specific details in your question should be directed to the New South Wales Government.30355(Question No. 2838)283830355Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca6J4BowmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 8 August 2001:(1) Has his attention been drawn to the recent death from pancreatic cancer of an asylum seeker in Western Australia.(2) Why was the detainee admitted to Hollywood Private Hospital rather than a public facility.(3) Was the detainee kept under ACM surveillance during his hospitalisation.(4) Were the ACM officers involved in providing 24 hour surveillance.(5) Were local ACM officers assigned to monitor the detainee or were officers relocated from elsewhere in Australia.(6) What was the cost of maintaining surveillance while this detainee was hospitalised.(7) What was the cost of medical services provided to the detainee prior to his death.30355Ruddock, 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) My Department has advised me of the death of Mr Mohammad Saleh. Mr Saleh was detained at the Port Hedland Immigration Reception and Processing Centre (IRPC) on 12 October 2000 as an unauthorised arrival. He died at the Hollywood Private Hospital in Perth on 23 June 2001 during surgery. A preliminary report by the Coroner has indicated that the “cause of death was Gastro-intestinal Haemorrhage due to penetration of Aorta by Mediastrial Abscess Associated with Dehiscence of Surgical Anastomosis”. (2) Mr Saleh was admitted to the mental health clinic of the Hollywood Private Hospital Perth on 5 April 2001, primarily for the treatment of a severe depressive disorder. I am advised that Hollywood Hospital was the only mental facility with available bedspace at the time. Graylands, the closest available public mental health facility had no bedspace for Mr Saleh at the time. I would note that prior to admission, Mr Saleh had been treated for left sided abdominal discomfort and stomach pain at the Port Hedland IRPC medical centre. In the course of admission, results of a barium meal that was conducted earlier on 5 April 2001 indicated the presence of a mass in Mr Saleh's stomach. An endoscopy test later confirmed the results of the barium meal. After numerous gastroenterological opinions and procedures and a surgical opinion, it was recommended that Mr Saleh should undergo significant abdominal surgery. (3) Yes.(4) Yes.(5) ACM has advised that officers were drawn from the Port Hedland IRPC to provide initial bedwatch services. Detention Officers from the Perth Immigration Detention Centre arrived later to provide these services throughout the deceased's period of hospitalisation.(6) I am advised that the cost of providing bedwatch services during the deceased's period of hospitalisation is yet to be finalised, though it is expected to be in the order of $39,700.00 in salaries and $5,000.00 in transportation and accommodation costs.(7) I am advised that the cost of medical services provided to the deceased prior to his death has not been fully determined, though it is expected to be in the order of $35,000. ACM has not yet received all invoices relating to the deceased's medical treatments.30356(Question No. 2840)284030356Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca6J4BowmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 8 August 2001:(1) How many Temporary Residence Visas were granted in the 2000-2001 intake year.(2) What is the breakdown of Temporary Residence Visas granted in 2000-2001 by subclass.(3) On average how many Temporary Residence Visa holders go on to apply for permanent residency.(4) How many Temporary Residence Visas have been allocated for the 2001-2002 intake year.(5) How many Working Holiday Visas were granted in the 2000-2001 intake year.(6) On average how many Working Holiday Visa holders go on to apply for permanent residency.30356Ruddock, 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) There were 160,157 Temporary Residence Visas granted offshore and onshore in 2000-2001. This includes Working Holiday Visas but excludes Student and Visitor Visas.(2) The breakdown of Temporary Residence Visas granted in 2000-2001 is as follows:457 - Temporary Business Entrant - Independent Executive3,411457 - Temporary Business Entrant - Other37,082417 - Working Holiday Maker76,576410 - Retirement2,061411 - Exchange2,038415 - Foreign Government Agency387416 - Special Program3,049418 - Educational1,738419 - Visiting Academic3,546420 - Entertainment8,850421 - Sport6,407422 - Medical Practitioner3,438423 - Media and Film Staff506424 - Public Lecturer27425 - Family Relationship94426 - Domestic Worker (Temporary) - Diplomatic or Consular140427 - Domestic Worker (Temporary) - Executive40428 - Religious Worker1,545430 - Supported Dependant233432 - Expatriate (Temporary)54442 - Occupational Trainee6,660995 - Diplomatic (Temporary)2,275(3) On average (over the last 3 program years - 1998-99, 1999-00 and 2000-01) 7,224 Temporary Residence Visa holders applied each year for permanent residency. This includes Working Holiday Visas but excludes Student and Visitor Visas.(4) There are no Temporary Residence Visa allocations for 2001-02; the programs are demand driven.(5) There were 76,576 Working Holiday Visas granted in 2000-01.(6) On average (over the last 3 program years - 1998-99, 1999-00 and 2000-01) 1,057 Working Holiday Visa holders applied each year for permanent residency.30357(Question No. 2841)284130357Sciacca, Con, MPMr Sciacca6J4BowmanALP00 asked the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, upon notice, on 8 August 2001:(1) Were the number of Temporary Protection Visas granted in 2000-01 included in the total quota of refugee and humanitarian visas granted in that intake year.(2) When the asylum claims of those granted Temporary Protection Visas in 2000-2001 are reassessed as their visas near expiry, will those applicants who are consequently granted permanent visas be recounted as part of the total quota of refugee and humanitarian visas granted in the relevant intake year.30357Ruddock, 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) Yes. All protection visas granted in 2000-01, including temporary protection visas, were counted against program places for that year.(2) No. Temporary protection visa holders who subsequently obtain a permanent protection visa will not be counted again under the Humanitarian Program.